IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbeoc/spii2023302.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transparent app design reduces excessive usage time and increases willingness to pay compared to common behavioral design - A framed field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Timko, Christina
  • Adena, Maja

Abstract

Smartphone app designers often use behavioral design to influence users, increase sales, and boost advertising revenue. Behavioral design relies on elements ranging from app appearance to black-box algorithms and personalization. It commonly exploits behavioral biases, such as the lack of self-control. Consumers are seldom aware of such design and usually have no control over it. Aiming to protect consumers, the recently enacted European Digital Services Act requires app design to be more transparent and adjustable. In a framed field experiment, we document that behavioral design increases app usage time, especially in the case of vulnerable users. An app version that adds transparency and offers protection features helps to overcome temptation. The higher willingness to pay for the transparent version shows that the positive effects of app transparency and increased consumer protection might not only materialize on the demand side but may also challenge current practices on the supply side.

Suggested Citation

  • Timko, Christina & Adena, Maja, 2023. "Transparent app design reduces excessive usage time and increases willingness to pay compared to common behavioral design - A framed field experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2023-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbeoc:spii2023302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/273071/1/1850746206.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, P. & Hallsworth, M. & Halpern, D. & King, D. & Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I., 2012. "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 264-277.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Henrik Cronqvist & Richard H. Thaler, 2004. "Design Choices in Privatized Social-Security Systems: Learning from the Swedish Experience," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 424-428, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    2. van Dalen, H.P. & Henkens, K. & Koedijk, C.G. & Slager, A.M.H., 2010. "Decision Making in the Pension Fund Board Room : An Experiment with Dutch Pension Fund Trustees," Discussion Paper 2010-18, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    3. Basu, Anup K. & Drew, Michael E., 2010. "The appropriateness of default investment options in defined contribution plans: Australian evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 290-305, June.
    4. Steven Glazerman & Ira Nichols-Barrer & Jon Valant & Alyson Burnett, "undated". "Presenting School Choice Information to Parents: An Evidence-Based Guide, Appendix," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d418c5d8768d4ed8ade319330, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Janusch, Nicholas & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J., 2017. "Behavioral Insights for Agri-Environmental Program and Policy Design," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266299, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Floris Heukelom, 2011. "Behavioral Economics," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Henry Eyring & V. G. Narayanan, 2018. "Performance Effects of Setting a High Reference Point for Peer‐Performance Comparison," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 581-615, May.
    8. Arno Riedl, 2009. "Behavioral and Experimental Economics Can Inform Public Policy: Some Thoughts," CESifo Working Paper Series 2902, CESifo.
    9. Santiago I. Sautua, 2016. "Does Uncertainty Cause Inertia In Decision Making? An Experimental Study Of The Role Of Regret Aversion And Indecisiveness," Documentos de Trabajo 14587, Universidad del Rosario.
    10. Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna & Vomhof, Markus & Weßling, Jens, 2017. "Health insurance choice and risk preferences under cumulative prospect theory – an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 374-397.
    11. Cristini, Annalisa & Origo, Federica & Pinoli, Sara, 2017. "The healthy fright of losing a good one for a bad one," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 129-144.
    12. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard Thaler, 2007. "Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 81-104, Summer.
    13. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    14. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Kool, Clemens J.M. & Prast, Henriette M., 2007. "Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: Are people able to choose?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 701-722, April.
    15. Möllenkamp, Meilin & Zeppernick, Maike & Schreyögg, Jonas, 2019. "The effectiveness of nudges in improving the self-management of patients with chronic diseases: A systematic literature review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1199-1209.
    16. David Schneider & Johannes Klumpe & Martin Adam & Alexander Benlian, 2020. "Nudging users into digital service solutions," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(4), pages 863-881, December.
    17. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    18. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    19. Floris Heukelom, 2007. "Who are the Behavioral Economists and what do they say?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 07-020/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Metcalfe, Robert & Dolan, Paul, 2012. "Behavioural economics and its implications for transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 503-511.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    smartphone app; filtering algorithm; transparency; consumer protection; field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • M38 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbeoc:spii2023302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/owwzbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.