Authors:
Kandla Guru Balaji¹, Kakarlapudi Suryansh Varma ²
¹B. Tech CSE (Business Systems), VIT-AP University, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh, India.
²B. Tech CSE (Business Systems), VIT-AP University, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Abstract:
This article explores in depth the increasingly important role that digital nudging techniques are playing in shaping consumer behavior, and specifically in the rapidly changing world of food delivery apps. It explores in depth how seemingly innocuous and considerate interface design decisions, combined with a range of behavioral cues, can have a profound effect on food choices, prompt people towards healthier food options, and ultimately contribute to the attainment of wider sustainability objectives. Drawing on a combination of new survey data and existing literature in this field, the paper not only suggests the power of manipulative nudging techniques and those more facilitative in nature but also provides soundly justified recommendations about their ethical use in practice.
1. Introduction
With the increasing usage of online food ordering, applications such as Zomato, Swiggy, and Uber Eats have become a part of modern-day dining habits. These platforms do more than connect customers to restaurants, but they shape food choices. Digital nudging, a concept from behavioral economics that involves using design elements to influence user behavior without restricting freedom of choice. In food apps, this means using visual images, placement strategies, and framing techniques to nudge users towards certain food items or purchasing behaviors. [1]
2. Types of Digital Nudges
Digital nudges are mainly of two types:
- Manipulative Nudges: These nudges are usually used to enhance user engagement or revenue. Typical examples include time-sensitive deals, bundle deals, or placement of high-margin products in a front-and-center position in the UI.
- Useful Nudges: These nudges make people go for healthier or more environmentally friendly options, e.g., encouraging low-calorie products, labelling vegan products, or displaying carbon footprint labels.as highlighting low-calorie meals, tagging vegan options, or showing carbon footprint labels.
Both types of nudges can significantly influence decision-making, but their ethical implications differ. [2]
3. Methodology
We have conducted a survey on 40 individuals, mostly consisting of students and young professionals, to examine their awareness and response to digital nudges in food delivery apps. We have created a questionnaire that consists of 20 questions. Those questions are included with Likert-scale questions, yes/no questions, and open-ended sections. The collected data were analyzed and then converted into a numerical format for better interpretation. We have converted each and every answer to a range of 0-5. By converting it into a range numerical format, it helped us to interpret our results more efficiently.
4. Data Interpretation and Findings
We used the R programming language to interpret our data and used functions such as mean ( ), summary( ), and table( ) to get our
interpretation. To plot our graph, we used the ggplot2 function.
– For manipulative nudges, participants showed a high average agreement that features like flashing discounts and combo deals influenced their choices.
1. To what extent do you feel in control of your decisions (4.3)
2. Do you feel food delivery notifications are designed to buy you food unnecessarily (3.7)
3. To what extent do time-limited offers affect you (2.1)
– For helpful nudges, users responded more favorably to features like nutritional information and default vegetarian options.
1. How do notifications impact your planning (3.6)
2. To what extent do you trust food delivery apps to order food (3.2)
3. Do you consider food app notifications as helpful (3.0)
– Most users believed they were in control of their decisions, yet average scores showed significant influence by app design.
1. Manipulative nudges: 1.6/5
2. Helpful nudges: 1.7/5
Barplots of average responses indicated clear patterns: users are more receptive to nudges that align with personal goals (health, budget) and less resistant to those that do not overtly manipulate. [5]
5. Discussion
These exact results are closely in agreement with a large and diverse collection of behavioral science studies that again and again and consistently show that even relatively small and seemingly innocuous changes introduced into electronic interfaces—also commonly referred to as “nudges”—are capable of having large and far-reaching effects on user behavior in a whole variety of different ways. These nudges specifically make deliberate use of cognitive biases and prevailing heuristics in order to effectively nudge users into making particular decisions, often without their either conscious awareness or deliberation [1]. While this effect can certainly be utilized for good in inducing desired behaviors—such as to encourage healthier lifestyle choices, resulting in less energy usage, or to make more advantageous financial choices, for example—is worth keeping in mind is that the overwhelming majority of nudge methods applied on electronic platforms are themselves not free of their own particular ethical concerns and considerations.
Manipulative or exploitative nudges, referred to as “dark patterns,” can be effective in the short term to generate clicks, sales, or activity on a platform. However, such tactics also pose long-term costs, such as reduced user trust, higher churn, and reputational damage [4]. Users will feel deceived or coerced, especially when nudging is done without transparency or when nudging is clearly biased toward business metrics over user health.
On the other hand, there are many beneficial nudges that can significantly improve the user experience, like timely reminders that nudge users when appropriate, defaults that are thoughtfully set in accordance with the individual user’s preferences, or visual cues that actually nudge choices towards sustainability. These nudges have the ability to significantly improve overall user experience and lead to long-term satisfaction. Surprisingly it is quite surprising that these positive nudges are frequently overlooked by users because they simply feel so natural and are actually built around the user’s needs and wishes. The most critical challenge that designers and business leaders have is finding the right balance between successfully achieving their business goals while simultaneously maintaining
high moral standards in their operations.
Transparency, as it relates to nudging—exhibited through the provision of users with the ability to opt out of some proposals or making clear the basis for why a specific proposal is being issued—is capable of significantly bolstering the legitimacy of platforms and fostering users’ feelings of autonomy. Lastly, it is important that moral digital nudging strives to enable users in their decision-making and not attempt to nudge their decisions or activities [3].
6. Recommendations
- Enable Customization: The users must be permitted to change when and how the nudges are displayed. Personalization gives users a feeling of control and improves user experience.
- Use Healthy Defaults judiciously: Making healthy food the default can lead to healthier options. But users must always be able to override those defaults without a struggle.
- Assure Transparency in Product Placement: Platforms must explicitly inform users why they give more visibility to specific types of food, due to popularity, algorithmic recommendation, or sponsored placements. This makes users more trusting of them and less manipulated.
- Offer user feedback mechanisms: Regular collection and analysis of user feedback can improve nudging strategies, making them increasingly suitable and respectful in the long run.
- Work with Experts: Working with public health professionals and behavioral scientists may help ensure that nudges do not only work for commercial purposes but also for the public good.
7. Conclusion
Digital nudging is a powerful and potent force, which, when used thoughtfully and responsibly, can meaningfully accomplish a harmonious synergy between firms’ interests and individuals’ and society’s aggregate and individual desires. Through our careful examination of the survey results, we can appreciate both the encouraging potential and the substantial potential that nudging has in shaping and affecting food consumption-related choices. In order to better understand and design the enduring behavior changes, it is important that future work includes large-scale, long-term studies, as well as the construction of customized AI-based nudges. Through an ethical design process, we can ultimately transform food apps into not only economically sustainable but also meaningful and positively affecting people’s lives.
References
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
- Münscher, R., Vetter, M., & Scheuerle, T. (2016). A review and taxonomy of choice architecture techniques. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5-6), 511-524.
- Schmidt, A. T., & Engelen, B. (2020). The ethics of nudging: An overview. Philosophy Compass, 15(4), e12658.
- Mills, S. (2022). Personalized nudging. Behavioural Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.7
- Arno, A., & Thomas, S. (2016). The efficacy of nudge theory strategies in influencing adult dietary behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 676.
