Episode 109 What is Choice Architecture?

What is Choice Architecture?

Hi and welcome to Experience Points by University XP. On Experience Points, we explore different ways we can learn from games. I’m your host Dave Eng from games-based learning by University XP. Find out more at www.universityxp.com

On today’s episode, we’ll answer the question: What is Choice Architecture?

Both life and games are full of choices. Some of us approach those choices head on. Others take their time to come to rational conclusions about what choices are best for them. Yet others don’t put that much stake into the outcome of their choices.

Choices are one thing; but how people consider making those choices is another. The field associated with presenting choices to individuals is called “choice architecture.”

This episode will provide a broad overview on choice architecture and its impact on individuals, society, education, and games for learning.

This episode will first define choice architecture as well as discuss its relationship between how choices are structured and its impact on consumers: for instance: users, learners, and players.  The underlying philosophies of choice architecture will be explained as well as how they inform choice structure.

One of the most important things to consider regarding choices are outcomes. Therefore, choice outcomes will be defined in addition to common user experiences such as: choice overwhelm, choice preferences, and strategies for choosing.

Choice architecture is based on behavior principles and the way that individuals make choices considering specific structures such as “defaults” and “nudges.” Nudges are otherwise known as small changes in the decision framework that influence users from one choice to another.

Wherever there is choice; there must also be an architect of that choice. Therefore, this episode will review and explain the role of these choice architects and how their work affects and influences the “core loop” of the player experience and how feedback influences individuals’ choices.

Finally, this episode closes by discussing three key areas of choice architecture. They include choices in games; choices in education and learning; and an amalgamation of the two with choice frameworks in games-based learning.

Choice architecture is the design of different ways choices can be presented to decision makers. Those decision makers are individuals who are often referred to as users, players, or learners. Choice architecture concentrates on the impact that presentation of choice has on decision making.

The impacts that these choices can have are significant. The field of choice architecture informs and influences the norms, habits, practices, and patterns that structure our very social, political, and institutional lives.

Therefore, it’s important to understand how choices are structured for our decision and consumption and what forces may be at play at influencing those choices.

The origins of choice architecture are economics. Behavioral economics is a sub-field of economics that combines the elements of psychology, cognition, emotion, and socio-cultural factors that influence the way that individuals or organizations make decisions.

Behavioral economics is unique because it deviates from the decision-making framework of classical economic theory.  Behavioral economics aims to study how and why people behave the way that they do in the real world as their decisions could run counter to rational behavior.

The term “choice architecture” was originally coined by Richard Thayler and Cass Sunsteen on the practice of influencing choice based on “organizing the content in which people make decisions.”

Choice architecture emerged as a novel field as it studied how users’ preferences could be influenced based on the context in which choices were presented with them. In turn, this created a need for the development and structure of how individuals could be influenced in making those choices.

Let’s start by examining consumerism and choice architecture. Choice architecture focuses on the aspects and decision-making structures of the users also known as consumers. Choice architecture can be applied in certain and subtle ways to “nudge” them to make certain choices over others.

These “nudges” are often framed where one option is presented more attractively than another.  This is because consumers react differently to the presentation of different choices as well as the choices themselves.

The onus of the choice is on the consumer. Whereas the structure of the decision is ultimately the discretion of the choice architect and framing the choice to serve the decision maker’s best interest. This is complicated with some moral quandaries on “what” constitutes the best choice for the user as well as how choices can be presented impartially.

Therefore, choice architecture can contain some bias based on who the architect is. Values, ideologies, and commercial gains all factor into how these choices are structured. Despite this, the focus should remain on creating the best and most honest goal of maintaining decision maker’s own agency.

Choice architecture is an interesting field because of its novelty as well as its growth out of design that is often done without much forethought.

That’s because many choices are often made in environments where the designer never put much effort into designing the choice.  Therefore, the impact of users’ decision-making structures could be adversely affected by outside influences: both intentional and unintentional.

One of the philosophies that influences choice architecture is that of libertarian paternalism. This philosophy focuses on the idea that both private and public institutions may legitimately influence and affect the behavior of individuals while simultaneously respecting their freedom of choice.

This means that choices can be structured with a user intent in mind; so long as that architecture doesn’t undermine individuals’ agency to make those choices.

Therefore, choice architecture exists to help users overcome the irrational biases that affect decision making. Those could include limiting choices, undermining human agency, and moral autonomy.

Choice architecture is important because the outcome of choices are important.  However, the relevancy of choice outcomes are based on the time in which they are made.

These can be near instantaneous or manifested far into the future. This is part of the reason why making choices and their intended outcomes can be difficult for users.

This is why certain applications of choice architecture, such as with gamification design, often include default choices for users to make. The default being the average best intended outcome for users should they fail to make any choice.

However, gamification, like with games, is often focused on a positive and often pleasurable user experience. As such, this means that the results and gratification from choices must be provided instantly or within a short time frame. Such quick forms of feedback often drive positive user experiences.

Despite this, choice architecture remains a viable solution in improving the outcome of users’ decisions to compared to other alternative approaches. Other approaches such as educating individuals as well as providing monetary incentives often do not possess the equivalent impact of incorporating well-conceived choice architecture.

One of the impacts that good choice architecture can have is addressing one of the most prevalent patterns when making choices. The feeling of overwhelm known as “choice overload.”

Giving users the autonomy and agency to make choices is a good thing. However, providing too many choices and options can cause dissatisfaction and lead to outcomes like decision fatigue. The results of which end with selecting default options or procrastination by avoiding the choice all together.

This is often known in games as analysis paralysis. Analysis paralysis - or paralysis by analysis - is a phenomenon in which a person or group of people over think a given situation which slows down the path towards making a specific decision. This causes them to become “paralyzed” without a decision being made within a reasonable time frame.

There are often viable solutions for addressing choice overload. One of which is through the intervention of choice architects by limiting alternatives or providing guides for making the best and most informed choice for users.

Now let’s discuss the structure of choice architecture.  There are some options when creating and determining choice architecture. They involve focusing on certain strategies such as determining the number of alternatives; creating “decision aids” to guide a user through the process; determining default options; framing; decoy options; and providing different choices over time.

All the options are selected to usher users throughout this process. Specifically, decisions are meant as an option to help choosers make the best choice based on the size and complexity of all available options.

Another structure available for choice architecture is to limit the number of options given to users in the decision framework. This provides them with a limited set of what they can choose. However, these reductions in choice may lead to negative impacts on their overall welfare.

Perhaps one of the most common considerations for structuring choice architecture is dividing up the task into two separate categories. The first category involves determining which choices are available for the user: often called the choice set. Whereas the other category describes and frames the choice for users: otherwise called the decision framework or decision matrix.

Now it’s time to discuss different choice-architecture strategies.  Remember: the overall goal of choice architecture is to reduce the cognitive load of users and aid them in efficiently making decisions that are in their best interest.

Therefore, the way that choice architects structure decisions have an outsized impact on the actual choices that people make. This is even more critical when there are a greater number of choices available to users. As such, a more robust choice architecture will provide the necessary structure to influence and affect outcomes for users.

To achieve this, choice architects often employ one of the six elements of choice structure. They include: reducing choice overload; defaults; choices over time; partitioning options and attributes; avoiding attribute overload; and translating attributes.

Choice overload is focused on presenting users with an ideal number of choices. These are presented to reduce the cognitive load which is required from users to make said choices. This often influences default options.

Default options are choices that are framed as “pre-selections” of a user’s option. This means that users will often select the default - and usually easiest - option.

Examples of choice overload can be seen when consumers review a menu of options at a restaurant. The number of choices available can easily overwhelm someone who is not sure what they would like to eat.

Likewise, an example of a default choice for travelers could be the selection of ticket purchases for a bus or train via an automated kiosk. Without further information, the kiosk can assume that the traveler would like to take the next scheduled departure for their intended destination… It’s up to the user to change the time of their departure ticket.

Another strategy is implementing a choice dependent on time. This could affect users with several biases who are attracted to immediate benefits that they could experience now versus benefits that they could experience later.

This could be connected to the aspect of partitioning options and attributes to the choice structure. This means that users often group “like” attributes together to make a decision. Such decisions could include a purchase of something with characteristics that they “need” versus those that they “want.”

Examples of choices dependent on time are “limited time offers” such as sales which have an immediate impact for the user based on a prescribed threshold. This limit often provides a “nudge” to users to decide now, rather than later.

As such, these reduce procrastination in the future. Likewise, an example of partitioning options and attributes include the purchase of a new personal laptop computer. A user may need essential features such as wireless connectivity, a backlit keyboard; and a large screen. However other features could be deemed “aesthetic” for options that come in different colors and finishes.

Another strategy for choice architecture involves avoiding attribute overload. It is here where choices are connected to a certain number of attributes to help guide the user to decide.

Any more attributes than necessary cause a cognitive burden which makes the choice more difficult for the consumer. This can be connected to the process of translating attributes for users. Here is where information about different choice characteristics translated into different “headers” or summaries for what they mean.

This is closely related to the partitioning of options and attributes; but is done from the side of the choice architect. Doing so can help usher users to making decisions based on different goals, motivations, and priorities.

Examples of choices that avoid the attribute overload are considering different hotels when travelling. When examining different hotel options only certain attributes may be important or relevant to the user. Therefore, determining what those attributes are and presenting them in a logical order helps the user make a decision that best serves their needs.

Such characteristics could include check in time; bed types and quantities; and the option for free on-site breakfast. Likewise, examples of translating attributes can often be seen in food labels where some products are indicated to be “high” or “low” in a particular product such as fat or salt. Sharing this label indicates to users particular characteristics that they may find helpful in making a decision.

 “Nudges” are often discussed in relationship to choice architecture. The term has been used to intentionally design choice structures with users’ biases in mind. These have the outcome of users responding in the way the choice architect desires.

This can often be seen in real world examples for individuals who are dieting and attempting a cut back on their consumption of sweets. A “nudge” in this case would be to remove any “temptation” foods from the refrigerator, cabinet, or pantry and hiding them in a place out of sight. Options in the immediate vicinity makes the decision to choose other - healthier options - more likely.

In addition, changes to the experiences for users can also influence their behavior. Such is the case with many mobile apps or other devices that emit a celebratory and audible “ding” after making a section that can influence users’ selections.

It should be noted that “nudges” represent small changes in presentation that are meant to gently guide users towards more influential options. This is in contrast to more heavy handed and “authoritarian” methods that emphasize the imposition of a dominant choice.

Nudges serve as an important aspect to choice architecture as individuals making decisions can ultimately serve as “sense makers” for other users making the same or similar decisions. This is especially the case with public policy or governmental interventions which influence and affect individuals behaviors at scale.

Therefore, it’s important to consider the user experience when designing nudges as part of choice architecture. Deploying them too often could feel distracting; forced; or annoying for the users. It’s why mobile apps often provide a fertile testing ground for choice architects that can include simpler nudges which can have an outsized effect on user behavior.

Ultimately, nudges represent a single strategy as part of a larger choice architecture effort whose interventions can promote positive behavior across a given populace. Such is the case when smaller interventions, for example those used in educational settings, are deployed in concert with effective choice architecture.

In relation to nudges, defaults also serve as a smaller intervention in the greater framework of choice architecture. Defaults represents options for users where a selection is made automatically. Users can therefore do nothing and accept the default selection, or act and make a proactive selection.

Many consumers pursue the default options as it is often the easiest selection requiring the least amount of effort. Such an example of this is the automatic enrollment in companies’ 4-O-1(k) retirement savings accounts.

Many employers will automatically make a default contribution for the employee at a set amount. It is then up to the employee to make a proactive choice to augment or cancel said contribution.

Another example of the default options lies with computer settings such as with screen savers and login screens. Often, the default configuration for a device is to log a user out when no activity is detected over a specified period of time. Such a feature serves a security goal of locking a device when unattended to avoid any malicious use.

While defaults remain a small but powerful strategy in choice architecture; it doesn’t always serve the users’ best interests. Therefore, sometimes it is necessary to urge and promote choice selection as an activity that a user should and must do.

Choice architecture was based in behavioral economics. Therefore, it’s main purpose is to influence and affect the choice behavior of users. This is based on the inner mechanisms and processes through which individuals make choices.

Ultimately there are two distinct camps that users fall into when choosing in a decision-making framework. Those include when users serve as naïve and passive targets who need help and structure in making the best choice for their interests.

The other camp is when users act as sense makers who look for social cues from their environments to inform and influence their choice.

Both camps of users are served by choice architecture; however, both require a different framework for influencing and guiding their decision making process. Some of this process can be influenced through training, education, and learning.

Such is the case with Japanese train conductors who have been socialized to cognitively recognize their practices in executing their duties via the “point and call” method. Doing so ensures that they are executing key functions as part of train operations and not merely making regular decisions that are on “auto-pilot” as they continue to work.

Likewise, users can often fall into the passive and naïve decision maker camp when it comes to causes for social good such as organ donation. This choice framework is most often cited when addressing defaults as users who register at the department of motor vehicles or equivalent are often given the choice of serving as an organ donor upon their death.

However, the program has much greater social good when the default choice is set to “yes” rather than the opposite mode of “opt in” which requires users to make an active choice to participate. Such a default makes the choices for users and requires them to act in order to “opt out.” Because of this, there is greater prevalence of organ donors for localities where drivers must opt-out instead of opt-in.

Choice architects exist as the individuals for whom this task is granted and assigned to. Ultimately their goal is to design the choice framework so that users can make a decision in an optimal way. Any scenario where a choice must be made requires the necessity of the choice architect.

The choice architect uses the tools, options, and strategies of choice architecture to indirectly influence the choice of others to make and influence a desired behavior. It is important that this is done in an intentional and purposeful way while simultaneously not restricting options or significantly changing user incentives.

However, selecting and deferring choices to choice architects comes with a cost. They are ultimately responsible for influencing the choice of users and therefore can wield immense power in certain scenarios. Therefore, they can also act as an impediment to effective choices and the ultimate agency of the decision maker.

Conversely this can be idealized with augmenting the charge for choice architects to streamline the decision-making process for users to make the best possible choice for them. This can become more complicated as alternatives become more numerous and more complex – thus belaboring the task of the choice architect.

Therefore, the choice architect also has the ultimate power to force the user to make a choice of their own: without the help, aid, or influence, of the choice architect.

Games are inherent spaces for choice architecture. As they require input and engagement for players to continue playing them; they will often require that the user make choices to achieve, exceed, and compete against themselves; the game; or other players.

Great games are able to balance different aspects of the player experience and game difficulty along a learning curve. Such that there is still a sense of exploration, wonder, amusement, and engagement. Often to the positive impact of the player who is asked to engage with the game continually and repeatedly.

The same can also be said for gamification. While gamification and games are not one in the same; they provide some significant overlap in choice architecture.

Aspects such as decisions, options, and choice architecture are present in gamification applications that end up influencing the user. However, it’s critical to note that gamification is not about player behaviors, but rather player decisions.

Therefore, for gamification to truly affect players choices and affect their end behavior, it must present a framework from which choice can be influenced. In reality, the choice architect must also address the intrinsic motivation of players and users.

Specifically, what their underlying motivations are to continue to play, learn, and engage. Why are they really here? What are they supposed to do? What would they like to do? How can we structure decisions that help address those ends?

This is often easier said than done with gamification design. As this means that the methods, motives, and ability to take an action and make a choice in an environment must all align at the same time.

However, this can be done repeatedly and successfully in many of the gamified systems we see around us each day. Those include incentives urging us to get up and move; options to buy one product over another; and competitions against others of the same or similar activity level.

However, the motive and desire of human nature cannot always be predicted successfully 100% of the time. Therefore, the design, development, and ultimately the selection process of individuals is inherently unpredictable.

As such, we often need to turn back towards the paternalism where we can influence choice but must respect the autonomy and agency of others.

Otherwise the design of “meaningless choices” in gamified systems could end with the choice architect losing influence over players.

The core loop in games exist as the series and set of actions that players take repeatedly until the end state of the game is reached. Similarly, choice architects are often tasked with choices that are included and inherent to this core loop.

This core loop encompasses three distinct and separate stages: anticipation, challenge, and reward. The anticipation includes the player knowing that a choice is upcoming and preparing oneself to make it. The challenge is the decision framework and architecture that goes into the choice. The reward is the ultimate feedback that the player earns as a result of making the choice.

Nowhere are these options more transparent than at the casino blackjack table where the dealing of cards to players represents the anticipation of choice. The decision to “stay” or “hit” represents the actionable choice, and the reward – either winning or losing money - comes at the end of this choice framework.

This represents a more complex core loop of activities. However, they don’t always need to be structured this way. One such core loop exists within the Paris metro system where riders must swipe their cards to gain entry to the system. The card reader is designed to read the card.  However, the orientation of the card may not always align with the reader.

Therefore, choice architects here - expecting error - have instead designed the reader to be able to read the card in any number of different orientations. Therefore, the choice framework of how to position the card is eliminated and more riders can enjoy more journeys faster and easier.

Likewise, choice architects can best address similar core loops with other user choices by expecting and curating the selection for users. This can be seen with rideshare apps that increase prices for rides based on pricing.

During surges, prices are higher than normal due to greater demand. Often, this information is not actualized by users prior to boarding their vehicle. So, creating a framework where users must make additional “decisions” to opt into the surge pricing is made clear. Therefore, they become cognitively aware of the additional pricing at this time.

Choice architecture is inherent wherever there is a choice to be made by a user. We’ve discussed that choices appear and are a part of games. They are also a part of games-based learning. Choices here are created in a learning environment in a way that influences the decisions that players make and the paths that they take within the game.

One of the most prolific examples of choices here are in “Choose Your Own Adventure” books or decision-based narratives where users make choices that reflect their own agency and autonomy. Likewise, they must often suffer the consequences or rewards from such choices.

As a whole, choice architecture in games-based learning is used to guide players towards desired learning outcomes by presenting them with choices that encourage them to engage with the game - and by connecting with the material - in a certain way.

This is often observed in simulations where learners are asked to engage and take actions that best reflect a new process, policy; or knowledge that achieves a specific and desired outcome. Such engagement provides a venue for learners to apply knowledge experientially.

Choice architecture serves as a critical aspect to designing serious games; educational games; and learning games when attempting to influence learners and players’ behavior. When given the option, players should engage with learning content in meaningful ways where choices are structured to put knowledge into practice.

Choice architecture can likewise be applied in education and learning by creating a sense of agency and ownership over the learning process. This is done by providing learners the autonomy to make choices that provide actual direction for learners that addresses their intrinsic motivations. Doing so influences learners to engage and demonstrate efficacy and competency in their learning experience.

This efficacy and competency can then result in an engagement of flow state for learners. This state of highly entrenched engagement makes it so that learners are completely engrossed in the process.

Such a state can be attained when the choice architecture is created by an educator in a way that provides the learners with transparency and the agency to make decisions. Those decisions can be further reinforced through different choice architecture strategies such as using facets to narrow down options that will have the biggest impact for the learner.

Another strategy involves the application of comparison tools which allow learners to examine and compare different attributes of selections based on their desired outcomes.

This strategy ultimately addresses the question for most learners: what are the learning goals and what is the path to achieve them?  This is further reinforced through the dissemination and transparency of terminology that is relevant and critical for students’ learning.

This episode explored the different applications of choice architecture. It started out with a definition of choice architecture and the role that it plays in consumerism, users, and players. The philosophy of choice architecture was discussed as well as how choice architecture is structured.

Different outcomes and their meanings for users was covered as well as “choice” overwhelm otherwise known as “analysis paralysis” when structuring user experiences.  This was discussed in relation to different aspects and approaches to choice architecture. Strategies of choice architecture as well as the influence of choice over the behavior of users was also covered.

Specific aspects of choice frameworks were described which included the power of “default” choices as well as making small changes to choice architecture known as “nudges” that have an outside impact on behavior.

The role of choice architects was defined in relation to the core loop of choices and feedback in choice architecture; choice frameworks in games; choice frameworks in games-based learning; and finally choice architecture in education and learning.

I hope you found this episode useful. If you’d like to learn more, then a great place to start is with my free course on gamification. You can sign up for it at www.universityxp.com/gamificationYou can also get a full transcript of this episode including links to references in the description or show notes. Thanks for joining me!         

Again, I’m your host Dave Eng from games-based learning by University XP. On Experience Points we explore different ways we can learn from games. If you liked this episode please consider commenting, sharing, and subscribing.

Subscribing is absolutely free and ensures that you’ll get the next episode of Experience Points delivered directly to you. I’d also love it if you took some time to rate the show! I live to lift others with learning. So, if you found this episode useful, consider sharing it with someone who could benefit.

Also make sure to visit University XP online at www.universityxp.comUniversity XP is also on Twitter @University_XP and on Facebook and LinkedIn as University XP. Also, feel free to email me anytime. My email address is dave@universityxp.com Game on!

References

American Society for Quality. (2023). What is a decision matrix?. ASQ. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://asq.org/quality-resources/decision-matrix

Beshears, J. B., & Gino, F. (2015, May). Leaders as decision architects. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://hbr.org/2015/05/leaders-as-decision-architects

Borges, H. (2021, January 13). How to find the right number of options in choice architecture. Medium. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://uxplanet.org/how-to-find-the-right-number-of-options-in-choice-architecture-58a3ab189d06

Camilleri, A., &Larrick, R. P. (2015). Choice architecture. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. DOI, 10, 9781118900772. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929776

Connor, T. (2019, March 31). Helping people make better choices - nudge theory and choice architecture. Medium. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/helping-people-make-better-choices-nudge-theory-and-choice-architecture-431a3a40b688

Coppens, A. (2019, September 16). Choice architecture, Compulsion Loop and other such great things. Gamification Nation. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from  https://www.gamificationnation.com/blog/choice-architecture-compulsion-loop-great-things/

Courtnell, J. (2019, October 18). Choice architecture explained: How to remove human bias from your business today: Process street: Checklist, Workflow and SOP software. Process Street. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.process.st/choice-architecture/

Davidai, S., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. D. (2012). The meaning of default options for potential organ donors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15201-15205. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1211695109

Deterding, S. (2019). Gamification in management: Between choice architecture and humanistic design. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 131-136. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1056492618790912

Duff, M. L. (2018, May 31). Choice architecture: Success by default. IA Interior Architects. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://interiorarchitects.com/choice-architecture-success-by-default/

Dynes, A. (2013, January 21). “Choice architecture” and teaching. “Choice Architecture” and Teaching. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from http://yalegtc.blogspot.com/2013/01/choice-architecture-and-teaching.html

Eng, D. (2019, December 03). Core Loops. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops

Eng, D. (2019, December 10). Decision Space Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/10/decision-space

Eng, D. (2019, November 19). Achievements. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/11/19/achievements

Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The Player Experience. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience

Eng, D. (2020, April 09). What is a learning game? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/9/what-is-a-learning-game

Eng, D. (2020, April 30). What is Gamification? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/30/what-is-gamification

Eng, D. (2020, April 30). What is Gamification? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/30/what-is-gamification

Eng, D. (2020, August 20). What is Player Agency? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/8/20/what-is-player-agency

Eng, D. (2020, February 13). Engagement Curves. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/2/13/engagement-curves

Eng, D. (2020, June 18). What is player behavior? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/6/18/what-is-player-behavior

Eng, D. (2020, March 26). What is Games-Based Learning? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/26/what-is-games-based-learning

Eng, D. (2020, May 14). What is a simulation? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from  https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/14/what-is-a-simulation

Eng, D. (2020, September 10). What is Intrinsic Motivation? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/9/10/what-is-intrinsic-motivation

Eng, D. (2021, December 28). What is Expectancy Theory?. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/12/28/what-is-expectancy-theory

Eng, D. (2021, February 9). What is Self-Determination Theory? Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/2/9/what-is-self-determination-theory

Eng, D. (2021, September 28). Playing serious games. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/9/28/playing-serious-games

Eng, D. (2022, March 29). What is Game Balance?. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/3/29/what-is-game-balance

Eng, D. (2022, May 31). What is Player Relevance?. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/5/31/what-is-player-relevance

Eng, D. (2022, October 25). What is Analysis Paralysis?. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/10/25/what-is-analysis-paralysis

Eng, D. (2022, October 25). What is Analysis Paralysis?. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/10/25/what-is-analysis-paralysis

Franco, Z. (2018, July 16). Choice architecture: Introduction to designing for decision making. Medium. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://zekefranco.medium.com/choice-architecture-introduction-to-designing-for-decision-making-3c2fd32cbc32

Grawitch, M. (2022, September 8). Choice architecture: Whose interests matter?. Psychology Today. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hovercraft-full-eels/202209/choice-architecture-whose-interests-matter

Guthrie, G. (2022, May 6). Choice architecture: What is it, why use it, and...is it ethical?.Nulab. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://nulab.com/learn/design-and-ux/what-is-choice-architecture-and-is-it-ethical/

Helling, B. (2023a, April 10). Surge pricing: What it is & how it works in 2023. Ridester. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.ridester.com/surge-pricing/

Huet, C. (2020, November 12). The power of narratives in decision making. The Decision Lab. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/business/the-power-of-narratives-in-decision-making

K, D. (2022, January 22). What we can learn from the choice architecture in video games and the Goldilocks rule. Medium. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://medium.com/@kannan.deepak/what-we-can-learn-from-the-choice-architecture-in-video-games-and-the-goldilocks-rule-b130fc02f4bb

Krijnen, J. (2018, September 18). Choice architecture 2.0: How people interpret and make sense of nudges. Behavioral Scientist. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://behavioralscientist.org/choice-architecture-2-0-how-people-interpret-and-make-sense-of-nudges/

Leal, C. C., Branco-Illodo, I., Oliveira, B. M. do N., & Esteban-Salvador, L. (2022, May 4). Nudging and choice architecture: Perspectives and challenges. Revista de AdministraçãoContemporânea. https://www.scielo.br/j/rac/a/SwPBSsdwwhcLLSkWWhWP7GB/?lang=en

Leal, C. C., Branco-Illodo, I., Oliveira, B. M., & Esteban-Salvador, L. (2022). Nudging and Choice Architecture: Perspectives and Challenges. Revista de AdministraçãoContemporânea, 26. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/840/84070847005/html/

Mills, S., &Sætra, H. S. (2022). The autonomous choice architect. AI & SOCIETY, 1-13. https://link.springer.com/episode/10.1007/s00146-022-01486-z

Orange Sparkle Ball. (2022, August 10). Choice architecture and achieving goals with apps. Orange Sparkle Ball. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.orangesparkleball.com/0_blog/2022/8/9/duolingo-and-achieving-behaviors-through-apps

Penn State College of Agricultural Science . (2023). What is a decision making framework?.Plone site. https://aese.psu.edu/teachag/curriculum/modules/bioethics/modules/copy2_of_introductory/4-scenarios/decision-making-framework

Pettinger, T. (2023). Choice architecture. Economics Help. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/choice-architecture/

Qualtrics . (2021, June 11). The role of choice architecture in designing experiences. Qualtrics. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/choice-architecture/

Radova, K. (2022, August 26). Choice architecture - everything you need to know. InsideBE. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://insidebe.com/episodes/choice-architecture/

Ruijter, R. de. (2022, February 3). Choice architecture: How to help people make the right decision. HatRabbits. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from  https://hatrabbits.com/en/choice-architecture/

Thaler, R. H. (2021, October 11). Can people be nudged into better behaviour using choice architecture?. Nobel Perspectives. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/latest-economic-questions/environmental-economics/episodes/choice-architecture-nudge-environment.html

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American economic review, 93(2), 175-179. https://www.aeaweb.org/episodes?id=10.1257/000282803321947001

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin. https://books.google.com/books?id=dSJQn8egXvUC&dq

Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., &Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture. The behavioral foundations of public policy, 25, 428-439. https://www.nudgenetwork.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/choicearchitecture.pdf

The BE Hub. (2023, February 20). Choice architecture. BehavioralEconomics.com | The BE Hub. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/choice-architecture/

The BE Hub. (2023b, February 20). Default (option/setting). BehavioralEconomics.com | The BE Hub. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/default-optionsetting/

The Decision Lab. (2023). Choice architecture. The Decision Lab. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/choice-architecture

The World of Work Project. (2021, July 26). Choice architecture: People are influenced

by choices. The World of Work Project. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://worldofwork.io/2019/06/choice-architecture/

Velasquez, J. (2019, April 18). Gamification bem: Choice architecture. LinkedIn. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gamification-bem-choice-architecture-javier-velasquez/

Will, I. (2013). An introduction to patient decision aids. Bmj, 347, 27. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4147

Witynski, M. (2023). Behavioral Economics, explained. University of Chicago News. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-behavioral-economics

Internal Ref:UXPLTGLQYFD1