Opening the Conversation
The first time I ordered supplements from HumanN, I thought I was making a simple one-time purchase. What I didn’t realize was that the company had set Subscribe & Save as the default. I only wanted to try the product once before committing, but I ended up on a subscription I did not intend to sign up for. Fixing the order was frustrating, and it made me realize how much power defaults hold.
That experience, along with BJ’s Warehouse automatically setting Substitute for out-of-stock items, showed me something important. Most of us do not stop to change defaults. We trust the flow and move forward. Behavioral economics reminds us that these small design choices are not neutral. They quietly shape our behavior in ways we often do not notice. That realization led me to look more closely at how defaults quietly steer decisions, often without our noticing.
Defaults: The Decisions People Do Not Make
Defaults are everywhere. Whether it is subscription settings, privacy controls, or checkout options, the pre-selected choice often becomes the choice.
Kristen Berman (2019) explains that smart defaults often outperform persuasion campaigns because they reduce the effort required to act. Similarly, Elvtr (2025) highlights how behavioral economics principles in UX design show that defaults can be powerful nudges, guiding users toward healthier, safer, or more sustainable outcomes without requiring extra effort.
For designers, this means responsibility. Defaults can empower users when aligned with their well-being. But if defaults are set only to benefit the company, they cross into manipulation. But defaults are only part of the story—sometimes it’s not the choice itself, but the effort required to act that changes behavior.
Friction: The Invisible Barrier
We have all abandoned tasks when they felt too difficult. For me, it often happens with strict password policies. “You cannot reuse the last seven passwords.” “You cannot use that special character.” After a few failed attempts, I usually give up and move on.
That is friction. It is the invisible barrier that makes us abandon tasks, even when we want to complete them. Netflix’s Skip Recap button became iconic because it removed friction from binge-watching. Instead of sitting through a rehash of the storyline or the same credits over and over, viewers could jump straight into the story. On the other hand, adding friction can be protective. Two-factor authentication slows users down just enough to prevent risky behavior.
Mauricio Mejía (2022) explains that behavioral nudges work best for simple, discrete actions. Friction is one of those nudges. It can either encourage or discourage behavior depending on how it is applied. Whether we remove barriers or add them, the bigger question becomes: whose interests are being served?
Ethics: The Designer’s Responsibility
Nudges and friction are not just clever tricks. They are forms of influence. Thomas Fjeldberg-Norheim (2019) warns about sludge, in which design deliberately makes things harder for users, such as hiding cancellation buttons or burying privacy settings.
Ethical design means asking: Whose goals are being served? If defaults and friction align with user well-being, they build trust. If they exploit biases for profit, they erode them. Vivek Kumar Agarwal (2024) argues that trust is central in the digital age, especially when designing for privacy. Users need transparency, not traps.
As designers, we are not just shaping interfaces. We are shaping behavior. That comes with responsibility. Ultimately, every design choice is a conversation with human nature, and how we guide that dialogue defines our craft.
Closing Thought
Defaults, friction, and ethics are not abstract theories. They are everyday design choices that quietly steer human behavior. When we set a default, we are making a decision on behalf of the user. When we add or remove friction, we are shaping the path they will take. And when we consider ethics, we are deciding whether our influence helps or harms.
Behavioral economics reminds us that design is never neutral. It is a conversation with human nature. The challenge for us as designers is to guide that conversation with care. We can choose to build trust, empower users, and create experiences that feel natural and supportive. Or we can choose shortcuts that manipulate. The difference defines not only the success of our products but also the integrity of our craft.
References
Agarwal, V. (2024, November 8). A behavioral economics approach to privacy by design. Corporate Compliance Insights. https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/behavioral-economics-approach-privacy-design/
Elvtr. (2025, June 4). How behavioral economics influences UX Design. ELVTR. https://elvtr.com/blog/how-behavioral-economics-influences-ux-design
Fjeldberg-Norheim, T. B. (2019, December 12). An intro to behavioural economics by a UX designer. Medium. https://uxdesign.cc/an-intro-to-behavioural-economics-by-a-ux-designer-f56730fcda30
Mejía, M. (2023, November 3). Behavioral Economics & Designing for Change. Group 10240. https://sparks.learning.asu.edu/videos/behavioral-economics-for-designers
Walter, A., & Berman, K. (2025, March 11). Kristen Berman: Behavioral economics expert on designing products that change behavior. Design Better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2z9NhoWmAw