Trust is a critical factor in the adoption and efectiveness of persuasive technologies, yet many existing systems lack explicit trust-enhancing design features. This study explores how transparency, autonomy, consent, and data privacy influence user trust in persuasive technologies. A focus group of 14 UX/UI experts provided design insights for the ethical design of persuasive technologies, which were implemented into two prototypes-one integrating ethical design principles and the other serving as a control. A user study with 449 participants evaluated trust perceptions using the Human-Computer Trust Scale. Results indicate that transparency significantly enhances trust, while inadequate privacy controls contribute to skepticism. The findings ofer actionable insights for designing ethical and trustworthy persuasive systems, emphasizing the need for clear communication, user control, and informed consent mechanisms
With the increasing prevalence of personalized systems, persuasive technologies have been widely
adopted across various domains, including health, education, and e-commerce, to influence user
behavior and encourage positive behavioral change [
Trust plays a crucial role in the adoption and efectiveness of persuasive systems. If users perceive
a system’s intentions or data practices as untrustworthy, they may disengage or reject it entirely [
Despite the growing recognition of trust-related concerns in persuasive technologies, many existing systems lack explicit trust-enhancing design features, making it challenging for users to assess their reliability. To address these challenges, this research aims to design and evaluate persuasive prototypes that incorporate varying levels of transparency, autonomy, consent, data privacy, and security. By systematically assessing user trust perceptions across diferent prototypes, this study seeks to establish best practices for the ethical design of persuasive technologies. The findings will contribute to the development of systems that are not only efective in influencing behavior but also respectful of user rights and preferences, ultimately fostering greater trust and acceptance.
The intersection of trust and persuasive technologies has been a focal area of research, emphasizing how
these systems can ethically and efectively influence user behavior. Rahman and Adaji [
Transparency plays a foundational role in trust perceptions of persuasive technologies. Users require
clear information on system intent, algorithms, and data practices [
Autonomy is another essential factor in ethical persuasive design. Users must feel in control rather
than coerced [
Informed consent, data privacy, and security are also critical for trust in persuasive systems. Users must be fully aware of and agree to persuasive strategies [13], yet many consent mechanisms lack context-awareness and adaptability. Privacy concerns persist as many persuasive applications collect extensive user data without clear privacy settings or security assurances [14]. Although privacy-bydesign principles exist, their efectiveness in UI design remains underexplored.
While existing studies provide valuable insights, systematic evaluations of trust in persuasive prototypes remain limited. Most research conceptualizes trust broadly rather than assessing how specific design features—such as transparency indicators, privacy controls, and consent mechanisms—impact user trustworthiness. Comparative evaluations of trust-focused persuasive prototypes are scarce, leaving gaps in understanding how users perceive and interact with trust-enhancing design elements [15]. Addressing these gaps is essential for ensuring persuasive systems are not only efective but also ethical and user-centered.
The prototypes were developed using insights from a previous focus group study involving 14 UX/UI
experts. The focus group research questions aimed to identify key design considerations for developing
ethical and trustworthy persuasive systems. The questions primarily focused on Transparency, Consent,
Autonomy, and data privacy and security. Insights from the focus group and expert evaluations were
implemented in User Interface A (UI A), which integrated ethical design principles. In contrast, User
Interface B (UI B) served as a control, omitting these considerations to assess their impact. In contrast,
User Interface (UI B) served as a control, omitting these design considerations to assess their impact.
The prototypes were developed using Figma and focused on three domains: health, shopping, and
education. Shopping applications were selected due to their widespread popularity among smartphone
users [16]. Meanwhile, user trust was identified as a critical factor in the efectiveness of both health
and fitness applications, as well as educational applications [ 17, 18]. Furthermore, another study [
For the evaluation of the prototypes, participants were recruited via Amazon MTurk. The study received approval from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H24-01325). For the recruitment of the study, participants were filtered in Amazon Mturk to have used persuasive technology before. This was done to ensure the validity of the responses. A Qualtrics survey was distributed, where participants assessed the prototypes using the Human-Computer Trust Scale, a validated measure for evaluating trust in technology [19]. A 7-point Likert scale was used in the scale and for each ethical factor such as transparency, the average of all the statements was computed to characterize the overall trust score. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate which prototype they preferred and perceived as more trustworthy and ethical. Demographic data, including age, gender, and frequency of persuasive technology use, was also collected. Prior to participation, informed consent was obtained from all individuals involved in the study, and participant anonymity was ensured.
The study included a total of 449 participants. The majority were male (62.6%), with females making up 37.4% of the sample. Most participants fell within the 25-34 age range (63.5%), followed by the 35-44 age group (26.5%). Only a small fraction (5.9%) were aged 45 or above. Regarding technology expertise, most participants were at an intermediate level (58.6%), while 33.2% identified as experts and 8.2% as novices. In terms of persuasive technology usage, more than half (56.6%) used such technologies daily, 39.9% used them weekly, and a small percentage (3.6%) reported bi-weekly or less frequent usage.
The data were analyzed using SPSS due to its robust statistical capabilities for handling survey data,
facilitating both descriptive and inferential analyses [20]. SPSS enables eficient data management,
allowing for the identification of patterns and relationships in user perceptions of trust in persuasive
technologies. The descriptive statistics focus on Transparency, Consent, Autonomy, and Data Privacy
& Security because these factors were considered as they have been consistently identified in prior
research as key determinants of trust in persuasive systems [
Figure 3 presents two user interfaces for subscribing to a premium membership in an e-commerce platform, illustrating varying levels of user autonomy. UI A ensures equal choice burden by presenting subscription options with uniform button colors and providing a clearly visible “Skip” button. The "Close" button is also highlighted, allowing users to exit without subscribing. Additionally, UI A transparently displays potential savings for users who opt for a yearly subscription. Conversely, UI B prioritizes the monthly subscription by using a more visually prominent color while obscuring the yearly subscription. Furthermore, the “Close” button is smaller and faded, making it less noticeable. Research by Michalski et al. [25] suggests that factors such as color, icon size, and positioning significantly influence users’ navigation and decision-making within a system.
Figure 4 illustrates two user interface designs for a persuasive health app that tracks daily water intake, highlighting diferent approaches to data privacy and security. UI A emphasizes transparency by informing users about data security protocols through an icon indicating GDPR compliance. Users are also given the option to download and review their shared data, with additional choices to delete or retain their records. Furthermore, UI A incorporates a gamified element, rewarding users with in-app currency for reading more about data regulations, thereby increasing awareness. In contrast, UI B provides only the option to save user data, without any indication of security protocols or privacy safeguards. Users are not prompted to learn more about how their data is handled. Prior research [26] suggests that users who are more informed about an app’s data privacy and security policies are more likely to trust the system.
Table 2 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for the two user interface (UI) prototypes across four key ethical and trust-related dimensions: Transparency, Consent, Autonomy, and Data Privacy and Security. The results indicate that UI A consistently achieved slightly higher mean ratings than UI B across all dimensions, suggesting a small but consistent preference for UI A in terms of user experience. However, the standard deviations indicate some variability in responses, with UI B generally exhibiting higher standard deviation values. This suggests that user opinions about UI B were more varied, whereas UI A’s ratings were more stable. As shown in Table 2, users’ direct preference between UI A and UI B is illustrated. The users were asked which user interface they preferred and they were provided with the choice of UI A and UI B. A higher proportion of users favored UI A in all four dimensions, with Transparency showing the most notable diference, where 66% of users preferred UI A compared to 34% for UI B. Similarly, Consent (59.5% vs. 40.5%), Autonomy (58.6% vs. 41.4%), and Data Privacy and Security (62.8% vs. 37.2%) all showed a preference for UI A. These results suggest that UI A was perceived as a more user-friendly and efective interface compared to UI B.
Overall, the results indicate that UI A was perceived as both the more user-friendly and ethical option, consistently receiving higher mean scores, greater user preference, and stronger perceptions of ethicality and trustworthiness. While UI B did not outperform UI A in any dimension, the narrower gap in Data Privacy and Security perceptions suggests that further refinement in UI A’s approach to privacy features could be beneficial.
This study examined how incorporating ethical design features—specifically transparency, consent, autonomy, and data privacy/security—afects user trust in persuasive prototypes. The findings highlight that prototypes embedding these ethical considerations were consistently rated higher in trustworthiness and ethical perception compared to those lacking such features. Among these factors, transparency emerged as the most influential, with a significant majority of participants favoring interfaces that provided clear explanations for system recommendations. This strong preference underscores the critical role of transparency in fostering trust, as users tend to be more inclined to trust systems that openly communicate their processes, decisions, and intentions.
These results align with existing literature emphasizing transparency and user control as fundamental
components of trust in persuasive systems. For instance, Ahmad and Ali [
Beyond transparency, other factors also influence trust and acceptance. Wanner et al. [ 29] demonstrated that while transparency enhances cognitive trust, it does not necessarily lead to greater acceptance of intelligent systems. This highlights the importance of additional considerations such as perceived usefulness, user experience, and the level of user control ofered. Our study supports this perspective, suggesting that transparency should be balanced with usability to ensure that users feel informed without being overwhelmed. If transparency features are overly complex or burdensome, users may disengage from the system rather than feel reassured. A user-centered approach to transparency, tailored to the context and needs of diferent user groups, is therefore essential.
The practical implications of these findings are significant for designers and developers of persuasive systems. Transparency features should be presented in a clear and accessible manner, ensuring that users understand how their data is utilized and how system decisions are made. Providing detailed but digestible explanations can foster trust while mitigating the risks of information overload. Additionally, granting users control over their data and implementing real-time consent mechanisms aligns with ethical best practices and reinforces system integrity. These measures not only improve user trust but also enhance engagement and satisfaction, leading to greater adoption of persuasive technologies. However, designers must ensure that transparency is implemented in a way that supports, rather than complicates, user experience.
Despite these insights, this study has certain limitations. The participant pool primarily consisted of individuals aged 25-44, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other age groups. Moreover, the study did not report any statistical significance, efect sizes, or demographic diferences. Future studies should aim to include a broader demographic to explore how trust in persuasive technologies varies across diferent populations and analyze the data further using statistical tests. Additionally, reliance on self-reported trust measures introduces the potential for response biases. More objective trust measurements, such as behavioral data or physiological responses, could provide deeper insights into user perceptions.
Further research should also adopt longitudinal designs to assess how trust in persuasive systems evolves over time. Investigating adaptive transparency features—where explanations are adjusted based on user preferences and system interactions—could ofer a more refined approach to fostering trust. Additionally, real-time consent mechanisms and personalization in ethical design could further enhance user engagement and confidence in persuasive technologies.
This study highlights the importance of ethical design principles—transparency, autonomy, consent, and data privacy—in fostering trust in persuasive technologies. The evaluation of user interfaces demonstrated that incorporating these features enhances user perceptions of trustworthiness and ethicality, with transparency emerging as a key determinant. However, the findings also suggest that poorly implemented transparency may lead to skepticism, reinforcing the need for a balanced and user-centered approach. Future research should investigate adaptive transparency mechanisms and real-time consent features to enhance trust-building strategies in persuasive systems.
During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used Chat-GPT-4 and Grammarly in order to: Grammar and spelling check. After using these tool(s)/service(s), the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the publication’s content. [12] J. Riegelsberger, M. A. Sasse, J. D. McCarthy, The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design, International journal of human-computer studies 62 (2005) 381–422. [13] H. Nissenbaum, A contextual approach to privacy online, Daedalus 140 (2011) 32–48. [14] A. Acquisti, L. Brandimarte, G. Loewenstein, Privacy and human behavior in the age of information,
Science 347 (2015) 509–514. [15] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, T. Pakkanen, Do persuasive technologies persuade?-a review of empirical studies, in: International conference on persuasive technology, Springer, 2014, pp. 118–136. [16] A. Adib, R. Orji, A systematic review of persuasive strategies in mobile e-commerce applications and their implementations, in: International conference on persuasive technology, Springer, 2021, pp. 217–230. [17] M. Honary, B. T. Bell, S. Clinch, S. E. Wild, R. McNaney, et al., Understanding the role of healthy eating and fitness mobile apps in the formation of maladaptive eating and exercise behaviors in young people, JMIR mHealth and uHealth 7 (2019) e14239. [18] C. Stockman, E. Nottingham, Dark patterns of cuteness: Popular learning app design as a risk to children’s autonomy, in: Children, Young People and Online Harms: Conceptualisations, Experiences and Responses, Springer, 2024, pp. 113–137. [19] M. Madsen, S. Gregor, Measuring human-computer trust, in: 11th australasian conference on information systems, volume 53, Citeseer, 2000, pp. 6–8. [20] A. Field, Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, Sage publications limited, 2024. [21] J. Zerilli, U. Bhatt, A. Weller, How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence, Patterns 3 (2022). [22] F. Cabiddu, L. Moi, G. Patriotta, D. G. Allen, Why do users trust algorithms? a review and conceptualization of initial trust and trust over time, European management journal 40 (2022) 685–706. [23] N. Richards, W. Hartzog, The pathologies of digital consent, Wash. UL Rev. 96 (2018) 1461. [24] J. Tang, U. Akram, W. Shi, Why people need privacy? the role of privacy fatigue in app users’ intention to disclose privacy: based on personality traits, Journal of Enterprise Information Management 34 (2021) 1097–1120. [25] R. Michalski, J. Grobelny, W. Karwowski, The efects of graphical interface design characteristics on human–computer interaction task eficiency, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 36 (2006) 959–977. [26] S. Hussain, Future of digital marketing: Innovation, privacy, and consumer trust (????). [27] A. Springer, S. Whittaker, What are you hiding? algorithmic transparency and user perceptions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03220 (2018). [28] M. Eslami, A. Rickman, K. Vaccaro, A. Aleyasen, A. Vuong, K. Karahalios, K. Hamilton, C. Sandvig, " i always assumed that i wasn’t really that close to [her]" reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds, in: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, 2015, pp. 153–162. [29] J. Wanner, L.-V. Herm, K. Heinrich, C. Janiesch, The efect of transparency and trust on intelligent system acceptance: Evidence from a user-based study, Electronic Markets 32 (2022) 2079–2102.