1

A Survey of Addictive Software Design

CHAUNCEY NEYMAN, California Polytechnic State University

The average smartphone owner checks their phone more than 150 times per day. As of 2015, 62% of smartphone
users had used their phone to look up information about a health condition, while 57% had used their phone
to do online banking. Mobile platforms have become the dominant medium of human-computer interaction.
So how have these devices established themselves as our go to connection to the Internet?
The answer lies in addictive design. Software designers have become well versed in creating software
that captivates us at a primal level. In this article, we survey addictive software design strategies, their bases
in psychology, and their applications in popular software products. We offer a novel taxonomy to better
categorize these addictive design strategies. Additionally, we explore a study conducted at the California
Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo that illustrates the efficacy of one of the addictive design
strategies.

ACM Reference format:

Chauncey Neyman. 2017. A Survey of Addictive Software Design. 1, 1, Article 1 (June 2017), 12 pages.

1 INTRODUCTION
As Software becomes an integral part of the human experience, Software designers compete for
the attention of users. This competition has prompted the emergence of several user retention
strategies that apply psychological principles to software design. In this paper, we will refer to
these strategies collectively as "addictive software design."
Before exploring addictive software design, we must define and outline topics that elucidate
the importance of the subject. Once we’ve established this importance, we will explore popular
addictive design strategies. After covering each of these strategies, we will examine the foundations
of those strategies in psychology. Then we will present successful applications of these strategies
in popular applications. Finally, we will offer our novel taxonomy to better categorize addictive
design strategies.

2 BACKGROUND
In this section, we will briefly define and outline topics related to addictive software design. These
definitions are meant to provide context for the addictive software design strategies in later sections.

2.1 Human-Computer Interaction

Human-computer Interaction (HCI) is a field that arose in the 1980’s as a specialty area in computer
science embracing cognitive science and human factors engineering. Today, it is a collection of
semi-autonomous fields in human-centered informatics. The field grew in prominence with the
rise of personal computers, as the demographic of computer users transitioned from technology
professionals to everyday people. [4] Today, Human-computer Interaction remains relevant with
the ubiquity of mobile devices. For our purposes, Human-Computer Interaction is the academic
topic within Computer Science under which addictive software design falls.

2017. XXXX-XXXX/2017/6-ART1 $15.00

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

1:2 Chauncey Neyman

2.2 Psychology
Psychology is the scientific study of how people behave, think and feel. As a science, psychology
applies the scientific method to study psychological phenomena. [18] Psychology is the field which
provides meaningful scientific explanations to addictive software design strategies.

2.3 Mobile Platforms

Mobile platforms are smart phones and tablets that run software, typically connected to the Internet.
They are the dominant medium of Human-Computer Interaction today. As of 2016, 67% of digital
time is spent on mobile platforms. [21] This time is increasingly focused in a small subset of apps.
Smartphone users spent 45% of their app time on their top app and 73% of their app time on their
top three apps. Tablet users spent 87% of their app time on their top three apps. The apps most
popular with these users are typically published by Facebook, Google, Snapchat, Amazon, and a
few other large publishers. [21] As the dominant medium of Human-Computer Interaction, mobile
platforms are the most important platform on which to study addictive software design strategies.

2.4 Internet Addiction

Internet addiction is "a compulsive-impulsive spectrum disorder that involves online and/or offline
computer usage and consists of at least three subtypes: excessive gaming, sexual preoccupations,
and e-mail/text messaging." The symptoms of each variation of this disorder include excessive use,
withdrawal when the computer is inaccessible, tolerance and negative repercussions (including
lying, poor achievement, social isolation and fatigue. Some countries, such as China and South
Korea, consider Internet addiction one of their most serious public health concerns. [1] Internet
Addiction illustrates the real consequences of implementing addictive design strategies.

3 ADDICTIVE SOFTWARE DESIGN STRATEGIES

In the following section, we will explore many of the most popular strategies of addictive design
outlined by researchers, bestselling authors, and prominent designers. We will attempt to ground
each design strategy with a corresponding psychological study that highlights its efficacy. This list
is not exhaustive.

3.1 Variable Rewards

A reward is "something given or received in return or recompense for service, merit, hardship,
etc." [16] The brain responds positively to rewards. Rewards become variable rewards when they
are given randomly and unpredictably. Variable rewards produce more of the neurotransmitter
dopamine than regular rewards. [8] Outside of software design, the method of intermittent variable
rewards is used most prominently by slot machines. However, mobile applications have begun
to take advantage of this effect through the utilization of notifications and other processes. By
intensifying the dopamine surges received by their users, software designers are making their
products addictive. [2]
3.1.1 Psychological Study: The Skinner Box.
The psychology of rewards has been studied extensively, especially with regards to the neuro-
transmitter dopamine. The psychological study most closely tied to intermittent variable rewards
involves the "Skinner Box," in which pigeons and rats were conditioned to pull a lever when
prompted by a light. Researchers found that dopamine levels in these pigeons and rats surged when
they were expecting a reward. These effects were multiplied when treats were rewarded at random;
adding variability increased the frequency of the pigeons’ completing the intended action. [9]

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

A Survey of Addictive Software Design 1:3

3.2 Social Reciprocity

Social reciprocity is a "mutual exchange" that is social in nature. [16] We are vulnerable to needing
to reciprocate others social gestures. [10] This is illustrated by common etiquette like responding to
emails or accepting connection requests. Additionally, as inherently social animals, human beings
receive chemical satisfaction when they receive social gratification, such as likes. [9] The highly
social components of many popular mobile applications contribute to their addictive properties.
3.2.1 Psychological Study: The Power of Reciprocity.
An experiment conducted by Andres Diekmann of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
explores the power of reciprocity. The experiment involved two groups of test subjects, all anony-
mous to each other. Subjects from the first group were given 10 tokens worth real money with the
option to share some proportion of their tokens with a member of the other group. Later, subjects
from the second group were given 10 tokens with the option to share their tokens. Members of the
second group reciprocated the gift they’d received almost half the time, and only 10% of the second
group did not share their tokens at all. This behavior is not rational, and illustrates the social power
reciprocity has on human beings. [5]

3.3 Infinite Scrolling

Infinite scrolling is the idea of loading content on a single page instead of spreading it across a series
of pages. [11] It creates an interface through which consuming media is enabled by continuing
to scroll, instead of flipping to a new page. This strategy is utilized by many mobile applications.
Because there is virtually no end to the materials we can consume via infinite scrolling, we are
vulnerable to consuming much more than we would normally without realizing it. This results in
users spending much more time on applications than intended.
3.3.1 Psychological Study: The Bottomless Bowl.
Infinite scrolling taps into a psychological phenomena illustrated by the "Bottomless Bowl"
study. In 2005, Cornell professor Brian Wansink demonstrated that you can trick people into eating
more soup by giving them a bottomless bowl. When their soup refills, people will consume 73%
more without even recognizing greater feelings of satiation. [10] These findings are consistent
with the notion that the amount of food on a plate or bowl increases intake because it influences
consumption norms. [3] This suggests that the time sucking power of infinite feeds is derived from
their power to normalize uninhibited scrolling.

3.4 The Illusion of Choice

Just as infinite feeds have the power to normalize uninhibited scrolling, Software Designers have
the power to control user choices through the layout of their applications. While an application like
Yelp appears to empower the users with reviews of nearby restaurants, it’s really controlling the
limited number of venues users are exposed to. [10] This illusion of choice can keep users engaged
for longer, as dissatisfaction with each choice results in the user spending more time browsing
alternatives within the application. However, limiting choices the user is exposed to keeps them
acting on those options more diligently. [12]
3.4.1 Psychological Study: Decision Making.
In an experiment undertaken by Stanford’s Mark R. Lepper and Columbia’s Sheena S. Iyengar,
two separate displays of jams were laid out. One display had 24 different types of jams, while the
other had only 6 different types. Of the 242 customers who passed by the extensive display, 60%
stopped at the booth with the extensive display while only 40% stopped at the booth with the

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

1:4 Chauncey Neyman

limited display. However, only 3% of people who stopped at the extensive display purchased jam
while 30% of people who stopped at the limited display bought jam. [12] This is just one of many
studies that illustrates the power of limiting choices: while people may be attracted by a large
variety of options, they are more likely to act when given fewer choices.

3.5 User Investment

Human beings irrationally project more value on objects they’re involved in building or creating.
Many applications take advantage of this phenomena by giving users power to curate their own
social media profiles. This is supported by the "Ikea effect," wherein consumers were shown to be
willing to pay more money for furniture they’d contributed in creating than for pre-built furniture.
[9]
Additionally, investing time, data or social capital into a platform causes users to spend more
time on that platform. This illustrates the importance of first-to-market principles, as once users
have accumulated followers on one platform, they are less likely to leave that platform even if a
marginally better alternative with the same functionality arises. [9]

3.5.1 Psychological Study: The IKEA Effect.

Named after the popular build-it-yourself furniture chain, the "IKEA effect" refers to the increased
value consumers place in something they’ve had a hand in creating. This phenomena is well
documented in a Harvard Business School study titled "The IKEA effect: When Labor Leads to
Love." When crafting an IKEA storage box, test subjects were willing to spend over 60% more money
for the box they’d built than for a similar box built by somebody else. The effect was exacerbated
when subjects were bidding on Origami pieces. This psychological principle has been used in many
other applications besides furniture, from instant cake mixes (which became much more popular
after consumers were instructed to add an egg) to Build-A-Bear stores. [15]

3.6 Gamification
Closely tied to variable rewards, "gamification" is defined in the tech industry as the process of
using game mechanics to reward the completion of tasks. [22] Academically, "gamification" has
been defined as "a process of enhancing services with (motivational) affordances in order to invoke
gameful experiences and further behavioral outcomes." [14] Experts recommend implementing
rewards in small, frequent bits so that the user of an app feels a sense of achievement. They also
recommend "sharing loops" that integrate rewards with the users social network by allowing the
user to share their accomplishments. [22]

3.6.1 Psychological Study: Gamification.

A review of 24 gamification studies found that gamification has a positive impact on the ef-
fectiveness of the core service of the platform being gamified. In particular, every study focused
on education or learning platforms found a positive effect. In this review, the most commonly
implemented gamified elements across the many studies were points, leaderboards, and badges.
[14]

4 APPLICATIONS
This section will cover the applications of these addictive design strategies, particularly with regards
to some of the most popular mobile apps available. For reference, the four most downloaded iOS
apps of all time are (in order) Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Youtube, and Instagram. [6] Other
popular apps we’ll look at include Twitter, Uber (the driver version), and LinkedIn.

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

A Survey of Addictive Software Design 1:5

Fig. 1. An illustration of the use of addictive design strategies in popular phone apps

4.1 Variable Rewards

Intermittent variable rewards are used most often in the form of notifications. The Facebook
Messenger app relies on notifications and pop ups to alert the user to new messages. The pop ups
used by Messenger are some of the most unique of all the major apps, as they appear as bubbles
that the user can move around their screen.
The Facebook app utilizes variable rewards in providing notifications for likes, friend requests,
and many other activities. Instagram sends notifications for direct messages, when a users’ friend
posts for the first time in a while, or when somebody likes a users’ photo. LinkedIn utilizes notifica-
tions similarly to notify users of connection requests, messages and potential job opportunities.
Twitter will send users notifications when they are messaged or mentioned. Uber will send drivers
notifications when a rider is available to be picked up. And the YouTube app sends notifications
when a channel the user subscribes to has posted a new video.
Outside of notifications, Facebook and Instagram are particularly adept platforms at engaging
users with "likes." Because a "like" must be given by another user, its delivery is random and
satisfying. This is similarly true of "favorites" and "retweets" on Twitter. [9]

4.2 Social Reciprocity

Social reciprocity is either a feature or an emergent property in many social media apps. Apps like
Instagram and Twitter have a social etiquette that demands "following back" somebody who has
followed you, and the liking and favoriting features can instill a sense of obligation in users to do
the same back. Facebook and LinkedIn require friend and connection requests to be accepted before
a friendship is made official. And Facebook Messenger messages are shown as "read" to the sending
party when opened, motivating users to respond. As these examples illustrate, social reciprocity
isn’t always an explicit feature. Sometimes it’s an unintended consequence of an apps design.

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

1:6 Chauncey Neyman

4.3 Infinite Scrolling

Infinite scrolling is most prominently used by Facebook, both on the mobile app as well as the
desktop version. It was launched in 2011 at the same time as Facebook Timelines, shortly before
Facebook’s IPO. [17] The type of infinite scrolling used by Facebook is called "lazy load," because it
loads more results as you near the bottom of the page. [13] Before Facebook implemented it, "lazy
loading" was used by Twitter and Instagram, and is now used by LinkedIn as well.
YouTube has a different variation on infinite scrolling. While YouTube’s search results are
paginated (perhaps a result of their ties to Google), they have an autoplay feature which continues
to produce related videos to the first one watched manually. Though not explicitly "infinite scrolling,"
the autoplay feature is a sound example of the same underlying concept of unending content.

4.4 The Illusion of Choice

Most mobile app interfaces use this strategy to direct users between the pages of the apps. What
gives these apps the illusion of choice is the way they present a limited set of options as if it were
extensive. The YouTube app is particularly adept at this: by presenting the homepage with videos
they expect a user to like alongside a search bar, users are given the impression that they can
find videos of whatever they want. However, YouTube is meaningfully effecting the content users
consume by way of their suggestions and the order of search results.
The illusion of choice is presented effectively in apps like LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram
as well. The results that show up on the main pages of each of these apps appear to be unsorted,
chronological posts from all of your friends. However, LinkedIn and Facebook are deliberately
tailoring the content that makes it to the top of a users page. And Instagram has recently imple-
mented a similar version of tailored content by showing posts they think you’d like before other
posts that are more recent.
Before any of these mobile apps existed, this strategy was being utilized masterfully by Google.
While users believe they’re searching the full web, Google controls the algorithm that dictates their
results. The autocomplete feature of Google (and the similar autocomplete feature used by YouTube)
has a powerful effect on the searches users make, yet certain phrases are often blacklisted from those
autocomplete lists. For example, typing "crooked hill" on Google will autocomplete with suggestions
for restaurants or street names. Typing the same phrase on Bing will autocomplete as "crooked
hillary" first - a result that doesn’t even appear amongst Google’s autocomplete suggestions. [7]

4.5 User Investment

User Investment is often attained through followers, friends and connections. Take Twitter: its
core functionality is so easy to recreate that it’s been cloned by over 250 other sites. However,
Twitter remains dominant in terms of users and valuation. [20] This can be tied to user investment.
Twitter users aren’t likely to abandon the site for other platforms because they’ve invested time
and energy in gaining followers on their existing account. Even beyond followers, Twitter users
have spent time and energy crafting all of the tweets that show up in their history when their
profile is examined. [9]
This same notion of user investment is utilized by many other software giants. Instagram uses
followers while storing user memories in the form of photos or videos. LinkedIn, as the dominant
professional social network, offers access to potential job opportunities through users "connections."
Facebook uses friends in addition to their customized Timelines, which store posts as diverse as
text, images, and videos. YouTube shows users subscriptions alongside saved videos and videos
they’ve posted. The most successful software apps make it difficult to leave because of the time
and energy users invest in them.

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

A Survey of Addictive Software Design 1:7

Fig. 2. An illustration of our addictive design taxonomy

Facebook has pioneered another form of user investment through their ubiquity on other
platforms. Many sites and apps, such as Tinder, Farmville, and GroupMe, allow users to sign up
using their Facebook profiles. By making themselves the middle man between users and other apps,
Facebook has made it even more difficult for their users to leave.

4.6 Gamification
Uber has historically had issues with retaining drivers. Recently, to counter this retention issue, the
Uber app for drivers has been gamified. To keep drivers on the road for a longer period of time
each day, Uber sets arbitrary earnings goals that provide achievements when satisfied. They’ve also
started to queue up the next ride for drivers before they’ve even finished the one they’re currently
on. [19]
Gamification is exploited more subtly in other platforms. LinkedIn plots the number of people
who have viewed your profile alongside goals and suggestions about how to increase your visibility
to employers. Health apps, such as MyFitnessPal, set caloric and exercise goals based on your past
information. And Snapchat rewards users for "streaks," or days in a row that users have exchanged
Snaps. All of these examples gamify processes that are seemingly unrelated to games because
gamification taps into the human desire for achievement.

5 CATEGORIZATIONS
In this section, we will create novel categorizations for each the addictive design strategies we’ve
explored. These categorizations are intended to encompass every addictive design strategy presented
in this paper in addition to any addictive design strategies implemented by others in the future.
These categorizations are rooted in the psychological weaknesses each strategy takes advantage of.

5.1 Craving
Strategies that fall under the "Craving" category take advantage of the physical, chemical response
human beings have to desired types of stimuli. Most often the outcome of these strategies manifest
in the form of a dopamine rush. For example, intermittent variable rewards such as message
alerts and notifications give users a dopamine rush. [10] Similarly, gamified processes such as

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

1:8 Chauncey Neyman

achievements can give users a dopamine rush when they are completed. [19] When a user checks
their phone expecting a notification, alert, or achievement and they do not receive one, they are
illustrating a powerful desire for something, or a "craving." [16]

5.2 Obligation
Strategies that fall under the "Obligation" category take advantage of the human desire for comfort.
Human beings naturally seek stability and reassurance from other humans, and addictive design
strategies in this category satiate these needs. [10] For example, social reciprocity strategies maintain
and uphold existing social norms by validating friendships or inciting correspondence. Similarly,
user investment strategies hook users by getting them so used to a platform that leaving that
platform would entail leaving friends, family, and a familiar interface. When a user responds to a
message or follows back a friend, they are attempting to fulfill an act to which they feel morally
bound, or an "obligation." [16]

5.3 Deception
Strategies that fall under the "Deception" category take advantage of human gullibility. This typically
entails manipulating a user into doing something they wouldn’t normally want to do through the
design of an interface. For example, interfaces that utilize infinite scrolling subtly coerce users into
spending more time on an app than they intend to. Similarly, giving users an illusion of choice
in an app menu while severely constricting their actions to what you want them to do does not
always fulfill their desired goals with the app. Each of these strategies gives a mistaken impression
to the user, or "deceives" the user. [16]

6 FINAL REMARKS
The well known design strategies outlined in this paper are used by all of the most popular apps on
our phones. These software products don’t just dominate the market; they dominate our free time.
In the future, we anticipate new addictive design strategies to proliferate. Although the specific
nature of these strategies may vary, we expect the reason for their effectiveness to remain the same:
they take advantage of properties of human psychology. We hope that the categories outlined in
this paper increase public understanding of this underlying psychology. Furthermore, we hope this
understanding enables fun and responsible software design.

7 APPENDIX
7.1 Experiment: Facebook Scrolling
In this experiment, students were told to download two Google Chrome extensions (add ons to the
Google Chrome web browser). One of these extensions ("timeStats") was designed to measure the
time they spent on various websites. The other extension ("Stop Scrolling Facebook") was designed
to stop the user every 5 minutes to ask if they wanted to continue scrolling on Facebook. The
measure of users desire to spend time on Facebook was the difference between the time they spent
on Facebook in one week with the "Stop Scrolling Facebook" extension minus the time they spent
on Facebook in one week without the "Stop Scrolling Facebook" extension.
7.1.1 Procedure. Students were split into two even groups. The first group was instructed to
download both the "timeStats" and "Stop Scrolling Facebook" extensions, while the second group
was instructed to only download the "timeStats" extension. After one week, researchers reached
out to each group and instructed them on how to report their weekly Facebook activity. The results
from each group were recorded (measured to the nearest minute). At the same time, researchers

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

A Survey of Addictive Software Design 1:9

Fig. 3. Results of the Facebook Infinite Scrolling Experiment

instructed the first group to uninstall the "Stop Scrolling Facebook" extension and instructed the
second group to install the "Stop Scrolling Facebook" extension. After one more week had passed,
researchers reached out again and recorded weekly Facebook activity from each group.

7.1.2 Results. Students spent an average of 10.5 minutes more per week on Facebook without
the "Stop Scrolling Facebook" extension than they did with that same extension. The median
difference between time spent on Facebook with the extension and without the extension was
9.0 minutes. These differences are significant as students spent an average of only 9.2 minutes on
Facebook with the extension vs spending 19.7 minutes on Facebook without the extension - more
than twice as long. Further, only 3 students spent more time on Facebook with the "Stop Scrolling
Facebook" extension; 21 students spent less time on Facebook with the extension.

7.1.3 Discussion. This experiment was limited by its restriction to tracking Facebook through a
browser. When speaking with the students, most admitted that the majority of their Facebook use
was conducted through Facebook’s mobile apps ("Facebook" and "Facebook Messenger"). However,
the difference between time spent on Facebook with and without the "Stop Scrolling Facebook"
extension installed is still notable. These results illustrate that users spend more time scrolling the
news feed on Facebook than they intend to.

7.1.4 Relevance. This experiment directly tests the efficacy of the "Infinite Scrolling" addictive
design strategy outlined in this survey. Its results support the idea that users are deceived into
spending more time on a platform with infinite scrolling.

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

1:10 Chauncey Neyman

Fig. 4. Results of the Reddit Pagination Experiment

7.2 Experiment: Reddit Pagination

In this experiment, experienced Reddit users were asked to time themselves for two single sessions
of Reddit use (where a session is defined as one uninterrupted period of browsing). They were
asked to report one session using the Reddit Mobile application (which utilizes bottomless scrolling)
and a second session using Reddit via a web browser (which utilizes pagination).
7.2.1 Procedure. Potential test subjects were polled about their Reddit use. First, subjects were
asked if they’d used Reddit before. Next, subjects were asked if they had access to the Reddit Mobile
application and a browser. After vetting these potential subjects, each subject was asked to self-time
and partake in one session of Reddit using the Reddit Mobile application and another session of
Reddit using the browser version of Reddit. Subjects were asked to partake in each session on a
different day, to avoid seeing the same posts on different days.
7.2.2 Results. Every single test subject spent more time on the Reddit Mobile application than
on the browser version of Reddit. Users spent an average of 43.6 minutes on the Reddit Mobile
application while they spent an average of 16.1 minutes on the browser version. These averages
are very similar to the medians, where users spent a median of 37 minutes on the Reddit Mobile
application compared to 15 minutes on the browser version. Qualitative feedback consisted of
user comments about which application they felt more or less immersed in, with almost every
respondent reporting feeling less immersed on the browser version of Reddit.
7.2.3 Discussion. While this experiment was meant to illustrate the efficacy of bottomless
scrolling, these results should be taken with a grain of salt. Because of the nature of the Reddit
Mobile application, users almost all used the application on a mobile device while they used the
browser version of Reddit on a desktop or laptop device. So while results appear to show that

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

A Survey of Addictive Software Design 1:11

bottomless scrolling is much more effective, they may just suggest that mobile devices are more
compelling mediums for media consumption. Further, the vetting of test subjects (by which we
required subjects to be Reddit users with access to both versions of Reddit) severely limited our
sample size to a group of 7 people, which is not statistically significant.
7.2.4 Relevance. This experiment is also meant to test the effectiveness of the "Infinite Scrolling"
addictive design strategy. As mentioned in the discussion, its results indicate that either infinite
scrolling is effective at increasing time spent on an application, users spend more time during
sessions on their phone, or some combination of both.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, thanks to Dr Clark Savage Turner for introducing the author to academic
papers, to LaTeX, and to the idea of writing a survey as a senior project. Thanks to Jenna Provazek,
Hanna Yoo, Siddhant Kahal, Thuy Tien and Pankti Gandhi for their contributions to the "Facebook
Scrolling" and "Reddit Pagination" experiments. Thanks to Fred Abler for his inspiring insight into
addictive technologies in his "User-Centered Interface Design and Development" class. And finally,
thanks to Dr Franz Kurfess for the helpful material taught in his "Human-Computer Interaction
Theory & Design" class and the opportunity to explore addictive design concepts in greater depth.

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.

1:12 Chauncey Neyman

REFERENCES
[1] Jerald J. Block. 2008. Issues for DSM-V: Internet Addiction (Editorial). (2008). This editorial summarizes many of the
key points of Internet Addiction.
[2] Bianca Bosker. 2016. The Binge Breaker. (2016). This article by the Atlantic covers Tristan Harris’ battle against
addictive software.
[3] Jill North Brian Wansink, James E. Painter. 2005. Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence
Intake. (2005). This study published in the PubMed journal explores why humans will consume more when they can’t
accurately gauge portion sizes.
[4] John M. Carroll. 2017. Human Computer Interaction - Brief Intro. (2017). This site gives a formal definition of human
computer interaction and its history.
[5] Andreas Diekmann. 2004. The Power of Reciprocity. (2004). This study explores social reciprocity in the context of
game theory, and covers a bit of reciprocity’s academic history.
[6] Artyom Dogtiev. 2016. Top 10 Most Popular iOS Apps of All Time. (2016). This article reveals the 10 most downloaded
iOS applications of all time.
[7] Robert Epstein. 2016. Google Is the World’s Biggest Censor. (2016). This US News article highlights the power Google
has over Internet traffic.
[8] Nir Eyal. 2012. Want To Hook Your Users? Drive Them Crazy. (2012). This TechCrunch blog post covers some
software design strategies outlined in Eyal’s book more concisely.
[9] Nir Eyal. 2014. Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. (2014). This book by Nir Eyal covers some key
addictive design methods.
[10] Tristan Harris. 2016. How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds. (2016). This essay by Tristan Harris explores how
software exploits human nature.
[11] Robert Hoekman and Jared Spool. 2009. Web Anatomy: Interaction Design Frameworks That Work. (2009). This book
defines infinite scrolling in a concise manner.
[12] Sheena S. Iyengar and Mark R. Lepper. 2000. When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good
Thing? (2000). This paper explores the drawbacks of excessive choices.
[13] Nathan Johnson. 2012. How does Facebook achieve infinite scrolling? (2012). This Stack Overflow answer describes
some of the technical aspects of infinite scrolling as well as where it came from.
[14] Harri Sarsa Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto. 2014. Does Gamification Work? A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on
Gamification. (2014). This paper reviews empirical studies on gamification.
[15] Dan Ariely Michael I. Norton, Daniel Mochon. 2011. The IKEA Effect: When Labor Leads to Love. (2011). This
Harvard Business paper explores the Ikea effect and its business implications.
[16] N/A. 2017. Dictionary.com. (2017). This site is the source of many widely accepted definitions found throughout this
paper.
[17] J. Odell. 2011. Once Facebook launches timeline, you’ll never want to leave. (2011). This news article covers some of
the features of Facebook Timelines shortly after it was released.
[18] University of Queensland. 2017. What is Psychology? (2017). This web page defines psychology and explores how it
is studied and researched across the world in academic environments.
[19] Noam Scheiber. 2017. How Uber Uses Psychological Tricks to Push Its’ Drivers Buttons. (2017). This NY Times article
covers the gamification of Uber from the drivers perspective.
[20] Honey Singh. 2017. Top 250 list of twitter clones sites. (2017). This blog post counts 250 websites with similar
functionality as Twitter.
[21] Greg Sterling. 2016. Nearly 85 percent of smartphone app time concentrated in top five apps. (2016). This article
covers reports that found users spend 85% of their time on their phone using their top five apps.
[22] Rahul Varshneya. 2014. 6 Techniques to Effectively Gamify a Mobile App. (2014). This blog post outlines gamification
methods for app developers.

, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: June 2017.