Ethical Nudges in E-Learning Interfaces: Behavioral, Cognitive, and Emotional Insights from Indonesian Users

01 / Research problem

Digital nudges such as social proof, framing, anchoring, and aesthetic-usability can shape behaviour without restricting choice, but most evidence comes from Western populations. Little is known about how these cues operate cognitively, emotionally, and ethically for Indonesian users, whose collectivist and high-context culture may respond differently. Poorly designed nudges risk manipulation rather than informed choice.

02 / Research question

1. How do the four nudge types (social proof, framing, anchoring, and aesthetic-usability) influence the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional responses of Indonesian users in an e-learning interface?
2. How do Indonesian users perceive the ethicality, trustworthiness, and emotional impact of these nudges?

03 / Methodology

A mixed-methods experimental design combining quantitative A/B testing with semi-structured interviews. Four functionally identical Figma prototypes of a university e-learning app were built, each carrying a single nudge type and localised in Bahasa Indonesia. Twenty Indonesian university students aged 18 to 25 took part through purposive sampling, five per condition and randomly assigned. Participants completed learning tasks such as browsing courses, submitting assignments, and reviewing quiz results. Measures were task performance (completion time, misclicks, success), cognitive workload through SWAT (time, mental effort, stress), emotion through SAM (valence, arousal, dominance), and 15-minute interviews analysed thematically. Ethical approval was obtained from the Enterprise Research Information System Group at Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha.

04 / Findings and contribution

All four conditions reached 100% task success with zero drop-off, but the pathways differed.

Behaviour. The Aesthetic-Usability condition was fastest (2.9 s) with zero misclicks. Framing (3.9 s) and Anchoring (4.3 s) were also efficient, each with 6.3% misclicks. Social Proof was slowest (5.7 s) with the highest misclick rate (11.8%), pointing to more deliberation.

Cognitive workload (SWAT, composite 1 to 3). Aesthetic-Usability was lowest (1.7). Framing scored 2.3 and Anchoring 2.6, the latter with a stress load of 2.8. Social Proof was highest overall (3.0), driven by mental effort (3.2) and stress (3.0).

Emotion (SAM, 1 to 9). Aesthetic-Usability produced the highest valence (8.2) and dominance (7.4). Framing followed with valence 7.1 and dominance 6.5. Anchoring scored 6.7 and 6.3. Social Proof had the lowest valence (6.2) and dominance (6.0).

The contribution is a culturally grounded account of how each nudge type trades efficiency against reflection and autonomy, plus evidence-based guidance for ethical nudge design built on transparency, emotional tone, and reflective autonomy.

05 / Reflection and future research

The study connects interface persuasion to cognition, emotion, and ethics, and argues that ethical nudging should support reflective autonomy rather than suppress it. Future work could test these patterns at larger scale and in other cultural contexts, and connect them to the doctoral direction on how interface decisions shape attention, trust, and decision-making.