Social Proof, Scarcity, and Discounts: Experimental Evidence on Digital Nudges in E-Commerce
Research Article
Open Access
CC BY

Social Proof, Scarcity, and Discounts: Experimental Evidence on Digital Nudges in E-Commerce

Yicheng Lin 1, Jesse Ng 2* Guangbo Sun 3, Yimeng Wang 4
1 Shanghai High School International Division
2 University College London
3 Wyoming Seminary
4 The Storm King school
*Corresponding author: jesse.ng.24@ucl.ac.uk
Published on 11 November 2025
Volume Cover
AEMPS Vol.240
ISSN (Print): 2754-1177
ISSN (Online): 2754-1169
ISBN (Print): 978-1-80590-527-1
ISBN (Online): 978-1-80590-528-8
Download Cover

Abstract

The proliferation of digital nudges in e-commerce interfaces has reshaped consumer decision-making, yet their psychological mechanisms and societal implications remain contested, particularly in non-Western markets. This paper examines how three dominant interface defaults—social proof (“Top ranked”), monetary framing (“40% off”), and urgency cue (“Livestream ends in 3 minutes”)—influence willingness to pay and decision difficulty in China’s fast-paced digital marketplace. Using a randomized survey experiment with 519 respondents, we measure the causal effects of these nudges on engagement, purchase intent, and cognitive strain. Results show that nudges collectively increase WTP by 0.775 points (on a 5-point scale), with urgency cue producing the largest gains (1.063 points) but also raising decision difficulty by 0.304 points. Social proof and monetary framing boost WTP without increasing cognitive load. Heterogeneity analyses reveal stronger responses among women to social proof, greater sensitivity among lower-income users to discounts, and lower decision difficulty among tier-1 city residents. These findings highlight that the effectiveness and costs of digital nudges depend on demographic context and user characteristics, underscoring the need for ethical, user-centered interface design in digital commerce.

Keywords:

Digital nudges, E-commerce, Social proof, Urgency cue, Consumer behavior

View PDF
Lin,Y.;Ng,J.;Sun,G.;Wang,Y. (2025). Social Proof, Scarcity, and Discounts: Experimental Evidence on Digital Nudges in E-Commerce. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,240,40-57.

References

[1]. Haugh, T. (2017), Nudging Corporate Compliance. Am Bus Law J, 54: 683-741. https: //doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12109

[2]. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

[3]. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

[4]. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson.

[5]. Digital Services Act. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union, L277, 1–102.

[6]. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2023). Statistical communique on the national economy and social development. http: //www.stats.gov.cn

[7]. Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., & vom Brocke, J. (2023). Digital nudging: Steering users’ decisions in digital environments. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(1), 3–15. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00793-9

[8]. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

[9]. Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins.

[10]. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199

[11]. Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 463–496. https: //doi.org/10.1037/h0076860

[12]. Meske, C., & Potthoff, T. (2022). Nudging users towards better decisions: Meta-analysis of digital social proof. Computers in Human Behavior, 135, Article 107373. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107373

[13]. Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland: How algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. University of California Press.

[14]. Heliyon. (2023). Meta-analysis on urgency-based nudges in digital commerce. Heliyon, 9(2), Article e13645.

[15]. Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books.

[16]. Miao, L., Mattila, A. S., & Mount, D. (2023). Time pressure and decision-making in online retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74, Article 103451. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103451

[17]. Qu, Y., Khan, J., Su, Y., Tong, J., & Zhao, S. (2023). Impulse buying tendency in live-stream commerce: The role of viewing frequency and anticipated emotions influencing scarcity-induced purchase decision. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, Article 103534. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103534 LiUC Primo+6ResearchGate+6eduvest.greenvest.co.id+6

[18]. Barton, R. (2022). Scarcity tactics in marketing: A meta analysis of product scarcity effects on consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(3), 512–529. https: //doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab046 Wiley Online Library+7IDEAS/RePEc+7Monash Research+7

[19]. Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651. https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466

[20]. DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, D. C. (2007). Cents or percent? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 158–170. https: //doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.158

[21]. Chen, S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353–372. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80100-6

[22]. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall.

[23]. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1884852

[24]. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217. https: //doi.org/10.1086/209535

[25]. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. https: //doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995

References

[1]. Haugh, T. (2017), Nudging Corporate Compliance. Am Bus Law J, 54: 683-741. https: //doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12109

[2]. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

[3]. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

[4]. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson.

[5]. Digital Services Act. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union, L277, 1–102.

[6]. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2023). Statistical communique on the national economy and social development. http: //www.stats.gov.cn

[7]. Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., & vom Brocke, J. (2023). Digital nudging: Steering users’ decisions in digital environments. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(1), 3–15. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00793-9

[8]. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

[9]. Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins.

[10]. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199

[11]. Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 463–496. https: //doi.org/10.1037/h0076860

[12]. Meske, C., & Potthoff, T. (2022). Nudging users towards better decisions: Meta-analysis of digital social proof. Computers in Human Behavior, 135, Article 107373. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107373

[13]. Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland: How algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. University of California Press.

[14]. Heliyon. (2023). Meta-analysis on urgency-based nudges in digital commerce. Heliyon, 9(2), Article e13645.

[15]. Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books.

[16]. Miao, L., Mattila, A. S., & Mount, D. (2023). Time pressure and decision-making in online retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74, Article 103451. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103451

[17]. Qu, Y., Khan, J., Su, Y., Tong, J., & Zhao, S. (2023). Impulse buying tendency in live-stream commerce: The role of viewing frequency and anticipated emotions influencing scarcity-induced purchase decision. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, Article 103534. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103534 LiUC Primo+6ResearchGate+6eduvest.greenvest.co.id+6

[18]. Barton, R. (2022). Scarcity tactics in marketing: A meta analysis of product scarcity effects on consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(3), 512–529. https: //doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab046 Wiley Online Library+7IDEAS/RePEc+7Monash Research+7

[19]. Muchnik, L., Aral, S., & Taylor, S. J. (2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651. https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466

[20]. DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, D. C. (2007). Cents or percent? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 158–170. https: //doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.158

[21]. Chen, S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353–372. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80100-6

[22]. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall.

[23]. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1884852

[24]. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217. https: //doi.org/10.1086/209535

[25]. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. https: //doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995

Cite this article

Lin,Y.;Ng,J.;Sun,G.;Wang,Y. (2025). Social Proof, Scarcity, and Discounts: Experimental Evidence on Digital Nudges in E-Commerce. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,240,40-57.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

About volume

Volume title: Proceedings of ICFTBA 2025 Symposium: Data-Driven Decision Making in Business and Economics

ISBN: 978-1-80590-527-1(Print) / 978-1-80590-528-8(Online)
Editor: Lukášak Varti
Conference website: https://2025.icftba.org/Bratislava.html
Conference date: 12 December 2025
Series: Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences
Volume number: Vol.240
ISSN: 2754-1169(Print) / 2754-1177(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

For authors
For editors
For reviewers

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.