Impact of Cognitive Bias in UI Design on E-Learning Cognitive Load
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35806/ijoced.v8i1.553Keywords:
Cognitive bias, Interface Design, User interface design, Cognitive Load, NASA-TLX, Human-Computer InteractionAbstract
This study investigates the influence of cognitive biases in user interface (UI) design on learners’ perceived cognitive workload in mobile e-learning environments. Three biases were examined: the aesthetic–usability effect, anchoring effect, and framing effect. A within-subjects experimental design was conducted with 10 participants, who completed three tasks (logging in and exploring the homescreen, answering a quiz, and submitting an assignment) under different UI conditions. Cognitive workload was measured using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). The results showed significant differences in workload across the three UI conditions. Interfaces incorporating aesthetic–usability features yielded the lowest workload scores, while anchoring-based interfaces produced the highest workload, and framing-based interfaces resulted in moderate levels of workload. Reliability analysis confirmed acceptable internal consistency of the NASA-TLX across all tasks (α = .742–.781). These findings suggest that subtle cognitive biases embedded in UI design meaningfully affect learners’ mental effort, with implications for developing e-learning applications that minimize extraneous cognitive load. The study highlights the importance of designing visually appealing, cognitively supportive, and positively framed interfaces to enhance learner experience and performance in mobile e-learning platforms.
References
Adipat, B., & Zhang, D. (2005). Interface design for mobile applications. Association for Information Systems - 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2005: A Conference on a Human Scale, 3, 1157–1166.
Ali, S. M. S. (2025). Cognitive Biases in Digital Decision Making: How Consumers Navigate Information Overload (Consumer Behavior). Advances in Consumer Research, 2(1), 168–177. https://acr-journal.com/article/cognitive-biases-in-digital-decision-making-how-consumers-navigate-information-overload-consumer-behavior--889/
Arifin, V., Handayani, V., Wardhani, L. K., Suseno, H. B., & Masruroh, S. U. (2022). User Interface and Exprience Gamification-Based E-Learning with Design Science Research Methodology. MATRIK : Jurnal Manajemen, Teknik Informatika Dan Rekayasa Komputer, 22(1), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.30812/matrik.v22i1.2427
Auf, H., Dagman, J., Renström, S., & Chaplin, J. (2021). Gamification and nudging techniques for improving user engagement in mental health and well-being apps. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1(AUGUST), 1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.426
Demir, K., & Akpinar, E. (2018). The effect of mobile learning applications on students’ academic achievement and attitudes toward mobile learning. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(2), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.17220/mojet.2018.04.004
Ding, J. (2024). Framing Effect: To Frame, or to Be Framed. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 12(3), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.18178/joebm.2024.12.3.803
Ersania, A. B., Julianto, I. N. L., & Swandi, I. W. (2025). Systematic Literature Review for User Interface Design and User Experience of Animation Media in Enhancing the Concentration of Children with Special Needs. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 24(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.5614/sostek.itbj.2025.24.1.3
Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics , 80(February), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.005
Iman, N., Agus Firmansyah, N., & Ima Himayati, A. (2025). Evaluation of mental workload using the NASA task load index (NASA-TLX) method on production department employees. Sainteks: Jurnal Sain Dan Teknik, 12(01), 12–22. http://ejournal.uicm.ac.id/index.php/sainteks/
Kusuma, F. I., Suryani, N., & Sumaryati, S. (2022). Mobile application-based media learning and its’ effect on students’ learning motivation. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(3), 1353–1359. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i3.22481
Lau, A. Y. S., & Coiera, E. W. (2009). Can Cognitive Biases during Consumer Health Information Searches Be Reduced to Improve Decision Making? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2557
Lazaro, G. R. de, & Duart, J. M. (2023). Moving Learning: A Systematic Review of Mobile Learning Applications for Online Higher Education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), 198–224. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2023.7.1287
Li, X., Xu, H., Chu, Y., Tang, W., & Liu, X. (2024). The Anchoring Effect in Study Time Allocation: Labor-in-Vain versus Labor-and-Gain. Behavioral Sciences, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14070567
Madathil, K. C., & Greenstein, J. S. (2011). Synchronous remote usability testing - A new approach facilitated by virtual worlds. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 7(12), 2225–2234. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979267
Moran, K. (2024). The Aesthetic-Usability Effect. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/aesthetic-usability-effect/
Mostefai, B., Boutefara, T., Bousbia, N., Balla, A., Dhelim, S., & Hammia, A. (2025). Enhancing user experience in e-learning systems: A new user-centric RESTful web services approach. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 18(March), 100643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100643
Novin, A., & Meyers, E. M. (2017). Four biases in interface design interactions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10288 LNCS, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58634-2_13
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-Load Theory: Methods to Manage Working Memory Load in the Learning of Complex Tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183
Park, B., Korbach, A., & Brünken, R. (2020). Does thinking-aloud affect learning, visual information processing and cognitive load when learning with seductive details as expected from self-regulation perspective? Computers in Human Behavior, 111(February), 106411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106411
Rafifing, N., Mosinki, J., Mabina, A., Otlhomile, B. E., & Mphole, O. (2025). Usability of Mobile Learning Technologies in Open and Distance Learning. Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, 7(1), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.51519/journalisi.v7i1.989
Ruiz, J. J. R., Sanchez, A. D. V., & Figueredo, O. R. B. (2024). Impact of gamification on school engagement: a systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 9(December). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1466926
Schnaubert, L., & Schneider, S. (2022). Analysing the Relationship Between Mental Load or Mental Effort and Metacomprehension Under Different Conditions of Multimedia Design. Frontiers in Education, 6(January), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.648319
Schneider, C., & Weinmann, M. (2018). Digital Nudging - Influencing Choices by Using Interface Design. Communications of the ACM, 61(7), 67–73.
Schneider, C., Weinmann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). Choice architecture: Using fixation patterns to analyze the effects of form design on cognitive biases. In Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation (Vol. 10, pp. 91–97). Springer Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18702-0_12
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theroy. In Intstructional Systems and PErformance Technologues (Vol. 82, Issue 1).
Yang, J. (2023). Status Quo Bias with Choice Overload. SSRN Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4369525
