Autori
Agnese Rosati - Università degli Studi di Perugia, Italy - agnese.rosati@unipg.it - 0000-0001-9398-961X
Keren Ponzo - Vienna Doctoral School of Theology and Research on Religion, Austria - a12227921@unet.univie.ac.at - 0009-0005-6414-0031
Leonardo Silvagni - École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland - leonardo.silvagni@epfl.ch - 0009-0006-0955-8678
Received: 4 June 2025
Accepted: 15 September 2025
1. Introduction
We unlock our phones, we swipe up, tap twice, and a new pair of headphones is on the way to our doorstep. This is the triumph of Human Centered Design, where the experience is seamless, where the best interface is the one you forget (Norman, 2013). No hesitation, no friction, no thought. But this flow may come at a cognitive cost. While design theory optimizes for usability and ease, neuroscience tells a different story: effort is not just another annoying bug of human learning, it is a feature. Studies in cognitive neuroscience suggest that when we exert effort, our brain responds by assigning greater subjective value to the task being performed (Inzlicht et al., 2017). These insights are echoed by behavioral research, that echo how demanding tasks lead to better learning (Shea & Morgan, 1979; Kornell & Bjork, 2008). Viewed through this lens, the very smoothness of the experience may mask
shallow cognitive processing and limited retention.
If effort makes a memory stick, it follows that the spaces where we think and act should not be friction-free either (Benedetti & Mauri, 2023). Interfaces, in this sense, are not glass panes to be polished until invisible; they are places where a slight bump or a deliberate pause can widen perception
instead of narrowing it.
In the pages that follow, we will treat the interface as just such a productive threshold: opaque enough to provoke reflection, yet open enough to invite passage, arguing that intentional friction is not a design flaw but a pre-condition for meaning. Building on this theoretical framing, we then turn to the
integration of error in the design of ludic systems, examining how instances of failure have been constructively incorporated into interactive experiences and how this practice has contributed to a broader reconceptualization of design principles. This discussion paves the way for a deeper inquiry
into the epistemological role of error within learning theories, highlighting how past research has called for a cultural and pedagogical shift toward the de-stigmatization of failure. Finally, the argument will turn to a neuroscientific perspective, offering examples of deliberately designed difficulties and exploring
their potential applications in neurorehabilitation, as well as the underlying neural mechanisms that process error and enable adaptive growth.
2. Complex thresholds
At the heart of digital interaction lies a theoretical knot that questions the very nature of experience:
the relationship between fluidity and resistance, between immediacy and articulation, between access and threshold. The interface, far from being a mere technical space connecting user and system, can be read as a phenomenological and ontological site where the quality of experience is decided. From
this perspective, the interface must be understood as a problematic threshold — opaque, riddled with setbacks that exposes the subject to a deferred, mediated, and not always intuitive relationship with information. The threshold, in this sense, is not simply a passage but a productive interruption, what
according to Derrida (2018) opens and at the same time defers meaning, compelling the subject to continuously renegotiate their relationship with the world.
The ideology of zero friction, which shapes much of contemporary design culture (Norman, 2013; Chen & Schmidt, 2024; Benedetti & Mauri, 2023), tends to suppress any moment of pause, resistance, or ambiguity. In the name of usability and so-called user-friendliness, it produces a domesticated
experience that privileges recognizability over the unexpected, predictability over discovery (Czerwinski, Horvitz & Wilhite, 2004). The transparency of the interface, idealized as the absence of obstacles, in fact conceals a regime of time and attention governance that structures experience
according to predictive and performative logics (Dieter & Gauthier, 2019). Rather than a neutral medium, the interface thus configures itself as a normative environment that directs the modes of appearance, making certain forms visible while excluding others, thereby regulating the threshold of the
possible (Dieter, 2024). In this tension, it becomes crucial to conceive the interface as a space of transindividual exposure, where the subject is not pre-given but is constituted in the relation and negotiation with the technical, symbolic, and affective forces that traverse it (Bottici, 2019).
To think of the interface as a threshold thus means to restore epistemic dignity to the obstacle (Dominici, 2023).
The threshold is not a dividing line but a liminal space of suspension and productive interruption. It calls for attentiveness and a willingness to stumble, delay, and renegotiate meaning.
Within the digital environment, interaction can thus be conceived not as seamless transit but as a layered process where friction is not a malfunction, but the very condition of cognitive experience. Its value is transformative: the point where the relation between subject and environment intensifies,
opening to interpretation and to the possibility of thought.
In a system that anticipates every gesture and molds content to prefigured desires, the space for uncertainty shrinks and the very possibility of a formative experience is lost. In a system where every deviation is immediately realigned with order, the subject is no longer involved in understanding but is
reduced to consumption. Functional transparency, while promising immediate access, hollows out interaction and neutralizes thought, denying knowledge its complex, nonlinear, and non-standardizable nature. Edgar Morin (2017) distinguishes complexity from chaos, defining it as an intelligibility that
embraces error, doubt, and ambivalence. Designing digital environments entails acknowledging resistance as an essential condition rather than pursuing seamless efficiency. The interface must sustain the tension between subject and world, where meaning arises from discontinuity and ambiguity.
Against the binary logic of computation, intentional friction emerges as a theoretical and design principle: not a defect to erase, but a dynamic rhythm through which understanding takes form.
Formative experience must necessarily pass through the threshold of cognitive irritation, that moment when the user pauses, fails to understand, and precisely for that reason is compelled to think (McCarthy & Wright, 2004). If by generative value we mean the capacity of a practice to produce epistemic or transformative outcomes through processes of friction that evoke effort, error, and reflection, then the digital can become a generative space only by renouncing the chimera of absolute transparency — a condition that is not neutrality, but a technical and political form of control (Agamben, 2009).
The interface, conceived as a complex threshold, thus becomes a place of co-construction between subject and world— not display, but laboratory; not corridor, but fold (Hookway, 2014). Within it, the ambivalence of digital experience is manifested: on the one hand, the power of computation and
connection; on the other, the necessity of leaving room for the unexpected, the erroneous, the resonant (Bødker, 2006). This interstitial space, often overlooked by the dominant paradigms of Human-Centered Design, is instead crucial for a theory of interaction that seeks to remain faithful to human complexity (Suthers, 2020). The aim is not to replace the centrality of the user with that of the system, but to acknowledge that the subject is constituted through relation with what resists them, with what cannot simply be “used” (Agamben, 2009).
Understood in this way, the interface does not merely convey information but structures experiences: it restores to digital interaction its formative function, wherein knowledge is constructed through the tension between immediacy and opacity, between access and friction.
2.1. Friction, Error, and Complexity: A Phenomenology of Digital Interaction
Error, then, is an expression of the complexity of complex systems (Dominici, 2023).
To fully understand the role that error and friction play in digital experience, one must move beyond the purely theoretical dimension. In this regard, online games offer an ideal laboratory for observing how friction and error can enhance engagement and stimulate reflection.
In online games, error is structurally embedded in the game’s very design. Developers create systems in which failure, game over, and uncertain choices become crucial for narrative and experience. Games like Dark Souls, known for their high difficulty, force the player to re-engage after
each fall. “Failure” does not simply return the subject to a starting point, but opens time to reflect on one’s actions, rethink strategy, and at times redefine one’s approach. Each fall becomes an opportunity to reassess strategies, learn from mistakes, and evolve within the game (Guzsvinecz & Szűcs, 2024).
Research on Dark Souls and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild highlights how error and friction in gameplay increase cognitive engagement and promote deeper interpretation (Väkevä et al., 2025; Arigayota et al., 2025; Andiloro, A., 2025). According to a study by Schell (2015), designed
difficulty sharpens attention to detail and strategic planning, making error not only tolerable but essential to the gaming experience.
The Stanley Parable represents another emblematic case in which error and friction do not hinder the experience but transform it into a moment of critical reflection. As José P. Zagal (2010) notes, the game subverts conventional logics of videogame design, questioning freedom and the possibility of
choice within a rigidly programmed system. The player’s decisions, though seemingly free, always lead to pre-defined outcomes, making error a structural and narrative component. As Miller et al. (2024) underscore, this tension between will and constraint turns friction into a cognitive resource, prompting
the player to question their role, expectations, and the meaning of action in regulated environments.
The concept of friction in online gaming thus goes beyond mere difficulty: it includes the tension between the player’s desire to progress and the game world’s resistance. That resistance becomes an integral part of the game’s logic, transforming each error into a resource for reflection. Intentional friction
in game design — manifested through waiting times, repeated failures, and ambiguous choices — serves to break the linearity of experience, introducing a complexity that stimulates not only reflection but also the player’s sense of agency (Van de Mosselaer & Gualeni, 2023). The perception of a world
that does not immediately adapt to one’s desire, but instead demands effort and perseverance, becomes a motivational engine that enriches the experience.
Friction emerges as a structural element of the gaming experience, in which difficulty, surprises, and stumbles do not obstruct the path but define its formative value. Even in seemingly simple games like Minecraft, where the player must manage limited resources and respond to a changing environment,
uncertainty remains central: error becomes an integral part of progression, a necessary tool for learning and advancement (Anderson et al., 2018). Within this framework, digital interaction moves away from the ideal of functional transparency and embraces complexity, transforming difficulty into a lever for
creativity, ingenuity, and exploration. As Deterding et al. (2011) point out, error in interactive environments represents a point of access to deeper forms of thought and nonlinear processes of understanding.
From online games emerges a new ecology of digital interaction that not only accepts error but seeks it out as an opportunity to explore a world governed by algorithms, avoiding reducing it to a mere machine for satisfying desires.
This view opens up a broader question: what kind of cognitive experience is fostered in environments where error and friction are balanced by a sense of challenge?
If the interface, conceived as threshold, introduces friction as a structuring element of cognitive experience, one can take a further step and consider the kind of flow the user experiences in contexts where the system is designed both to facilitate and to hinder.
If all complexity is removed, the experience of flow risks becoming hollow. As Csikszentmihalyi (1990/2021) and Abuhamdeh and Csikszentmihalyi (2012) demonstrate, genuine engagement arises from a balance between skill and challenge. In environments that are overly simplified, lacking obstacles
and uncertainty, the tension needed to stimulate attention, creativity, and learning is absent. The absence of friction does not facilitate the experience — it impoverishes it. The extreme simplification of the interface, though intended to ensure access and immediacy, ultimately strips away depth, making
not only learning but also authentic satisfaction — born from overcoming a limit — unlikely. Emotional reward is therefore diminished, as the player has no way to measure progress against meaningful challenges and competencies. When outcomes are too predictable, as in an unbalanced game, the
sense of challenge — and thus the emotional payoff — tends to disappear (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2012). When well calibrated, however, error and friction do not discourage the player but instead foster deeper concentration, greater engagement, and the gradual refinement of their skills
(Zhong, Y., et al., 2025).
Key elements of experience, then, error and friction — in complex digital environments such as gaming — outline a formative paradigm in which error, if navigated, becomes a threshold opening onto the depth of experience. From this vantage point, it becomes essential to investigate the conditions
under which error can foster transformation — not only within games, but also across culture, education, and pedagogical relationships.
3. Error as a transformative agent: a pedagogical and cultural perspective
Building on the context outlined so far, in which friction and error have been recognized as foundational elements of digital experience, it becomes possible to broaden the perspective on their transformative potential in educational and cultural contexts. The same applies in the personal sphere:
ignoring the value of deviation limits the possibilities for both personal and collective transformation.
It is not error itself that generates change, but its processing, which opens up new directions for thought and action.
The entrenchment of personal beliefs, habits, and unchallenged thoughts fuels the persistence of error, representing the central issue. Conversely, negative knowledge — based on a distorted understanding of processes or the misapplication of principles — can acquire heuristic value if it is the
result of iterative attempts and the will to change what appears dysfunctional (Pan et al., 2020).
The drive to solve problems motivates repeated experimentation through trial and error, where interests and attitudes act as stimuli for development. Acknowledging mistakes transforms them into valuable opportunities, whereas ignoring them risks undermining growth and change.
These observations emerge from numerous studies conducted in recent years (Pan et al., 2020; Geller et al., 2018; Metcalfe, 2017; Morehead et al., 2016) that highlight the importance of error in learning processes, emphasizing its methodological significance.
When recognized and analyzed, error becomes a catalyst for learning and a marker of a scientific stance toward inquiry. Continuous feedback reinforces error awareness, prompting revision of thoughts, behaviors, and interpretative frameworks, while the tension between expectations and outcomes fosters
intentional reflection.
This dynamic implies reflexive work that affects cognitive processes, reactivating the possibility of non-linear and situated knowledge (Fabbri & Romano, 2017), especially in relation to lived experience (Mezirow, 2003). Reflective analysis that navigates through error allows for questioning established
patterns, projecting new symbolic models.
This process demands commitment, consistency, attention, and patience, with time becoming essential for recognizing and resolving tensions between established knowledge and emerging understandings that enable new actions. Patience slows the pace of activity, restoring a livable
dimension to time and linking error intrinsically to temporal experience.
Andreoli (2023) interprets patience as a subjective form of time management, capable of distinguishing between error and failure. Time, understood in this way, influences action and affects the quality of relational and conflictual dynamics, where objectives, postures, and behaviors intertwine.
Lived time, laden with emotions, and patience, defined as "the mechanism that oversees the control of lived time" (Andreoli, 2023, p. 37), is central in reflective processes related to error. Recognizing mistakes thus opens up constructive and generative knowledge.
Pedagogical attention to the dynamics of failure, as illustrated by Kizilcik et al. (2021) and Lozano Parra et al. (2023), represents a crucial point in learning processes, especially in a context that prioritizes efficiency and performance. Recognizing what interrupts the linear flow of actions implies a
suspension: it requires time to reprocess, the ability to wait, and the willingness to re-act. In this perspective, the interval becomes a generative space, and patience acts as a regulatory principle of action (Andreoli, 2023).
The difficulty lies not in the error itself, but in the perceived insufficient time to deal with it, which makes it feared and inhibiting. Associated with vulnerability, it generates fear that influences actions, limiting initiative and autonomy. In educational and professional contexts, this fear manifests intensely,
transforming error into an impediment to performance, speed, and effectiveness — qualities deemed essential today.
Changing perspective, encouraging the recognition of error, means allowing oneself time to grow, anticipating mistakes without necessarily seeking justifications that, rather than solving problems, lead individuals to hide them, fostering a tendency to unconditionally accept error as an inevitable "stumble" that can lead to resignation, under the belief that similar situations will result in repeated mistakes.
However, striving to avoid errors, as Popper (1972) stated, is a petty ideal. Instead, errors should be embraced, with the conviction that they can offer alternative solutions and open up new possibilities for action.
Courage and human strength are also demonstrated in the ability to learn from one's mistakes.
Despite common beliefs, no one desires to err with the intention of learning, even though mistakes, like prejudices, are often inevitable, especially when undertaking new tasks. The shift in perspective regarding error is primarily a cultural matter.
It is incumbent upon educational institutions to promote a radical approach: error should not be punished but addressed collectively and discussed; a lesson can draw inspiration precisely from mistakes, which should not be attributed solely to students — teachers err as well! A school that
encourages students to recognize errors becomes a “critical center of society” (Perkinson, 1983, p.29), a place that promotes free thought and creativity, proactively fostering future actions and alternative solutions. Teachers who foster this process enrich students’ thinking, nurturing critical and creative
capacities beyond mere memorization. They engage learners in reflective inquiry, transforming knowledge into shared construction. A school that fails to use student and teacher errors as opportunities to collectively discuss problems from new perspectives homogenizes reasoning and
feelings, flattening and dulling students' creative resources, which are instead stimulated through dialogue about error (Antiseri, 1977; Perkinson, 1983).
Passive assimilation restricts intellectual autonomy; learning arises through discovery and co-construction, where dialogue and even misinterpretation become generative moments. These misunderstandings become resources capable of opening unexplored horizons and supporting free
intellectual activity, fueled by interests and motivations that also emerge in encounters with friction. This friction, stemming from conflicts between different interpretations of known information, becomes fertile ground for constructing new narratives, as it is precisely from distortions that they take shape (Lozano
Parra et al., 2023).
Imagination, creation, intellectually vibrant activity, reflection, sharing, and courageous interactions become principles and values of creative learning that, through a spiral process described by Resnick (2017), introduce new elements, raise unforeseen questions, and open intriguing research
perspectives.
Every individual should know how to make room for uncertainty and error, to dwell within them, because there are no entirely correct answers, just as there are no definitive actions or processes.
Uncertainty stimulates, urges, encourages, and predisposes one to error, making it acceptable as a natural component of the unexpected (Perkinson, 1983). This is the path education takes when teachers and students learn to make error an unforeseen opportunity for reflection in knowledge, an unplanned adventure in human culture that will allow each person to become a particular kind of individual, rather than an average person who, out of fear of making mistakes, settles for presumed truths and mediocrity.
3.1. Educational Potential of Error
Whether related to scientific and technological advancements or, conversely, denigrated to the point of being considered the outcome of a poorly conducted process, error possesses its own energy, capable of stimulating, propelling, and directing human actions. The vital charge that Baldini (1986)
attributes to error is clearly evident in the history of art and science, where great artists and scholars have produced significant works precisely in their attempts to overcome their mistakes. Equally significant are medical-scientific discoveries that arose almost by chance, often the result of efforts to
correct errors or side effects stemming from incorrect administrations.
Human evolution has progressed alongside error, drawing fundamental insights for advancement. It is therefore not unfounded to assert that errors have paved the way to truth, demonstrating how knowledge and culture develop precisely through the tension generated by missteps.
Popper's (1969) contribution allows us to revisit the constructive dialectic of problem-theory-critique.
The strength lies in identifying the questioning of outcomes not as final stages of a journey but as new beginnings of research. At every stage of these processes, errors can occur; it's in human nature and action that unforeseen and unexpected variables arise (the problem, to return to Popper). However,
these errors “are the load-bearing walls of our knowledge” (Baldini, 1986, p.21) when they prompt reflection, imagination, and the hypothesis of alternative possibilities and probable solutions to problems.
In the time of performance and immediacy, error takes on a strategic function: it does not slow down the cognitive process, but anchors it to the possibility of open knowledge, capable of rearticulating itself in its failures. They serve as signals, akin to “signposts indicating how close we are” (Baldini, 1986,
p.23) to the truth or the solution to the problem.
These essential yet precise considerations allow us to reclaim the fertility of error, a generative capacity not overlooked by scholars of science, history, and human thought. “In reality, errors are inevitable — in memories, testimonies, and any field of human activity. Error is one of the forms of our
thinking and acting” (Carofiglio, 2024).
The attempt to overcome errors becomes, in turn, an exercise in correction and self-correction, demonstrating that “recognizing errors shows that self-esteem can be maintained even in the presence of imperfections, flaws, and indeed, errors” (Carofiglio, 2024, p.43).
In this invitation not to view error solely negatively, we can also reclaim the cultural legacy of Maria Montessori. The educator from Chiaravalle, in fact, encouraged adopting a friendly and respectful attitude toward error. “Mr. Error,” as she used to call it in conversations with teachers, exists just as life
exists (Montessori, 1970). By virtue of this naturalness, error cannot be feared; rather, it must be welcomed, acknowledged, and discussed. Making room for error is undoubtedly demanding, yet it can also become a moment of encounter between differing positions and personal experiences (students
and teachers, the young and the old, experts and novices). The ability to reposition oneself, to re-read the error with the intention of learning, is above all a cultural issue; at the same time, it evokes a collaborative dimension that can unite rather than divide, when a group or class recognizes itself in a shared objective — namely, to change direction in light of the error.
In a society marked by individualism and narcissism, error and dialogue lose their generative force if the interhuman dimension is marginalized.
The time has come to liberate ourselves culturally from a widespread short-sightedness that rewards the individual at the expense of the community in which they live, shattering the very force that could, instead, distinguish every relationship, in the continuity of growth processes and in the weaving of human lives (Ponzo, 2025).
This view of error as a generative force is supported by neurobiological evidence, where friction and cognitive effort emerge as essential conditions for plastic activation and lasting memory.
4. Neuroscience of friction
Until now, we have explored the role of error as a formative resource and friction as an epistemological threshold. Today, cognitive neuroscience provides experimental confirmation: effort not only shapes behavior, it leaves marks in the brain. Neural tissue is metabolically voracious, so plastic
change is released only when the status quo becomes even more expensive than upgrading the circuitry. Very recent work links increased task demand to short-timescale, coordinated brain reconfiguration: this plasticity emerges as a necessary response to an internal model insufficient to
keep up with the external stimuli (Saviola et al., 2025). One brain region plays a pivotal role in this process: the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC), a region associated with conflict monitoring and control allocation. It shows increased activation during effortful learning and decision-making, reflecting a
computation of the “expected value of control”. This activation is not merely reactive, it plays a role in reinforcing behaviors by tagging them as significant (Shenhav et al., 2013; Holroyd & Yeung, 2012).
Effortful episodes are also more likely to enter long term memory (Lisman & Grace, 2005; Keiflin & Janak, 2015). This consolidation effect is supported by behavioral studies as well. In classic motor learning experiments, participants who trained under more cognitively demanding conditions, such as
interleaved rather than blocked practice, performed worse during training but significantly better on delayed tests (Shea & Morgan, 1979; Bjork & Bjork, 2011). This counterintuitive effect, replicated across domains (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007; Kornell & Bjork, 2008), illustrates how the discomfort of effort can
enhance engagement and retention, even when it feels less productive in the moment.
These mechanisms help us retain information that is either emotionally salient or cognitively demanding, reinforcing behaviors that required effort and making them more accessible for future retrieval and execution. Moreover, repeated demands on this region drive metabolic upshift and
microstructural growth, so that tackling the next hard task feels progressively less costly (Touroutoglou et al., 2020).
A lifespan perspective drives the point home. So called “super agers” (older adults who perform like adults 30 years younger) consistently show thicker cortex and tighter network connectivity in the ACC than their age matched peers (Gefen et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2012; Rogalski et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2016). The simplest reading is that decades of leaning into difficult tasks leave a morphological trace: the neural substrate of tenacity grows, resulting in healthier aging and better decision making.
This finding resonates with the learning science maxim of desirable difficulty, which holds that effortful tasks activate neuromodulatory cascades that tag experiences as “worth wiring” (Inzlicht et al., 2017). In this view, friction is not just cognitively enriching; it is biologically necessary. The challenge, therefore, is not to eradicate effort but to budget it wisely: rich enough to earn cortical interest, lean enough to avoid cognitive insolvency.
A great example of such fine-tuned friction can be found in the area of neurorehabilitation. After stroke, Traumatic Brain Injury or related, patients are usually sent home with paper-and-pencil drills whose difficulty is revised only at the next clinic visit. The result is predictable: tasks that feel trivial slow
the desired plastic change; tasks that feel impossible erode motivation and adherence.
Recent work replaces this fixed–dose model with adaptive protocols that keep challenge hovering around 60–80 % of the patient’s current capacity, a sweet spot that maximises engagement while avoiding discouragement (Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004; Winstein et al., 2014). In a four-week randomized
trial, a suite of computer-adaptive cognitive training adjusted the complexity of the puzzle after each response; participants in the adaptive arm outperformed an active control in processing speed (Soni et al., 2025).
Motor researchers have pushed the same idea further. Carmeli and colleagues used a 3-D robotic exoskeleton that exaggerates each trajectory error with velocity-dependent force fields; the larger the miss, the stronger the “push” away from the target. Compared with conventional rehabilitation therapy,
error augmentation increased significantly motor metrics, with smoother movements over successive trials (Carmeli et al., 2023). Complementary modeling work shows that intermittently withholding feedback can also strengthen the internal error signal and improve long term retention (Parmar &
Patton, 2024).
In all of these studies, a common principle emerges: Rehabilitation is most effective when the interface refuses to oversimplify, when it poses just enough resistance to keep the cost–benefit meter engaged and the patient’s effort optimal.
5. Conclusion
The swipe that opened this essay now returns as a mirror: every time the finger meets no resistance, a decision disappears from consciousness. What looks like the crowning achievement of Human Centered Design, interaction stripped of pause, doubt, or drag, also erodes the very cognitive work that
grants choices their depth. Over the previous pages we have traced how this erosion unfolds on multiple planes: first, in the neuroscience of the ACC, where even a whisper of effort boosts salience and memory; next, in a phenomenological reading of the interface as a threshold, whose opacity can
enhance meaning rather than block it; then, in game worlds that convert failure and friction into engines of sustained engagement; and finally, in pedagogical theory, where error is recast as a prerequisite for genuine learning. Taken together, these perspectives suggest that “zero friction” design, while seductive, can backfire cognitively, ethically, and politically, rendering users more predictable, less reflective, and easier to steer within what Zuboff calls the behavioral “means of production” of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019). Intentional friction, by contrast, emerges as a design stance that
safeguards agency, complexity, and democratic possibility, echoing recent calls for intentional friction in interaction design practice (Benedetti & Mauri, 2023), which recent neurobiological findings now substantiate.
We argue that agency can be restored through educative cognitive nudges, subtle interface moves that safeguard users’ epistemic autonomy without blocking access or dictating outcomes. Examples include concise deliberation prompts, intentionally “frictive” default settings, and brief, well timed
pauses. Although the term “nudge” often carries a negative connotation of covert manipulation (Kozyreva et al., 2020), such interventions can be deployed transparently to serve users’ epistemic interests, helping them better understand, and critically engage with, the tools they use. Designing for
constructive friction, then, promises not only deeper learning and memory but also a partial restoration of the democratic character of digital public space (Zuboff, 2019).
At the same time, friction is not unconditionally positive: excessive resistance risks discouraging use, reducing accessibility, or creating barriers. The challenge is to calibrate it so it stimulates reflection without overwhelming the user. A useful parallel comes from behavioral research on the “IKEA effect”
(Norton et al. 2012): when people invest effort in assembling furniture, they come to value it more. In interface design, requiring small, intentional actions, such as customizing a profile or composing a short reflection before posting, can similarly increase users’ sense of ownership and meaning, without
blocking access or causing frustration.
The shift, then, is from design as facilitation to design as negotiation: of attention, of time, of interpretive agency. This implies a reframing of usability standards: rather than measuring success solely in terms of clicks, through rates or session durations, we must evaluate whether a system
encourages reflective engagement, diverse perspectives, and cognitive resilience. Friction, when wielded wisely, is not a barrier but a boundary condition for thinking, for acting, and for becoming in the digital era.
Author Contributions
This article is the result of a joint research effort and a shared process of intellectual elaboration.
For the purpose of authorship clarification, however, paragraphs 3 and 3.1 to Agnese Rosati; paragraphs 2 and 2.1 are to be attributed to Keren Ponzo and paragraph 4, along with the introduction and conclusion, to Leonardo Silvagni.
References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). The importance of challenge for the enjoyment of intrinsically motivated, goal-directed activities Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 317-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427147
Agamben, G. (2009). Che cos’è un dispositivo? Torino: Nottetempo.
Anderson, C., Dalsen, J., Kumar, V., Berland, M., & Steinkuehler, C. (2018). Failing up: How failure in a game environment promotes learning through discourse. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.002
Andiloro, A. (2025). Death as Design: Video Games and the Framing of Finitude. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-025-10085-4
Andreoli, V. (2023). Pazienza. Raccontare la vita. Emozioni, sentimenti, pensieri. Milano: RCS.
Antiseri, D. (1977). Epistemologia e didattica delle scienze. Roma: Armando.
Arigayota, A., Duffek, B., Hou, C., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2025). Effects of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Studio Ghibli Films on Young People’s Sense of Exploration, Calm, Mastery and Skill, Purpose and Meaning, and Overall Happiness in Life: Exploratory Randomized Controlled
Study. JMIR Serious Games, 13, e76522. https://doi.org/10.2196/76522
Baldini, M. (1986). Epistemologia e pedagogia dell’errore. Brescia: La Scuola editrice.
Benedetti, A., & Mauri, M. (2023). Design for friction: A literature review on “friction” as a method for reflection in design interventions. Convergences - Journal of Research and Arts Education, 16. https://doi.org/10.53681/c1514225187514391s.31.139.
Bjork, E., & Bjork, R. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (pp. 1–8). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476.
Bottici, C. (2019). Imagination, Imaginary, Imaginal: Towards a New Social Ontology? Social Epistemology, 33(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1652861.
Carmeli, E., Kessel, S., Bartur, G., & Lavidor, M. (2023). Enhancing post-stroke rehabilitation using error augmentation: A robotic exoskeleton study. NeuroRehabilitation, 52(4), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.12720.
Carofiglio, G. (2024). Elogio dell’ignoranza e dell’errore. Torino: Einaudi.
Chen, J., & Schmidt, L. (2024). Positive friction for responsible AI: Encouraging deliberation through interaction design. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09683.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2021). Flow. Psicologia dell’esperienza ottimale. Roma: ROI Edizioni.
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 175-182). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985715.
Derrida, J. (2018). La disseminazione (M. Odorici, Trad.; S. Petrosino, A cura di). Milano: Jaca Book. (Opera originale pubblicata nel 1972).
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040.
Dominici, P. (2023). Oltre i cigni neri. L’urgenza di aprirsi all’indeterminato. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Fabbri, L., & Romano, A. (2017). Metodi per l’apprendimento trasformativo. Casi, modelli, teorie. Roma: Carocci.
Gefen, T., Gillingham, J., Bogdanovic, M., Weintraub, S., & Rogalski, E. (2014). Longitudinal neuropsychological performance of cognitive SuperAgers. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(8), 1598–1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12967.
Geller, J., Toftness, A.R., Armstrong, P.I., Carpenter, S. K., Manz, C.L., Coffman, C.R., & Lamm, M.H. (2018). Study strategies and beliefs about learning as a function of academic achievement and achievement goals. Memory, 26(5), 683-690. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1397175.
Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.
Harrison, T. M., Weintraub, S., Mesulam, M.-M., & Rogalski, E. (2012). Superior memory and higher cortical volumes in unusually successful cognitive aging. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(6), 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712000847.
Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.008
Hookway, B. (2014). Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A., & Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007.
Kizilcik, H. S., Aygün, M., Sahin, E., Önder-Çelikkanli, N., Türk, O., Taskin, T., & Günes, A. (2021). Possible misconceptions about solid friction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17, 023107. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023107.
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707.
Lai, T., & Zhang, J. (2021). The influence of signaling on the disfluency effect in multimedia learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 755804. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755804..
Lisman, J. E., & Grace, A. A. (2005). The hippocampal-VTA loop: Controlling the entry of information into long-term memory. Neuron, 46(5), 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.05.002
Lozano Parra, S., Wansink, B. G., Bakker, C., & van Liere, L. M. (2023). Teachers stepping up their game in the face of extreme statements: A qualitative analysis of educational friction when teaching sensitive topics. Theory & Research in Social Education, 51(2), 201-232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2145923.
McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 465-489.
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63.
Miller, K., Smith, J., & Thompson, L. (2024). A design framework for reflective play. White Rose ResearchOnline.https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642455
Montessori, M. (1970). La mente del bambino. Milano: Garzanti.
Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G., & Delozier, S. (2016). Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies. Memory, 24(2), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.1001992.
Morin, E. (2017). La sfida della complessità (Edizione italiana). Roma: Le Lettere.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2011). The “IKEA effect”: When labor leads to love (Working Paper No. 11-091). Harvard Business School. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1777100
Pan, C. S., Sana, F., Samani, J., Cooke, J., & Kim, J. A. (2020). Learning from errors: Students’ and instructors’ practices, attitudes, and beliefs. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1815790.
Parmar, G., & Patton, J. L. (2024). Withholding feedback to enhance motor learning: Modeling internal error signal retention. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 32, 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00051.2024.
Perkinson, H. J. (1983). Didattica dell’errore. Aspetti pedagogici del pensiero di K.R. Popper (Traduzione italiana). Roma: Armando.
Ponzo, K. (2025). La forza delle relazioni nei processi di crescita e vita umana. In A. Rosati (Ed.), RM by education. Il Reverse Mentoring come strategia educative e collaborativa (pp. 59-86). Perugia: Morlacchi Editore U.P.
Popper, K. R. (1969). Problemi, scopi e responsabilità delle scienze. Torino: Einaudi.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rogalski, E., Gefen, T., Shi, J., Samimi, M., Bigio, E., Weintraub, S., & Mesulam, M.-M. (2013). Youthful memory capacity in old brains: Anatomic and genetic clues from the Northwestern SuperAging project. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00300.
Saviola, F., Tambalo, S., Beghini, L., Ferrari, A., Cassone, B., Van De Ville, D., & Jovicich, J. (2025). Disentangling metabolic and neurovascular timescales supporting cognitive processes. PNAS, 122(39), e2506513122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2506513122
Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007
Soni, A. K., Kumar, M., & Kothari, S. (2025). Efficacy of home based computerized adaptive cognitive training on patients with post stroke cognitive impairment: A randomized controlled trial. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 1072.
Sun, F. W., Stepanovic, M. R., Andreano, J., Barrett, L. F., Touroutoglou, A., & Dickerson, B. C. (2016). Youthful brains in older adults: Preserved neuroanatomy in the default mode and salience networks contributes to youthful memory in SuperAgers. Journal of Neuroscience,
36(37), 9659–9668. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1492-16.2016.
Suthers, D. D. (2020). From contingencies to constraints: A process ontology for learning sciences. Computers & Education, 148, 103799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103799
Touroutoglou, A., Andreano, J. M., Barrett, L. F., & Dickerson, B. C. (2020). The anterior cingulate cortex and effort-based decision-making in humans: A metabolic model. Cerebral Cortex, 30(1), 230–242.
Väkevä, J., Hämäläinen, P., & Lindqvist, J. (2025). “Don’t You Dare Go Hollow”: How Dark Souls Helps Players Cope with Depression — A Thematic Analysis of Reddit Discussions. In Proceedings of CHI 2025. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3714075
Van de Mosselaer, N., & Gualeni, S. (2023). The implied designer of digital games. Estetika: The European Journal of Aesthetics, 60(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.33134/eeja.303
Winstein, C. J., Kim, B., Kim, S., Martinez, C., Schweighofer, N., & Reinkensmeyer, D. J. (2014). Enhancing motor learning through optimal challenge: Motor rehabilitation principles from the OPTIMAL theory. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 38(3), 125–135. DOI:
10.1097/NPT.0000000000000046
Zagal, J. P. (2010). Ludoliteracy: Defining, understanding, and supporting games education. ETC Press. Paper 4. http://repository.cmu.edu/etcpress/4 ISBN 978-0-557-27791-9
Zhong, Y., Fryer, L., Zheng, S., Shum, A., & Chu, S. (2025). From gaming to reality: Effectiveness of skills transfer from competitive sandbox gaming environment to near and far contexts. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.