cbrowser 16.7.0 → 16.7.2

package/docs/traits/Trait-AnchoringBias.md

@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+# Anchoring Bias
+
+**Category**: Tier 3 - Decision-Making Traits
+**Scale**: 0.0 (low susceptibility) to 1.0 (high susceptibility)
+
+## Definition
+
+Anchoring Bias describes the cognitive tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information encountered (the "anchor") when making subsequent judgments, even when that anchor is arbitrary or irrelevant. In web contexts, this trait affects how users perceive prices (relative to initial prices shown), estimate quantities (based on default values), evaluate quality (influenced by first reviews seen), and process numerical information generally. High-anchoring users' judgments drift strongly toward initial values; low-anchoring users adjust more completely from anchors toward rational estimates.
+
+## Research Foundation
+
+### Primary Citation
+
+> "In many situations, people make estimates by starting from an initial value that is adjusted to yield the final answer... adjustments are typically insufficient. That is, different starting points yield different estimates, which are biased toward the initial values."
+> — Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, p. 1128
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. *Science, 185*(4157), 1124-1131.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
+
+### The Wheel Experiment
+
+The landmark demonstration of anchoring:
+
+> "Subjects were asked to estimate various quantities, stated in percentages (for example, the percentage of African countries in the United Nations). A wheel of fortune with numbers 1-100 was spun in subjects' presence. Subjects were first asked whether the quantity was higher or lower than the number on the wheel, and then asked for their estimate. The arbitrary number had a marked effect on estimates."
+> — Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, p. 1128
+
+**Key Finding:**
+- When the wheel stopped at **10**: Median estimate of African UN countries = **25%**
+- When the wheel stopped at **65**: Median estimate of African UN countries = **45%**
+- The anchor shifted estimates by **20 percentage points** despite being completely random
+
+### Key Numerical Values
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| Low anchor (10) -> estimate | 25% | Tversky & Kahneman (1974) |
+| High anchor (65) -> estimate | 45% | Tversky & Kahneman (1974) |
+| Anchor effect size | 20 percentage points | Tversky & Kahneman (1974) |
+| Real estate listing anchor effect | $11,000-14,000 | Northcraft & Neale (1987) |
+| Price anchor persistence | 48+ hours | Ariely et al. (2003) |
+| Anchor effect on WTP (willingness to pay) | 60-120% | Ariely et al. (2003) |
+| Expert susceptibility (real estate agents) | Nearly equal to amateurs | Northcraft & Neale (1987) |
+
+## Behavioral Levels
+
+| Value | Label | Behaviors |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 0.0-0.2 | Anchor Resistant | Largely ignores suggested values; makes independent estimates; skeptical of "was/now" pricing; compares across sources before forming judgments; resets expectations when context changes |
+| 0.2-0.4 | Low Susceptibility | Acknowledges anchors but adjusts significantly; cross-references prices and ratings; somewhat influenced by defaults but overrides when motivated; moderate adjustment from starting points |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate Susceptibility | Noticeable anchor influence; accepts default form values frequently; price perception shaped by strikethrough prices; rating expectations set by first reviews; partial adjustment from anchors |
+| 0.6-0.8 | High Susceptibility | Strong anchor influence on judgments; "was $99, now $49" highly persuasive; first review strongly shapes opinion; default values rarely changed; limited adjustment from starting points |
+| 0.8-1.0 | Extreme Susceptibility | Anchors dominate judgment; original prices define value perception; first information encountered becomes truth; almost never changes default values; minimal adjustment regardless of evidence |
+
+## Web Behavior Patterns
+
+### Price Perception
+
+**Anchor-Resistant (0.0-0.3):**
+- Ignores "was/now" strikethrough pricing
+- Compares prices across multiple sites
+- Uses price history tools
+- Skeptical of "limited time" claims
+- Values absolute price over relative discount
+
+**Highly Anchored (0.7-1.0):**
+- "Was $200, now $99" feels like genuine 50% savings
+- First price seen sets value expectation
+- MSRP anchors all discount evaluations
+- Higher anchor makes actual price seem reasonable
+- "Compare at $150" influences perception
+
+### Form Default Values
+
+**Anchor-Resistant:**
+- Reviews and changes default selections
+- Calculates appropriate values independently
+- Questions why defaults are set as they are
+- Changes tip percentages from suggested amounts
+
+**Highly Anchored:**
+- Accepts pre-filled values as appropriate
+- Uses suggested donation amounts
+- Leaves tip percentage at first option
+- Rarely modifies quantity defaults (qty: 1)
+
+### Rating and Review Perception
+
+**Anchor-Resistant:**
+- Reads multiple reviews before forming opinion
+- Weights recent reviews appropriately
+- Discounts extreme first impressions
+- Considers review distribution not just average
+
+**Highly Anchored:**
+- First review shapes product perception
+- Initial star rating becomes expected quality
+- Early negative review creates lasting negative impression
+- "Featured review" disproportionately influential
+
+### Numerical Estimation
+
+**Anchor-Resistant:**
+- Makes independent estimates before seeing suggestions
+- Recognizes irrelevant numbers as manipulation
+- Adjusts fully when given new information
+
+**Highly Anchored:**
+- "Enter amount: $100" influences donation amount
+- Suggested search refinements affect query
+- Countdown timers affect urgency perception
+- "X people are viewing this" shapes demand perception
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+| Related Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
+|--------------|-------------|-----------|
+| [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) | r = -0.22 | Understanding enables anchor recognition |
+| [Risk Tolerance](Trait-RiskTolerance) | r = 0.18 | Risk-takers may use anchors as shortcuts |
+| [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) | r = 0.35 | Satisficers accept anchored "good enough" values |
+| [Self-Efficacy](Trait-SelfEfficacy) | r = -0.24 | Confidence enables independent judgment |
+| [Trust Calibration](Trait-TrustCalibration) | r = -0.31 | Skeptics question anchor validity |
+| [Authority Sensitivity](Trait-AuthoritySensitivity) | r = 0.38 | Authority-sensitive users accept suggested values |
+
+## Persona Values
+
+| Persona | Anchoring Bias Value | Rationale |
+|---------|---------------------|-----------|
+| **Elderly Novice** | 0.80 | Trusts displayed values as authoritative |
+| **Distracted Teen** | 0.70 | Quick processing relies on anchors |
+| **First-Time User** | 0.65 | Lacks context for independent judgment |
+| **Overwhelmed Parent** | 0.60 | Cognitive load increases heuristic use |
+| **Anxious User** | 0.55 | Uncertainty increases anchor reliance |
+| **Careful Senior** | 0.45 | Methodical but still susceptible |
+| **Rushed Professional** | 0.50 | Time pressure increases anchoring |
+| **Power User** | 0.30 | Experience provides comparison context |
+| **Tech Enthusiast** | 0.25 | Research habits reduce anchor influence |
+
+## Design Implications
+
+### Ethical Anchoring
+
+1. **Reasonable defaults** - Pre-fill values that genuinely help users
+2. **Accurate original prices** - Show real previous prices, not inflated MSRPs
+3. **Balanced review display** - Don't always show extreme reviews first
+4. **Transparent suggestions** - Explain why values are suggested
+
+### Dark Pattern Awareness
+
+Sites exploit anchoring through:
+- Inflated "original" prices
+- Extreme high-anchor subscription tiers ("Enterprise: $999/mo")
+- Pre-selected quantities or options
+- Artificially high "compare at" prices
+- Suggested tip amounts that anchor high
+
+### Testing Considerations
+
+CBrowser tests should verify:
+- Users aren't manipulated by arbitrary anchors
+- Default values are genuinely helpful
+- Price presentations are honest
+- Review ordering is fair
+
+## Measurement in CBrowser
+
+```typescript
+// Anchoring affects value perception and defaults
+function perceiveValue(
+  displayedPrice: number,
+  originalPrice: number | null,
+  traits: Traits
+): PerceivedValue {
+  if (originalPrice === null) {
+    return { value: displayedPrice, confidence: 'neutral' };
+  }
+
+  const discount = (originalPrice - displayedPrice) / originalPrice;
+  const anchorInfluence = discount * traits.anchoringBias;
+
+  // Highly anchored users perceive more value from discount framing
+  const perceivedValue = displayedPrice * (1 - anchorInfluence * 0.5);
+
+  return {
+    value: perceivedValue,
+    confidence: anchorInfluence > 0.3 ? 'good-deal' : 'neutral',
+    likelyToPurchase: anchorInfluence > 0.4
+  };
+}
+
+// Default value acceptance
+function modifyDefault(defaultValue: number, optimalValue: number, traits: Traits): number {
+  // High anchoring = accept default; low = adjust to optimal
+  const adjustment = (optimalValue - defaultValue) * (1 - traits.anchoringBias);
+  return defaultValue + adjustment;
+}
+```
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) - Anchors provide quick "good enough" answers
+- [Trust Calibration](Trait-TrustCalibration) - Skepticism of anchor validity
+- [Authority Sensitivity](Trait-AuthoritySensitivity) - Suggested values as authority
+- [Self-Efficacy](Trait-SelfEfficacy) - Confidence to form independent judgments
+- [Time Horizon](Trait-TimeHorizon) - Time pressure increases anchoring
+- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index) - Trait combinations in personas
+
+## Bibliography
+
+Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). "Coherent arbitrariness": Stable demand curves without stable preferences. *The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118*(1), 73-106. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535153
+
+Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. *The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40*(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008
+
+Kahneman, D. (2011). *Thinking, fast and slow*. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
+
+Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39*(1), 84-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-X
+
+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

package/docs/traits/Trait-AttributionStyle.md

@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+# Attribution Style
+
+**Category**: Tier 3 - Decision-Making Traits
+**Scale**: 0.0 (external attribution) to 1.0 (internal attribution)
+
+## Definition
+
+Attribution Style describes how individuals explain the causes of events, particularly successes and failures. Based on Weiner's attribution theory, this trait encompasses three dimensions: locus (internal vs. external), stability (permanent vs. temporary), and controllability (within vs. outside one's control). In web contexts, attribution style profoundly affects how users interpret errors, form reactions to interface difficulties, persist through challenges, and develop self-efficacy with technology. Internal attributors take responsibility for outcomes ("I must have clicked wrong"); external attributors assign blame elsewhere ("This website is broken").
+
+## Research Foundation
+
+### Primary Citation
+
+> "An attributional theory of motivation and emotion is presented that includes the following sequence: following an outcome, an attribution or causal search is initiated to determine why the particular event has occurred. Causes are then identified within a three-dimensional space that includes locus, stability, and controllability."
+> — Weiner, 1985, p. 548
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. *Psychological Review, 92*(4), 548-573.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
+
+### Three Dimensions of Attribution
+
+| Dimension | Poles | Example (Failed Task) |
+|-----------|-------|----------------------|
+| **Locus** | Internal vs External | "I made an error" vs "The site is confusing" |
+| **Stability** | Stable vs Unstable | "I'm bad with computers" vs "I wasn't focused" |
+| **Controllability** | Controllable vs Uncontrollable | "I should have read instructions" vs "The button was hidden" |
+
+### Supporting Research
+
+> "Students who attributed failure to lack of effort (internal, unstable, controllable) showed more persistence and improved performance compared to those who attributed failure to lack of ability (internal, stable, uncontrollable)."
+> — Weiner, 1986, p. 163
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Weiner, B. (1986). *An attributional theory of motivation and emotion*. Springer-Verlag.
+
+### Key Numerical Values
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| Internal attribution -> higher persistence | r = 0.38 | Weiner (1985) |
+| External attribution -> lower self-efficacy | r = -0.42 | Bandura (1977) |
+| Controllable attribution -> task engagement | r = 0.45 | Weiner (1985) |
+| Stable-external attribution -> learned helplessness | 3x higher | Seligman (1975) |
+| User blame of self for computer errors | 40-60% | Nass et al. (1996) |
+| User blame of system for objectively user errors | 30% | Nielsen (1993) |
+| Attribution pattern affects retry behavior | 2.3x difference | Oulasvirta & Saariluoma (2004) |
+
+## Behavioral Levels
+
+| Value | Label | Behaviors |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 0.0-0.2 | Strong External | Always blames website/app for failures; "This is broken"; reports bugs for user errors; low persistence after failure; expects system to adapt to them; rarely considers own actions as cause; requests support frequently |
+| 0.2-0.4 | External-Leaning | Usually attributes problems to system; "Confusing interface"; may acknowledge own role sometimes; moderate persistence; prefers step-by-step guidance; expects clear error messages |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Balanced Attribution | Considers both system and self factors; "Maybe I misclicked or the button is unclear"; reasonable persistence; reflects on actions; provides balanced feedback; adapts behavior based on outcomes |
+| 0.6-0.8 | Internal-Leaning | Takes responsibility for most outcomes; "I probably missed something"; high persistence; reads instructions when stuck; self-blames for system issues sometimes; may excuse poor design |
+| 0.8-1.0 | Strong Internal | Attributes almost all outcomes to self; "I should have been more careful"; excessive self-blame for system failures; very high persistence (sometimes counterproductive); may not report genuine bugs; apologizes for system errors |
+
+## Web Behavior Patterns
+
+### Error Handling
+
+**External Attributors (0.0-0.3):**
+- Immediately assume system fault
+- Click "Report Bug" for user errors
+- Low retry attempts after failure
+- Demand support quickly
+- Negative reviews citing "broken" features
+- Switch to competitor after difficulties
+
+**Internal Attributors (0.7-1.0):**
+- Assume own mistake first
+- Re-read instructions before reporting
+- Multiple retry attempts with variations
+- Search help documentation
+- Blame self for unclear interfaces
+- May accept poor UX as personal limitation
+
+### Form Completion
+
+**External Attributors:**
+- Blame validation for rejected inputs
+- Frustrated by format requirements
+- "Why won't it accept my information?"
+- Abandon after validation errors
+- Expect system to handle any input format
+
+**Internal Attributors:**
+- Double-check own input after errors
+- Read format hints carefully
+- Assume they entered something wrong
+- Try multiple formats to succeed
+- May not notice genuinely poor validation
+
+### Learning and Onboarding
+
+**External Attributors:**
+- Expect intuitive design, no learning
+- Skip tutorials ("should be obvious")
+- Blame interface when lost
+- Request features that exist but weren't found
+- Low investment in learning
+
+**Internal Attributors:**
+- Complete tutorials thoroughly
+- Take notes and bookmark help
+- Practice until competent
+- Assume complexity is earned
+- May over-invest in learning simple features
+
+### Feedback and Reviews
+
+**External Attributors:**
+- "This app is terrible"
+- "Doesn't work as advertised"
+- "Worst UX ever designed"
+- Focus on system shortcomings
+- 1-star reviews for friction
+
+**Internal Attributors:**
+- "I'm still learning the interface"
+- "Once you figure it out, it's great"
+- "Steep learning curve but worth it"
+- Focus on own progress
+- Forgiving ratings despite issues
+
+## Attribution Combinations
+
+The three dimensions create distinct patterns:
+
+| Pattern | Locus | Stability | Control | Behavior |
+|---------|-------|-----------|---------|----------|
+| **Helplessness** | External | Stable | Uncontrollable | "Technology hates me. Always will. Nothing I can do." Abandons quickly. |
+| **Frustration** | External | Unstable | Uncontrollable | "This site is having problems today." Retries later. |
+| **Blame** | External | Stable | Controllable | "Developers made this confusing on purpose." Hostile feedback. |
+| **Growth** | Internal | Unstable | Controllable | "I wasn't focused. I'll try again carefully." High persistence. |
+| **Fixed Mindset** | Internal | Stable | Uncontrollable | "I'm just not good with technology." Low self-efficacy. |
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+| Related Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
+|--------------|-------------|-----------|
+| [Self-Efficacy](Trait-SelfEfficacy) | r = 0.52 | Internal attribution builds confidence |
+| [Persistence](Trait-Persistence) | r = 0.41 | Internal + controllable = retry motivation |
+| [Resilience](Trait-Resilience) | r = 0.38 | Attribution style affects recovery |
+| [Trust Calibration](Trait-TrustCalibration) | r = -0.26 | External attributors distrust systems |
+| [Patience](Trait-Patience) | r = 0.23 | Internal attributors invest patience in self-improvement |
+| [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) | r = 0.19 | Understanding reduces need for external blame |
+
+## Persona Values
+
+| Persona | Attribution Style Value | Rationale |
+|---------|------------------------|-----------|
+| **Anxious User** | 0.75 | Tends toward self-blame, anxiety heightens internal focus |
+| **Careful Senior** | 0.65 | Methodical approach, takes responsibility |
+| **Tech Enthusiast** | 0.60 | Experience enables balanced attribution |
+| **Power User** | 0.55 | Balanced - knows when systems fail vs user error |
+| **First-Time User** | 0.50 | Uncertain whether self or system at fault |
+| **Elderly Novice** | 0.45 | May blame self ("I'm too old") or system variably |
+| **Overwhelmed Parent** | 0.40 | Cognitive load reduces self-monitoring |
+| **Rushed Professional** | 0.35 | Time pressure leads to blaming friction |
+| **Distracted Teen** | 0.30 | External focus, expects seamless experience |
+
+## Design Implications
+
+### For External Attributors
+
+1. **Clear error messages** - Explain what went wrong and why
+2. **Guided recovery** - Don't just say "error," show the fix
+3. **Blame-free language** - "Let's try again" not "You entered invalid data"
+4. **Visible affordances** - Make interactive elements obvious
+5. **Undo everywhere** - Allow easy recovery from mistakes
+
+### For Internal Attributors
+
+1. **Don't hide system issues** - Acknowledge when it's not their fault
+2. **Status indicators** - Show system state to reduce self-blame
+3. **Celebrate success** - Reinforce that they're doing it right
+4. **Appropriate feedback** - Help them calibrate self-assessment
+5. **Report mechanisms** - Make it easy to report actual bugs
+
+### Error Message Design
+
+**Poor (blames user):**
+- "Invalid input"
+- "Error: Try again"
+- "Access denied"
+
+**Better (neutral/helpful):**
+- "Please enter a valid email address (e.g., name@example.com)"
+- "Connection interrupted. Click to retry."
+- "This feature requires login. Sign in to continue."
+
+## Measurement in CBrowser
+
+```typescript
+// Attribution affects error response and persistence
+function respondToError(error: UIError, traits: Traits): UserResponse {
+  // Internal attribution = assume user error, retry
+  // External attribution = assume system error, complain or abandon
+
+  const internalAttribution = traits.attributionStyle;
+  const perceivedAsSelf = random() < internalAttribution;
+
+  if (perceivedAsSelf) {
+    // Internal: retry with modified approach
+    return {
+      action: 'retry',
+      approach: 'careful',
+      persistenceBoost: 0.2,
+      feedback: null
+    };
+  } else {
+    // External: evaluate stability
+    const perceivedAsStable = random() > 0.5;
+
+    if (perceivedAsStable) {
+      return {
+        action: 'abandon',
+        approach: null,
+        persistenceBoost: -0.3,
+        feedback: 'negative_review'
+      };
+    } else {
+      return {
+        action: 'retry_later',
+        approach: 'default',
+        persistenceBoost: -0.1,
+        feedback: null
+      };
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+// Attribution affects bug reporting behavior
+function decideToBugReport(issue: Issue, traits: Traits): boolean {
+  // External attributors report more (even user errors)
+  // Internal attributors report less (even genuine bugs)
+  const baseReportRate = issue.isActualBug ? 0.5 : 0.1;
+  const attributionModifier = (0.5 - traits.attributionStyle) * 0.4;
+
+  return random() < (baseReportRate + attributionModifier);
+}
+```
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Self-Efficacy](Trait-SelfEfficacy) - Confidence in ability to succeed
+- [Persistence](Trait-Persistence) - Continued effort after setbacks
+- [Resilience](Trait-Resilience) - Recovery from failures
+- [Trust Calibration](Trait-TrustCalibration) - Trust in system reliability
+- [Interrupt Recovery](Trait-InterruptRecovery) - Resumption after disruption
+- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index) - Trait combinations in personas
+
+## Bibliography
+
+Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. *Psychological Review, 84*(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
+
+Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29*(5), 1093-1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00142.x
+
+Nielsen, J. (1993). *Usability engineering*. Academic Press.
+
+Oulasvirta, A., & Saariluoma, P. (2004). Long-term working memory and interrupting messages in human-computer interaction. *Behaviour & Information Technology, 23*(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001643033
+
+Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). *Helplessness: On depression, development, and death*. W. H. Freeman.
+
+Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. *Psychological Review, 92*(4), 548-573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
+
+Weiner, B. (1986). *An attributional theory of motivation and emotion*. Springer-Verlag.
+
+Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. *Educational Psychology Review, 12*(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009017532121

package/docs/traits/Trait-AuthoritySensitivity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Authority Sensitivity
+
+**Category**: Tier 6 - Social Traits
+**Scale**: 0.0 (low) to 1.0 (high)
+
+## Definition
+
+Authority Sensitivity measures the degree to which a user's behavior is influenced by perceived authority figures, expert endorsements, or institutional credibility signals. Users high in this trait readily comply with instructions, recommendations, or interface elements that convey authority (badges, certifications, expert testimonials, official logos), often accepting them without critical evaluation. Users low in this trait question authority-based appeals, seek independent verification, and may actively resist institutional pressure, sometimes to the point of reactance against authoritative messaging.
+
+## Research Foundation
+
+### Primary Citation
+
+> "A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority."
+> - Stanley Milgram, 1963, p. 377
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. *Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67*(4), 371-378.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
+
+### Supporting Research
+
+> "The power of authority is so great that once it is accepted, people often suspend their own judgment."
+> - Robert B. Cialdini, 2001, p. 208
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Cialdini, R. B. (2001). *Influence: Science and practice* (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
+
+### Key Numerical Values
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| Obedience rate (max voltage) | 65% | Milgram (1963) |
+| Voltage administered (mean) | 405V of 450V | Milgram (1963) |
+| Authority proximity effect | 62.5% (proximal) vs 20.5% (remote) | Milgram (1965) |
+| Expert endorsement persuasion boost | +28% conversion | Cialdini (2001) |
+| Institutional legitimacy threshold | 3+ credibility signals | Fogg (2003) |
+| Cross-cultural replication rate | 61-85% obedience | Blass (1999) |
+
+## Behavioral Levels
+
+| Value | Label | Behaviors |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 0.0-0.2 | Very Low | Actively distrusts authority-based appeals; ignores expert badges and certifications; seeks third-party verification before trusting claims; may experience psychological reactance against authoritative messaging; questions "official" sources; prefers peer reviews over expert endorsements; skeptical of institutional logos and seals |
+| 0.2-0.4 | Low | Notices authority signals but doesn't weight them heavily; verifies expert credentials independently; cross-references claims with multiple sources; moderately skeptical of "as seen on" endorsements; prefers user-generated content over expert opinions; may ignore premium badges or verification checkmarks |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Balances authority with personal judgment; trusts credentialed experts in their domain; influenced by relevant professional endorsements; notices but doesn't automatically trust institutional seals; checks if expert testimonials are contextually appropriate; standard weighting of authority signals |
+| 0.6-0.8 | High | Strongly influenced by authority signals; readily trusts expert endorsements without verification; prioritizes content with professional badges; follows official recommendations closely; trusts "doctor recommended" or "expert approved" labels; less likely to question institutional guidance; assumes credentialed sources are accurate |
+| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Unquestioningly follows authority-based appeals; automatically trusts content with any authority signal; prioritizes official sources over personal experience; follows platform recommendations without evaluation; susceptible to fake authority badges; rarely questions expert consensus; may dismiss contradictory evidence from non-authoritative sources |
+
+## Web/UI Behavioral Patterns
+
+### High Authority Sensitivity (0.8+)
+
+- **Trust Signals**: Immediately converts when seeing security badges, expert endorsements, or institutional logos
+- **Content Hierarchy**: Prioritizes "expert picks" or "editor's choice" over user ratings
+- **Form Completion**: Follows instructions marked "required" without questioning necessity
+- **Navigation**: Uses "recommended path" or "most popular" suggestions
+- **Error Recovery**: Follows suggested solutions from "support team" without exploring alternatives
+- **Purchase Decisions**: Strongly influenced by "As seen in Forbes/NYT" endorsements
+- **Information Architecture**: Trusts curated content sections over search results
+
+### Low Authority Sensitivity (0.2-)
+
+- **Trust Signals**: Skeptical of badges; may view them as marketing rather than credibility
+- **Content Hierarchy**: Prefers raw user reviews and peer opinions over expert curation
+- **Form Completion**: Questions required fields; may abandon forms with excessive mandatory inputs
+- **Navigation**: Explores independently; ignores "suggested" or "recommended" paths
+- **Error Recovery**: Searches for community solutions over official support documentation
+- **Purchase Decisions**: Cross-references claims on independent review sites
+- **Information Architecture**: Prefers unfiltered, chronological content over curated selections
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+| Correlated Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
+|------------------|-------------|-----------|
+| Trust Calibration | r = 0.38 | Both involve credibility assessment |
+| Risk Tolerance | r = -0.31 | High authority sensitivity reduces perceived risk |
+| Self-Efficacy | r = -0.25 | Lower self-efficacy increases reliance on experts |
+| Social Proof Sensitivity | r = 0.42 | Both involve external validation seeking |
+| Satisficing | r = 0.33 | Authority provides efficient decision shortcut |
+
+## Persona Values
+
+| Persona | Value | Rationale |
+|---------|-------|-----------|
+| Busy Parent (Pat) | 0.65 | Time pressure increases reliance on trusted authorities |
+| Tech-Savvy Teen (Taylor) | 0.30 | Digital natives are more skeptical of institutional authority |
+| Senior User (Sam) | 0.75 | Generational respect for expertise and institutions |
+| Impatient Professional (Alex) | 0.55 | Values expert shortcuts but maintains professional skepticism |
+| Cautious Newcomer (Casey) | 0.70 | Uncertainty increases reliance on authoritative guidance |
+| Accessibility User (Jordan) | 0.60 | Trusts official accessibility standards and recommendations |
+| Power User (Riley) | 0.25 | Self-reliant; trusts personal expertise over external authority |
+
+## Design Implications
+
+### For High Authority Sensitivity Users
+
+- Display professional certifications and credentials prominently
+- Include expert endorsements near conversion points
+- Show institutional affiliations and partnerships
+- Use official-looking security badges and trust seals
+- Provide clear, authoritative instructions and recommendations
+
+### For Low Authority Sensitivity Users
+
+- Prioritize peer reviews and user-generated content
+- Show raw data and allow independent verification
+- Avoid overuse of badges (may trigger reactance)
+- Provide transparency about endorsement relationships
+- Enable community-driven content hierarchies
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Social Proof Sensitivity](Trait-SocialProofSensitivity) - Peer-based influence
+- [Trust Calibration](Trait-TrustCalibration) - Credibility assessment processes
+- [Self-Efficacy](Trait-SelfEfficacy) - Confidence in personal judgment
+- [FOMO](Trait-FOMO) - External pressure responsiveness
+- [Trait Index](Trait-Index) - All cognitive traits
+
+## Bibliography
+
+Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29*(5), 955-978.
+
+Cialdini, R. B. (2001). *Influence: Science and practice* (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
+
+Fogg, B. J. (2003). *Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do*. Morgan Kaufmann.
+
+Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. *Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67*(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
+
+Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. *Human Relations, 18*(1), 57-76.
+
+Milgram, S. (1974). *Obedience to authority: An experimental view*. Harper & Row.