cbrowser 16.7.1 → 16.8.0

package/docs/traits/Trait-FOMO.md

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+# FOMO (Fear of Missing Out)
+
+**Category**: Tier 6 - Social Traits
+**Scale**: 0.0 (low) to 1.0 (high)
+
+## Definition
+
+FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) measures the degree to which a user experiences anxiety or apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which they are absent, or that they might miss valuable opportunities, deals, or content. Users high in this trait are driven by urgency cues, limited-time offers, social activity indicators, and the fear that inaction will result in loss. They exhibit compulsive checking behaviors and are highly susceptible to scarcity marketing. Users low in this trait experience minimal anxiety about missing opportunities, make decisions based on actual need rather than perceived urgency, and are resistant to artificial scarcity tactics.
+
+## Research Foundation
+
+### Primary Citation
+
+> "FoMO is defined as a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent... characterized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing."
+> - Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013, p. 1841
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. *Computers in Human Behavior, 29*(4), 1841-1848.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
+
+### Supporting Research
+
+> "Scarcity enhances the value of objects and experiences, driving urgency in decision-making."
+> - Cialdini, 2001, p. 204
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Cialdini, R. B. (2001). *Influence: Science and practice* (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
+
+### Key Numerical Values
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| FoMO Scale internal consistency | alpha = 0.87-0.90 | Przybylski et al. (2013) |
+| Scale items | 10-item measure | Przybylski et al. (2013) |
+| Correlation with social media use | r = 0.40 | Przybylski et al. (2013) |
+| Correlation with life dissatisfaction | r = 0.43 | Przybylski et al. (2013) |
+| Age effect | Young adults higher FOMO | Przybylski et al. (2013) |
+| Scarcity conversion boost | 226% increase in urgency purchases | Aggarwal et al. (2011) |
+| "Limited time" effectiveness | 42% higher click-through | Worchel et al. (1975) |
+
+## Behavioral Levels
+
+| Value | Label | Behaviors |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 0.0-0.2 | Very Low | Immune to urgency marketing; ignores countdown timers and "limited stock" warnings; makes purchase decisions based solely on actual need; rarely checks social media for fear of missing content; resistant to "flash sale" pressure; comfortable missing events or opportunities; does not experience regret about unused coupons or expired offers |
+| 0.2-0.4 | Low | Notices urgency cues without feeling compelled to act; occasional influence by very strong scarcity signals; makes most decisions at personal pace; some awareness of social activity but minimal anxiety; may respond to genuinely limited opportunities but not artificial scarcity |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Standard responsiveness to urgency cues; influenced by countdown timers and limited stock indicators; occasional anxiety about missing deals or social content; moderate social media checking behavior; balances urgency response with rational evaluation; typical susceptibility to scarcity marketing |
+| 0.6-0.8 | High | Strongly influenced by urgency cues; countdown timers create genuine anxiety; frequently checks social media to stay current; makes purchases under time pressure to avoid missing deals; experiences regret about missed opportunities; shares limited-time offers quickly; influenced by "X people are viewing this" indicators; may over-subscribe to notifications |
+| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Dominated by fear of missing out; compulsive checking of social media, deals, and notifications; cannot resist limited-time offers; extreme anxiety about countdown timers and scarcity warnings; makes impulsive purchases to avoid potential regret; constantly monitors social activity; significant distress when unable to check devices; highly susceptible to all forms of urgency manipulation |
+
+## Web/UI Behavioral Patterns
+
+### High FOMO (0.8+)
+
+- **Countdown Timers**: Creates genuine anxiety; often leads to rushed decisions or abandoned tasks to act on offer
+- **Stock Indicators**: "Only 3 left" warnings trigger immediate purchase consideration regardless of actual need
+- **Social Activity**: "X people viewing now" creates urgency and validates interest
+- **Notifications**: Cannot disable notifications; checks immediately when received
+- **Flash Sales**: Participates even when items aren't needed; fear of regret outweighs rational evaluation
+- **Social Proof**: "Bestseller" and "Trending" labels strongly influence choices
+- **Exit Intent**: Highly susceptible to "Wait! Don't miss this offer" popups
+- **Cart Abandonment**: "Items in cart selling out" emails prompt immediate returns
+- **Social Media**: Excessive scrolling to avoid missing content; difficulty stopping
+
+### Low FOMO (0.2-)
+
+- **Countdown Timers**: Ignores or dismisses as marketing tactic; makes decisions on personal timeline
+- **Stock Indicators**: Treats as information, not pressure; will wait for restock if needed
+- **Social Activity**: Indifferent to what others are viewing or purchasing
+- **Notifications**: Comfortable with notifications disabled; checks at convenient times
+- **Flash Sales**: Only participates if item was already desired and price is genuinely good
+- **Social Proof**: Popularity doesn't influence decision-making
+- **Exit Intent**: Closes popups without reading; views as manipulation
+- **Cart Abandonment**: Unaffected by urgency emails; returns when ready or not at all
+- **Social Media**: Uses purposefully; comfortable missing content
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+| Correlated Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
+|------------------|-------------|-----------|
+| Patience | r = -0.41 | FOMO drives urgency, reducing patience |
+| Emotional Contagion | r = 0.52 | Both involve heightened reactivity to social stimuli |
+| Social Proof Sensitivity | r = 0.58 | Both driven by social comparison and validation |
+| Self-Efficacy | r = -0.34 | Lower confidence increases fear of wrong decisions |
+| Satisficing | r = -0.27 | FOMO drives maximizing rather than satisficing |
+
+## Persona Values
+
+| Persona | Value | Rationale |
+|---------|-------|-----------|
+| Busy Parent (Pat) | 0.50 | Moderate; time pressure creates some susceptibility but also immunity to time-wasting |
+| Tech-Savvy Teen (Taylor) | 0.85 | Peak FOMO demographic; highly social, connected, and status-conscious |
+| Senior User (Sam) | 0.30 | Lower social comparison; comfortable missing digital content |
+| Impatient Professional (Alex) | 0.45 | Wants efficiency but recognizes urgency manipulation |
+| Cautious Newcomer (Casey) | 0.65 | Uncertainty creates susceptibility to "don't miss out" messaging |
+| Accessibility User (Jordan) | 0.40 | Standard range; depends more on individual factors |
+| Power User (Riley) | 0.25 | Recognizes and resists manipulation tactics |
+
+## Design Implications
+
+### Ethical Considerations
+
+FOMO-targeting design patterns are effective but can be manipulative. Ethical design should:
+- Use genuine scarcity information (actual stock levels, real deadlines)
+- Avoid fake urgency (invented countdown timers, artificial "limited stock")
+- Provide clear information for rational decision-making
+- Not exploit psychological vulnerabilities for profit
+
+### For High FOMO Users
+
+- Provide "save for later" options to reduce decision anxiety
+- Show genuine availability information clearly
+- Allow notification customization to reduce checking compulsion
+- Offer reassurance that opportunities will return
+
+### For Low FOMO Users
+
+- Focus on value proposition rather than urgency
+- Provide detailed product information for deliberate decision-making
+- Avoid aggressive urgency tactics (may cause reactance)
+- Respect decision timelines
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Social Proof Sensitivity](Trait-SocialProofSensitivity) - Influence by others' behavior
+- [Emotional Contagion](Trait-EmotionalContagion) - Absorption of social emotions
+- [Patience](Trait-Patience) - Time tolerance and urgency response
+- [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) - Decision-making strategies
+- [Trait Index](Trait-Index) - All cognitive traits
+
+## Bibliography
+
+Aggarwal, P., Jun, S. Y., & Huh, J. H. (2011). Scarcity messages: A consumer competition perspective. *Journal of Advertising, 40*(3), 19-30.
+
+Cialdini, R. B. (2001). *Influence: Science and practice* (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
+
+Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. *Computers in Human Behavior, 63*, 509-516.
+
+Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. *Computers in Human Behavior, 29*(4), 1841-1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
+
+Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32*(5), 906-914.

package/docs/traits/Trait-Index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+# Cognitive Traits Index
+
+> **Copyright**: (c) 2026 WF Media (Alexandria Eden). All rights reserved.
+>
+> **License**: [Business Source License 1.1](https://github.com/alexandriashai/cbrowser/blob/main/LICENSE) - Converts to Apache 2.0 on February 5, 2030.
+>
+> **Contact**: alexandria.shai.eden@gmail.com
+
+CBrowser's cognitive simulation system is built on 25 research-backed psychological traits organized into 6 tiers. Each trait represents a measurable dimension of human cognition that affects how users interact with web interfaces.
+
+## Trait Tiers Overview
+
+| Tier | Category | Traits | Description |
+|------|----------|--------|-------------|
+| 1 | [Core Traits](#tier-1-core-traits) | 7 | Fundamental cognitive capacities |
+| 2 | [Emotional Traits](#tier-2-emotional-traits) | 4 | Affective and motivational factors |
+| 3 | [Decision-Making Traits](#tier-3-decision-making-traits) | 5 | Choice and judgment processes |
+| 4 | [Planning Traits](#tier-4-planning-traits) | 3 | Strategic and procedural cognition |
+| 5 | [Perception Traits](#tier-5-perception-traits) | 2 | Attention and awareness limitations |
+| 6 | [Social Traits](#tier-6-social-traits) | 4 | Social influence and comparison |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 1: Core Traits
+
+Fundamental cognitive capacities that form the foundation of user behavior.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Patience](Trait-Patience) | 0.0-1.0 | Nah (2004) - 8-10 second tolerance threshold |
+| [Risk Tolerance](Trait-RiskTolerance) | 0.0-1.0 | Kahneman & Tversky (1979) - Prospect Theory |
+| [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) | 0.0-1.0 | Card, Moran & Newell (1983) - GOMS Model |
+| [Persistence](Trait-Persistence) | 0.0-1.0 | Duckworth et al. (2007) - Grit Scale |
+| [Curiosity](Trait-Curiosity) | 0.0-1.0 | Berlyne (1960) - Epistemic Curiosity |
+| [Working Memory](Trait-WorkingMemory) | 0.0-1.0 | Miller (1956) - 7±2 Chunks |
+| [Reading Tendency](Trait-ReadingTendency) | 0.0-1.0 | Nielsen (2006) - F-Pattern |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 2: Emotional Traits
+
+Affective factors that influence persistence, confidence, and recovery from setbacks.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Resilience](Trait-Resilience) | 0.0-1.0 | Smith et al. (2008) - Brief Resilience Scale |
+| [Self-Efficacy](Trait-SelfEfficacy) | 0.0-1.0 | Bandura (1977) - Self-Efficacy Theory |
+| [Trust Calibration](Trait-TrustCalibration) | 0.0-1.0 | Fogg (2003) - Stanford Credibility |
+| [Interrupt Recovery](Trait-InterruptRecovery) | 0.0-1.0 | Mark et al. (2005) - Cost of Interruption |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 3: Decision-Making Traits
+
+How users evaluate options, make choices, and allocate cognitive resources.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) | 0.0-1.0 | Simon (1956) - Bounded Rationality |
+| [Information Foraging](Trait-InformationForaging) | 0.0-1.0 | Pirolli & Card (1999) - Info Foraging |
+| [Anchoring Bias](Trait-AnchoringBias) | 0.0-1.0 | Tversky & Kahneman (1974) - Anchoring |
+| [Time Horizon](Trait-TimeHorizon) | 0.0-1.0 | Laibson (1997) - Hyperbolic Discounting |
+| [Attribution Style](Trait-AttributionStyle) | 0.0-1.0 | Weiner (1985) - Attribution Theory |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 4: Planning Traits
+
+Strategic thinking, procedural knowledge, and learning transfer capabilities.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Metacognitive Planning](Trait-MetacognitivePlanning) | 0.0-1.0 | Flavell (1979) - Metacognition |
+| [Procedural Fluency](Trait-ProceduralFluency) | 0.0-1.0 | Sweller (1988) - Cognitive Load |
+| [Transfer Learning](Trait-TransferLearning) | 0.0-1.0 | Thorndike (1901) - Transfer of Practice |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 5: Perception Traits
+
+Limitations in visual attention and mental model updating.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Change Blindness](Trait-ChangeBlindness) | 0.0-1.0 | Simons & Chabris (1999) - Gorilla Study |
+| [Mental Model Rigidity](Trait-MentalModelRigidity) | 0.0-1.0 | Johnson-Laird (1983) - Mental Models |
+
+---
+
+## Tier 6: Social Traits
+
+How social context and comparison affect user behavior.
+
+| Trait | Scale | Primary Research |
+|-------|-------|------------------|
+| [Authority Sensitivity](Trait-AuthoritySensitivity) | 0.0-1.0 | Milgram (1963) - Obedience |
+| [Emotional Contagion](Trait-EmotionalContagion) | 0.0-1.0 | Hatfield et al. (1993) - Contagion |
+| [FOMO](Trait-FOMO) | 0.0-1.0 | Przybylski et al. (2013) - FoMO Scale |
+| [Social Proof Sensitivity](Trait-SocialProofSensitivity) | 0.0-1.0 | Goldstein, Cialdini et al. (2008) |
+
+---
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+Traits don't exist in isolation. Research-backed correlations:
+
+| Trait Pair | Correlation | Research Basis |
+|------------|-------------|----------------|
+| Patience ↔ Persistence | r = 0.45 | Both load on conscientiousness |
+| Working Memory ↔ Comprehension | r = 0.52 | Cognitive capacity overlap |
+| Self-Efficacy ↔ Persistence | r = 0.48 | Bandura (1977) |
+| FOMO ↔ Impatience | r = -0.41 | Przybylski et al. (2013) |
+| Resilience ↔ Self-Efficacy | r = 0.56 | Protective factors research |
+
+---
+
+## Using Traits in CBrowser
+
+### Via MCP Tool
+
+```typescript
+await cognitive_journey_init({
+  persona: "custom",
+  goal: "complete checkout",
+  startUrl: "https://example.com",
+  customTraits: {
+    patience: 0.3,
+    workingMemory: 0.5,
+    riskTolerance: 0.2
+  }
+});
+```
+
+### Via CLI
+
+```bash
+npx cbrowser cognitive-journey \
+  --persona custom \
+  --trait patience=0.3 \
+  --trait workingMemory=0.5 \
+  --start https://example.com \
+  --goal "complete checkout"
+```
+
+---
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index) - Pre-configured trait combinations
+- [Bibliography](../research/Bibliography) - Complete academic references
+- [Research Methodology](../research/Research-Methodology) - How traits were selected
+- [Cognitive User Simulation](../Cognitive-User-Simulation) - Main documentation
+
+---
+
+## Bibliography
+
+See [Complete Bibliography](../research/Bibliography) for all academic sources.

package/docs/traits/Trait-InformationForaging.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+# Information Foraging
+
+**Category**: Tier 3 - Decision-Making Traits
+**Scale**: 0.0 (weak scent-following) to 1.0 (strong scent-following)
+
+## Definition
+
+Information Foraging describes how users navigate information environments by following "information scent" - cues that indicate the likelihood of finding desired content along a particular path. Adapted from optimal foraging theory in behavioral ecology, this trait models how users decide which links to click, when to stay on a page versus navigate away, and how they allocate attention across competing information sources. High foragers follow strong scent trails efficiently and abandon low-scent paths quickly; low foragers may persist on weak trails or fail to recognize strong scent cues, leading to inefficient navigation patterns.
+
+## Research Foundation
+
+### Primary Citation
+
+> "Information foraging theory is an approach to understanding how strategies and technologies for information seeking, gathering, and consumption are adapted to the flux of information in the environment... The notion of information scent is used to explain how people assess the utility or relevance of information sources, and how they select navigation paths."
+> — Pirolli & Card, 1999, p. 643
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging. *Psychological Review, 106*(4), 643-675.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.643
+
+### Supporting Research
+
+> "Users follow information scent to navigate the web. When scent is strong, users are more efficient. When scent is weak or misleading, they become lost and frustrated."
+> — Chi et al., 2001, p. 498
+
+**Full Citation (APA 7):**
+Chi, E. H., Pirolli, P., Chen, K., & Pitkow, J. (2001). Using information scent to model user information needs and actions on the web. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 490-497.
+
+**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365325
+
+### Key Numerical Values
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| Average page dwell time before abandonment | 10-20 seconds | Nielsen (2011) |
+| Probability of following highest-scent link | 0.62 | Chi et al. (2001) |
+| Back button usage with weak scent | 39% higher | Cockburn & McKenzie (2001) |
+| Scent strength predicts task success | r = 0.71 | Pirolli & Card (1999) |
+| Users scan 20% of page for scent cues | mean fixation | Nielsen (2006) |
+| Optimal patch-leaving threshold | 2-3 failed predictions | ACT-IF model (Pirolli, 2007) |
+
+## Behavioral Levels
+
+| Value | Label | Behaviors |
+|-------|-------|-----------|
+| 0.0-0.2 | Poor Forager | Fails to recognize relevant link text; persists on irrelevant pages too long; clicks randomly when uncertain; ignores navigation breadcrumbs; exhaustive rather than selective reading; high back-button usage; frequently "lost" in sites |
+| 0.2-0.4 | Weak Forager | Sometimes follows weak scent trails; slow to recognize dead-ends; occasional relevant selections; may be misled by ambiguous labels; moderate exploration efficiency; needs redundant cues |
+| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate Forager | Adequate scent detection in clear environments; recognizes strong cues but may miss subtle ones; reasonable patch-leaving decisions; some unnecessary exploration; effective with well-designed navigation |
+| 0.6-0.8 | Strong Forager | Quickly identifies high-scent options; efficient navigation path selection; abandons low-value pages promptly; uses multiple scent cues (text, images, position); rarely backtracks unnecessarily |
+| 0.8-1.0 | Expert Forager | Near-optimal information seeking; immediately recognizes scent patterns; predicts content accurately from cues; minimal wasted navigation; instinctively uses site architecture; very low back-button usage |
+
+## Web Behavior Patterns
+
+### Link Selection
+
+**Strong Foragers (0.7-1.0):**
+- Select links matching query terms
+- Use link position as additional cue
+- Notice snippet/preview text
+- Prefer specific over generic labels
+- Rapid confident selections
+
+**Weak Foragers (0.0-0.3):**
+- Random or sequential link selection
+- Ignore descriptive text
+- Click "Contact" when seeking products
+- Miss clearly-labeled navigation
+- Hesitant, exploratory clicking
+
+### Patch-Leaving Behavior
+
+The "patch" in foraging theory is analogous to a web page or site section:
+
+**Strong Foragers:**
+- Leave pages with weak scent within 5-10 seconds
+- Recognize when information gain has diminished
+- Move to higher-yield areas quickly
+- Efficient depth vs breadth decisions
+
+**Weak Foragers:**
+- Stay on low-yield pages 30+ seconds
+- Re-read content hoping for relevance
+- Deep navigation into wrong branches
+- Reluctant to "give up" on dead ends
+
+### Search Result Processing
+
+**Strong Foragers:**
+- Rapid snippet scanning
+- Click based on content prediction
+- Skip irrelevant domains immediately
+- Use search refinement efficiently
+
+**Weak Foragers:**
+- Sequential top-to-bottom clicking
+- Poor prediction from snippets
+- Click all results regardless of relevance
+- Rarely refine search queries
+
+## Information Scent Components
+
+| Scent Source | Description | Weight |
+|--------------|-------------|--------|
+| Link Text | Words in clickable anchor | High |
+| Surrounding Context | Text near the link | Medium |
+| Visual Design | Icons, colors, prominence | Medium |
+| Position | Navigation location, F-pattern | Medium |
+| Preview/Tooltip | Hover information | Low-Medium |
+| Domain/URL | Site credibility signals | Low |
+
+## Trait Correlations
+
+| Related Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
+|--------------|-------------|-----------|
+| [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) | r = 0.48 | Understanding text enables scent detection |
+| [Reading Tendency](Trait-ReadingTendency) | r = 0.39 | Scanners may miss scent cues |
+| [Working Memory](Trait-WorkingMemory) | r = 0.31 | Holding goal enables scent evaluation |
+| [Patience](Trait-Patience) | r = 0.28 | Patient users may persist despite weak scent |
+| [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) | r = -0.44 | Strong foragers optimize paths |
+| [Curiosity](Trait-Curiosity) | r = 0.24 | Curious users explore adjacent scent |
+
+## Persona Values
+
+| Persona | Information Foraging Value | Rationale |
+|---------|---------------------------|-----------|
+| **Power User** | 0.90 | Expert at recognizing interface patterns |
+| **Tech Enthusiast** | 0.85 | Familiar with web conventions |
+| **Rushed Professional** | 0.75 | Efficient by necessity |
+| **First-Time User** | 0.35 | Lacks pattern recognition experience |
+| **Elderly Novice** | 0.30 | Unfamiliar with web conventions |
+| **Distracted Teen** | 0.50 | Knows patterns but attention divided |
+| **Careful Senior** | 0.45 | Methodical but may miss cues |
+| **Anxious User** | 0.40 | Anxiety impairs efficient processing |
+| **Overwhelmed Parent** | 0.55 | Experience exists but cognitive load interferes |
+
+## Design Implications
+
+### Strengthening Information Scent
+
+1. **Descriptive link text** - "View pricing plans" not "Click here"
+2. **Consistent labeling** - Same terms in navigation and content
+3. **Progressive disclosure** - Preview information on hover
+4. **Visual hierarchy** - Important links visually prominent
+5. **Breadcrumbs** - Show current location in hierarchy
+6. **Search suggestions** - Guide toward high-scent paths
+
+### Accommodating Weak Foragers
+
+1. **Redundant cues** - Multiple ways to find content
+2. **Clear error recovery** - Easy backtracking
+3. **Search prominence** - Alternative to navigation
+4. **Related links** - Suggest adjacent content
+5. **Wizard patterns** - Guided linear paths
+
+## Measurement in CBrowser
+
+```typescript
+// Information foraging affects navigation decisions
+function selectLink(availableLinks: Link[], goal: string, traits: Traits): Link {
+  const scentScores = availableLinks.map(link =>
+    calculateScent(link, goal)
+  );
+
+  if (traits.informationForaging > 0.7) {
+    // Strong forager: select highest scent
+    return availableLinks[argmax(scentScores)];
+  } else if (traits.informationForaging > 0.4) {
+    // Moderate: probabilistic selection weighted by scent
+    return weightedRandom(availableLinks, scentScores);
+  } else {
+    // Weak forager: may select randomly or sequentially
+    return random() > 0.5 ? availableLinks[0] : randomChoice(availableLinks);
+  }
+}
+
+// Patch-leaving decision
+function shouldLeavePage(timeOnPage: number, contentRelevance: number, traits: Traits): boolean {
+  const threshold = 10 + (1 - traits.informationForaging) * 20; // 10-30 seconds
+  const relevanceThreshold = 0.3 + traits.informationForaging * 0.4; // 0.3-0.7
+
+  return timeOnPage > threshold && contentRelevance < relevanceThreshold;
+}
+```
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Satisficing](Trait-Satisficing) - When "good enough" information suffices
+- [Reading Tendency](Trait-ReadingTendency) - Scanning vs reading affects scent detection
+- [Comprehension](Trait-Comprehension) - Understanding content enables evaluation
+- [Working Memory](Trait-WorkingMemory) - Holding goals while navigating
+- [Patience](Trait-Patience) - Persistence on weak-scent paths
+- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index) - Trait combinations in personas
+
+## Bibliography
+
+Chi, E. H., Pirolli, P., Chen, K., & Pitkow, J. (2001). Using information scent to model user information needs and actions on the web. *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365325
+
+Cockburn, A., & McKenzie, B. (2001). What do web users do? An empirical analysis of web use. *International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54*(6), 903-922. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0459
+
+Nielsen, J. (2006). F-shaped pattern for reading web content. *Nielsen Norman Group*. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/
+
+Nielsen, J. (2011). How long do users stay on web pages? *Nielsen Norman Group*. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-long-do-users-stay-on-web-pages/
+
+Pirolli, P. (2007). *Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information*. Oxford University Press.
+
+Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging. *Psychological Review, 106*(4), 643-675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.643
+
+Spool, J. M., Perfetti, C., & Brittan, D. (2004). *Designing for the scent of information*. User Interface Engineering.