cbrowser 18.62.0 → 18.63.1

package/docs/research/Values-Research.md

@@ -1,432 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Values Research](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Values-Research)**
-
----
-
-# Values Research
-
-> **Copyright**: (c) 2026 Alexandria Eden. All rights reserved.
->
-> **License**: [MIT License](https://github.com/alexandriashai/cbrowser/blob/main/LICENSE) - Converts to Apache 2.0 on February 5, 2030.
->
-> **Note**: All research citations reference publicly available academic sources. Contact: alexandria.shai.eden@gmail.com
-
----
-
-## Introduction
-
-CBrowser's values system enhances cognitive personas with research-backed psychological depth by integrating three foundational frameworks from motivational psychology:
-
-1. **Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values** - The core framework defining 10 universal human values
-2. **Self-Determination Theory (SDT)** - Psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
-3. **Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs** - Motivational priority based on need fulfillment level
-
-While **cognitive traits** describe HOW a persona behaves (patience, risk tolerance, working memory), **values** describe WHO the persona is at a motivational level (what drives their decisions, what they find meaningful, what influences persuade them).
-
-Values and traits are **parallel dimensions** that correlate but do not determine each other. A high-security persona tends toward lower risk tolerance, but the relationship is probabilistic, not deterministic.
-
----
-
-## Academic Foundations
-
-The values system is built on peer-reviewed psychological research with established validity across cultures and contexts.
-
-| Framework | Author(s) | Year | Publication | DOI |
-|-----------|-----------|------|-------------|-----|
-| **Theory of Basic Human Values** | Schwartz, S.H. | 1992 | *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology*, 25, 1-65 | [10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6) |
-| **Refined Theory of Basic Values** | Schwartz, S.H. | 2012 | *Online Readings in Psychology and Culture*, 2(1) | [10.9707/2307-0919.1116](https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116) |
-| **Self-Determination Theory** | Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. | 1985 | *Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior*. Plenum Press | ISBN: 978-0306420221 |
-| **SDT and Well-Being** | Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. | 2000 | *American Psychologist*, 55(1), 68-78 | [10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68](https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68) |
-| **Hierarchy of Needs** | Maslow, A.H. | 1943 | *Psychological Review*, 50(4), 370-396 | [10.1037/h0054346](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346) |
-
-### Additional Supporting Research
-
-| Topic | Citation | DOI |
-|-------|----------|-----|
-| Value hierarchies across cultures | Schwartz, S.H. & Bardi, A. (2001). *Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology*, 32(3), 268-290 | [10.1177/0022022101032003002](https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002) |
-| Values and personality | Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S.H. & Knafo, A. (2002). *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 28(6), 789-801 | [10.1177/0146167202289008](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008) |
-| Influence principles | Cialdini, R.B. (2001). *Influence: Science and Practice* (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon | ISBN: 978-0321011473 |
-| Judgment heuristics | Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). *Science*, 185(4157), 1124-1131 | [10.1126/science.185.4157.1124](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124) |
-
----
-
-## Schwartz's 10 Universal Values
-
-Schwartz's research identifies 10 values found across all cultures, representing fundamental motivational goals that guide human behavior. Each value is scored 0-1 in CBrowser.
-
-| Value | Definition | Behavioral Indicators in UX |
-|-------|------------|----------------------------|
-| **Self-Direction** | Independent thought and action - choosing, creating, exploring | Explores options before deciding, resists defaults, customizes settings extensively, questions recommended paths |
-| **Stimulation** | Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life | Clicks "What's New" immediately, tries beta features, explores unfamiliar sections, gets bored with routine |
-| **Hedonism** | Pleasure and sensuous gratification | Responds strongly to visual appeal, prefers delightful micro-interactions, values aesthetic alongside function |
-| **Achievement** | Personal success through demonstrating competence | Seeks efficiency metrics, wants ROI proof, focuses on outcomes, compares performance |
-| **Power** | Social status, prestige, control over resources | Attracted to premium tiers, seeks exclusive access, values status signals, responds to authority positioning |
-| **Security** | Safety, harmony, stability of society and self | Reads fine print, seeks guarantees, researches extensively, avoids perceived risks, needs trust signals |
-| **Conformity** | Restraint of actions likely to upset or harm others | Reads reviews extensively, follows recommendations, seeks social validation, influenced by majority behavior |
-| **Tradition** | Respect for customs and ideas from culture or religion | Prefers established brands, skeptical of new, values heritage, resistant to change |
-| **Benevolence** | Preserving and enhancing welfare of close others | Responds to helping messaging, values community, influenced by impact on others, seeks to contribute |
-| **Universalism** | Understanding, tolerance, protection of all people and nature | Checks for ethical practices, values sustainability, concerned with social impact, environmental awareness |
-
-### Value Structure (Circumplex Model)
-
-Schwartz's values form a circular structure where adjacent values are compatible and opposing values are in conflict:
-
-```
-                    OPENNESS TO CHANGE
-                          |
-         Self-Direction   |   Stimulation
-                  \       |       /
-                   \      |      /
-    Universalism    \     |     /    Hedonism
-           \         \    |    /        /
-            \         \   |   /        /
-             \         \  |  /        /
-SELF-         =========   X   =========        SELF-
-TRANSCENDENCE             |              ENHANCEMENT
-             /         /  |  \        \
-            /         /   |   \        \
-           /         /    |    \        \
-    Benevolence    /     |     \    Achievement
-                  /      |      \
-                 /       |       \
-         Tradition       |       Power
-                  \      |      /
-                   Security
-                          |
-                    CONSERVATION
-```
-
----
-
-## Higher-Order Value Dimensions
-
-The 10 basic values organize into 4 higher-order dimensions based on compatibility and conflict relationships (Schwartz, 2012). CBrowser calculates these automatically.
-
-| Higher-Order Dimension | Formula | Description |
-|------------------------|---------|-------------|
-| **Openness to Change** | `(selfDirection + stimulation) / 2` | Emphasizes independent thought, action, and readiness for new experience. Opposite of Conservation. |
-| **Self-Enhancement** | `(achievement + power) / 2` | Emphasizes pursuit of self-interest, success, and dominance. Opposite of Self-Transcendence. |
-| **Conservation** | `(security + conformity + tradition) / 3` | Emphasizes self-restriction, order, and resistance to change. Opposite of Openness to Change. |
-| **Self-Transcendence** | `(benevolence + universalism) / 2` | Emphasizes concern for welfare of others and nature. Opposite of Self-Enhancement. |
-
-### Dimensional Conflicts
-
-The higher-order dimensions reveal fundamental motivational conflicts:
-
-- **Openness vs. Conservation**: Innovation-seeking vs. stability-seeking
-- **Self-Enhancement vs. Self-Transcendence**: Self-interest vs. collective welfare
-
-A persona high in openness will naturally be lower in conservation, and vice versa. These tensions are inherent to human motivation.
-
----
-
-## Self-Determination Theory Integration
-
-Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) identifies three basic psychological needs that, when satisfied, lead to intrinsic motivation and well-being.
-
-| SDT Need | Definition | UX Implications |
-|----------|------------|-----------------|
-| **Autonomy Need** | Need for choice and control over one's actions | Responds positively to customization options, flexible workflows, and opt-in experiences. Negatively to forced paths and prescriptive guidance. |
-| **Competence Need** | Need to feel capable and effective | Responds positively to progressive disclosure, clear feedback, achievable challenges. Negatively to overwhelming complexity or trivially easy tasks. |
-| **Relatedness Need** | Need for connection with others | Responds positively to community features, social presence, collaborative elements. Negatively to isolation and purely transactional experiences. |
-
-### Relationship to Schwartz Values
-
-SDT needs correlate with specific Schwartz values:
-
-| SDT Need | Primary Value Correlation |
-|----------|---------------------------|
-| Autonomy | Self-Direction |
-| Competence | Achievement |
-| Relatedness | Benevolence, Universalism |
-
----
-
-## Maslow's Hierarchy Levels
-
-Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943) describes motivational priority based on which needs are currently unmet. CBrowser uses this to understand the dominant motivational context.
-
-| Level | Name | Description | UX Relevance |
-|-------|------|-------------|--------------|
-| 1 | **Physiological** | Basic survival needs (food, water, shelter) | Rarely relevant to digital UX; represents extreme stress/crisis contexts |
-| 2 | **Safety** | Security, stability, freedom from fear | Trust signals, guarantees, security badges, privacy assurances are critical |
-| 3 | **Belonging** | Love, friendship, intimacy, community | Social features, community elements, connection opportunities valued |
-| 4 | **Esteem** | Achievement, status, recognition, confidence | Success metrics, badges, recognition, exclusive access motivating |
-| 5 | **Self-Actualization** | Reaching full potential, creativity, purpose | Learning opportunities, creative tools, personal growth features appeal |
-
-### Maslow Level Assignments
-
-Different personas operate at different Maslow levels based on their circumstances:
-
-| Persona Category | Typical Maslow Level | Rationale |
-|------------------|---------------------|-----------|
-| First-time users | Safety | Need reassurance and trust building |
-| Anxious users | Safety | Elevated threat sensitivity |
-| Power users | Esteem | Seeking mastery and recognition |
-| Explorers | Self-Actualization | Driven by curiosity and growth |
-| Task-focused users | Esteem | Achievement and competence focus |
-
----
-
-## Category-Aware Value Assignments
-
-CBrowser assigns values based on persona category, recognizing that different types of conditions affect motivation differently.
-
-### Cognitive Conditions
-
-Conditions affecting cognition (like ADHD) have research-backed effects on motivational values.
-
-**ADHD Example:**
-- **High stimulation (0.9)**: Dopamine dysregulation drives novelty-seeking
-- **Low security (0.25)**: Routine feels aversive
-- **Low conformity (0.25)**: Difficulty following prescribed processes
-- **High self-direction (0.65)**: Resist constraints, prefer flexibility
-
-**Research basis:**
-- Barkley, R.A. (2015). *ADHD Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment*
-- Volkow, N.D., et al. (2011). Motivation deficit in ADHD associated with dopamine reward pathway dysfunction. *Molecular Psychiatry*, 16. DOI: 10.1038/mp.2010.97
-
-### Physical Conditions
-
-Motor and vision impairments affect security and autonomy needs but not core personality values.
-
-**Motor Tremor Example:**
-- **Higher security (0.75)**: Needs stable, forgiving interfaces
-- **Higher autonomy need (0.75)**: Need control over interaction pace
-- **Lower stimulation (0.3)**: Prefers predictable interfaces
-
-**Research basis:**
-- Trewin, S. (2000). Configuration agents, control and privacy. *ACM ASSETS*. DOI: 10.1145/354324.354328
-- Wobbrock, J.O., et al. (2011). Ability-Based Design. *CACM* 54(6). DOI: 10.1145/1924421.1924442
-
-### Sensory-Only Conditions
-
-Conditions affecting only perception (like color blindness) receive neutral values because they do not change motivational psychology.
-
-**Color Blindness Example:**
-- All Schwartz values: **0.5** (neutral)
-- All SDT needs: **0.5** (neutral)
-- Maslow level: **Esteem** (typical)
-
-**Rationale:** Color vision deficiency affects perception, not personality. The person's motivations, goals, and values are independent of their color perception.
-
-### Emotional Conditions
-
-Trait anxiety and confidence affect values through the behavioral inhibition/activation systems.
-
-**Anxious User Example:**
-- **Very high security (0.95)**: Core anxiety response
-- **Very low stimulation (0.2)**: Novelty triggers threat
-- **High conformity (0.8)**: Safety in following norms
-- **Low self-direction (0.3)**: Prefers guidance over independence
-
-**Research basis:**
-- Carver, C.S. & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation. *JPSP* 67(2). DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
-- Gray, J.A. & McNaughton, N. (2000). *The Neuropsychology of Anxiety*. Oxford University Press.
-
----
-
-## Value-to-Trait Correlations
-
-Values and traits correlate (r = 0.35-0.55) based on Schwartz & Bardi (2001) and Roccas et al. (2002). Values predict tendencies, not absolutes.
-
-| Value | Trait | Direction | Strength | Research Basis |
-|-------|-------|-----------|----------|----------------|
-| Security | Risk Tolerance | Inverse | Strong | r = -0.52 (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001) |
-| Security | Trust Calibration | Inverse | Moderate | r = -0.38 |
-| Stimulation | Curiosity | Direct | Strong | r = 0.55 (Roccas et al., 2002) |
-| Achievement | Patience | Inverse | Moderate | r = -0.40 |
-| Conformity | Social Proof Sensitivity | Direct | Strong | r = 0.48 |
-| Self-Direction | Authority Sensitivity | Inverse | Moderate | r = -0.42 |
-| Tradition | Mental Model Rigidity | Direct | Moderate | r = 0.38 |
-
----
-
-## Trait-to-Value Derivation (v16.14.0)
-
-For **general-category** personas (no specific disability), values are derived FROM cognitive traits rather than defaulting to neutral (0.5). This produces more differentiated personas that reflect their behavioral profile.
-
-### How It Works
-
-The `deriveValuesFromTraits()` function applies weighted correlations:
-
-```
-derivedValue = baseline(0.5) + Σ(traitDeviation × weight × direction)
-```
-
-Where:
-- **traitDeviation** = trait value - 0.5 (positive if above neutral, negative if below)
-- **weight** = correlation strength (0.3-0.7)
-- **direction** = +1 for positive correlation, -1 for inverse
-
-### TRAIT_VALUE_CORRELATIONS
-
-| Trait | Affects | Direction | Weight | Research Basis |
-|-------|---------|-----------|--------|----------------|
-| curiosity | stimulation, selfDirection | + | 0.6, 0.5 | Kashdan (2018) |
-| riskTolerance | security, stimulation | -, + | 0.7, 0.4 | Schwartz (2012) |
-| patience | stimulation, tradition | -, + | 0.4, 0.3 | Baumeister (1998) |
-| persistence | achievement, competenceNeed | + | 0.6, 0.4 | Duckworth (2016) |
-| socialProofSensitivity | conformity, selfDirection | +, - | 0.7, 0.4 | Cialdini (2001) |
-| trustCalibration | security, benevolence | -, + | 0.5, 0.3 | Rotter (1971) |
-| authoritySensitivity | conformity, tradition, selfDirection | +, +, - | 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 | Schwartz (2012) |
-| fearOfMissingOut | stimulation, security | +, - | 0.6, 0.4 | Przybylski (2013) |
-| selfEfficacy | achievement, autonomyNeed, competenceNeed | + | 0.5, 0.6, 0.5 | Bandura (1997) |
-| resilience | competenceNeed, security | +, - | 0.5, 0.3 | Masten (2001) |
-| comprehension | selfDirection, competenceNeed | + | 0.4, 0.3 | Cognitive load research |
-| satisficing | achievement, stimulation | - | 0.4, 0.3 | Simon (1956) |
-
-### Example: High-Curiosity, Low-Patience Persona
-
-**Input Traits:**
-- curiosity: 0.9 (deviation: +0.4)
-- patience: 0.2 (deviation: -0.3)
-- riskTolerance: 0.8 (deviation: +0.3)
-
-**Derived Values:**
-- stimulation: 0.98 (curiosity +0.24, patience +0.12, risk +0.12)
-- selfDirection: 0.78 (curiosity +0.2, risk +0.08)
-- security: 0.29 (riskTolerance -0.21)
-- tradition: 0.41 (patience -0.09)
-
-The `valueDerivations` field in persona output shows exactly which traits influenced which values.
-
----
-
-## API Usage
-
-### Accessing Persona Values
-
-```typescript
-import {
-  getPersonaValues,
-  hasPersonaValues,
-  type PersonaValues
-} from 'cbrowser/values';
-
-// Check if persona has values defined
-if (hasPersonaValues('adhd')) {
-  const values = getPersonaValues('adhd');
-  console.log(values?.stimulation); // 0.9
-  console.log(values?.security);    // 0.25
-  console.log(values?.maslowLevel); // 'esteem'
-}
-```
-
-### Creating Custom Value Profiles
-
-```typescript
-import {
-  createPersonaValues,
-  type SchwartzValues,
-  type SDTNeeds,
-  type MaslowLevel
-} from 'cbrowser/values';
-
-const schwartzValues: SchwartzValues = {
-  selfDirection: 0.8,
-  stimulation: 0.7,
-  hedonism: 0.5,
-  achievement: 0.6,
-  power: 0.4,
-  security: 0.3,
-  conformity: 0.3,
-  tradition: 0.2,
-  benevolence: 0.6,
-  universalism: 0.7,
-};
-
-const sdtNeeds: SDTNeeds = {
-  autonomyNeed: 0.8,
-  competenceNeed: 0.6,
-  relatednessNeed: 0.5,
-};
-
-const maslowLevel: MaslowLevel = 'self-actualization';
-
-const customValues = createPersonaValues(
-  schwartzValues,
-  sdtNeeds,
-  maslowLevel
-);
-
-// Higher-order values are calculated automatically
-console.log(customValues.openness);          // 0.75 = (0.8 + 0.7) / 2
-console.log(customValues.selfEnhancement);   // 0.5  = (0.6 + 0.4) / 2
-console.log(customValues.conservation);      // 0.27 = (0.3 + 0.3 + 0.2) / 3
-console.log(customValues.selfTranscendence); // 0.65 = (0.6 + 0.7) / 2
-```
-
-### Using Influence Pattern Analysis
-
-```typescript
-import {
-  rankInfluencePatternsForProfile,
-  calculatePatternSusceptibility,
-  INFLUENCE_PATTERNS,
-  type SchwartzValues
-} from 'cbrowser/values';
-
-const anxiousUserValues: Partial<SchwartzValues> = {
-  security: 0.95,
-  conformity: 0.8,
-  stimulation: 0.2,
-  selfDirection: 0.3,
-};
-
-// Rank all influence patterns by effectiveness
-const ranked = rankInfluencePatternsForProfile(anxiousUserValues);
-
-console.log('Most effective patterns for anxious user:');
-ranked.slice(0, 3).forEach(({ pattern, susceptibility }) => {
-  console.log(`  ${pattern.name}: ${(susceptibility * 100).toFixed(0)}%`);
-});
-// Output:
-//   social_proof: 88%
-//   authority: 82%
-//   default_bias: 82%
-
-// Calculate susceptibility for specific pattern
-const scarcityPattern = INFLUENCE_PATTERNS.find(p => p.name === 'scarcity');
-const scarcitySusceptibility = calculatePatternSusceptibility(
-  anxiousUserValues,
-  scarcityPattern!
-);
-console.log(`Scarcity susceptibility: ${(scarcitySusceptibility * 100).toFixed(0)}%`);
-// Output: Scarcity susceptibility: 33% (low - anxious users resist urgency pressure)
-```
-
-### Accessing Value Behaviors
-
-```typescript
-import { VALUE_BEHAVIORS } from 'cbrowser/values';
-
-const securityBehaviors = VALUE_BEHAVIORS.security;
-
-console.log('High security users:');
-securityBehaviors.highBehaviors.forEach(b => console.log(`  - ${b}`));
-// - Reads all fine print
-// - Seeks guarantees
-// - Researches extensively
-// - Avoids perceived risks
-// - Needs trust signals
-
-console.log('Respond positively to:');
-securityBehaviors.positiveResponses.forEach(r => console.log(`  - ${r}`));
-// - Money-back guarantees
-// - Security badges
-// - Trust seals
-// - Detailed policies
-// - Longevity claims
-// - Insurance options
-```
-
----
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Bibliography](./Bibliography.md) - Complete citation list for all CBrowser research
-- [Research Methodology](./Research-Methodology.md) - How traits and values are selected
-- [Trait Index](../traits/Trait-Index.md) - All 25 cognitive traits
-- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - Pre-configured persona profiles

package/docs/traits/Trait-AnchoringBias.md

@@ -1,227 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Anchoring Bias](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-AnchoringBias)**
-
----
-
-# 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
-
-## Estimated Trait Correlations
-
-> *Correlation estimates are derived from related research findings and theoretical models. Empirical calibration is planned ([GitHub #95](https://github.com/alexandriashai/cbrowser/issues/95)).*
-
-| Related Trait | Correlation | Mechanism |
-|--------------|-------------|-----------|
-| [Comprehension](./Trait-Comprehension.md) | r = -0.22 | Understanding enables anchor recognition |
-| [Risk Tolerance](./Trait-RiskTolerance.md) | r = 0.18 | Risk-takers may use anchors as shortcuts |
-| [Satisficing](./Trait-Satisficing.md) | r = 0.35 | Satisficers accept anchored "good enough" values |
-| [Self-Efficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) | r = -0.24 | Confidence enables independent judgment |
-| [Trust Calibration](./Trait-TrustCalibration.md) | r = -0.31 | Skeptics question anchor validity |
-| [Authority Sensitivity](./Trait-AuthoritySensitivity.md) | 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.md) - Anchors provide quick "good enough" answers
-- [Trust Calibration](./Trait-TrustCalibration.md) - Skepticism of anchor validity
-- [Authority Sensitivity](./Trait-AuthoritySensitivity.md) - Suggested values as authority
-- [Self-Efficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) - Confidence to form independent judgments
-- [Time Horizon](./Trait-TimeHorizon.md) - Time pressure increases anchoring
-- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - 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