cbrowser 18.62.0 → 18.63.1

package/docs/traits/Trait-AttributionStyle.md

@@ -1,280 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Attribution Style](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-AttributionStyle)**
-
----
-
-# 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. |
-
-## 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 |
-|--------------|-------------|-----------|
-| [Self-Efficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) | r = 0.52 | Internal attribution builds confidence |
-| [Persistence](./Trait-Persistence.md) | r = 0.41 | Internal + controllable = retry motivation |
-| [Resilience](./Trait-Resilience.md) | r = 0.38 | Attribution style affects recovery |
-| [Trust Calibration](./Trait-TrustCalibration.md) | r = -0.26 | External attributors distrust systems |
-| [Patience](./Trait-Patience.md) | r = 0.23 | Internal attributors invest patience in self-improvement |
-| [Comprehension](./Trait-Comprehension.md) | 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.md) - Confidence in ability to succeed
-- [Persistence](./Trait-Persistence.md) - Continued effort after setbacks
-- [Resilience](./Trait-Resilience.md) - Recovery from failures
-- [Trust Calibration](./Trait-TrustCalibration.md) - Trust in system reliability
-- [Interrupt Recovery](./Trait-InterruptRecovery.md) - Resumption after disruption
-- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - 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

@@ -1,141 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Authority Sensitivity](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-AuthoritySensitivity)**
-
----
-
-# 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
-
-## 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)).*
-
-| 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.md) - Peer-based influence
-- [Trust Calibration](./Trait-TrustCalibration.md) - Credibility assessment processes
-- [Self-Efficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) - Confidence in personal judgment
-- [FOMO](./Trait-FOMO.md) - External pressure responsiveness
-- [Trait Index](./Trait-Index.md) - 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.

package/docs/traits/Trait-ChangeBlindness.md

@@ -1,171 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Change Blindness](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-ChangeBlindness)**
-
----
-
-# Change Blindness
-
-**Category**: Tier 5 - Perception Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (low susceptibility) to 1.0 (high susceptibility)
-
-## Definition
-
-Change Blindness is the perceptual phenomenon where users fail to notice significant visual changes in a scene or interface, particularly when those changes occur during visual disruptions such as page loads, modal transitions, eye movements, or attention shifts. In web and UI contexts, this trait determines how likely users are to miss important updates, error states, navigation changes, or newly appearing content. Users with high change blindness are more susceptible to overlooking critical interface modifications, while those with low change blindness maintain better situational awareness of dynamic content changes.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-
-> "We found that about half of the observers failed to notice a gorilla that walked through the scene, even though it was visible for 5 seconds. This suggests that without attention, even salient events can go completely unnoticed."
-> — Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F., 1999, p. 1059
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. *Perception*, 28(9), 1059-1074.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "The failure to see changes that occur during visual disruptions is remarkably common, even when observers are looking directly at the changing object."
-> — Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J., 1997, p. 368
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. *Psychological Science*, 8(5), 368-373.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00427.x
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Gorilla detection rate | 44% noticed | Simons & Chabris (1999) |
-| Inattentional blindness rate | 46% miss unexpected objects | Simons & Chabris (1999) |
-| Change detection with flicker | 40-60% detection rate | Rensink et al. (1997) |
-| Detection time (central interest) | 4-8 seconds average | Rensink et al. (1997) |
-| Detection time (marginal interest) | 12-24 seconds average | Rensink et al. (1997) |
-| "Person swap" detection | 50% failed to notice | Simons & Levin (1998) |
-| Web notification miss rate | 23-45% of users | DiVita et al. (2004) |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Low | Immediately notices toast notifications, error messages, and status changes; catches subtle UI updates during page transitions; detects when form fields are auto-populated or modified; notices navigation breadcrumb updates; catches loading spinners and progress indicators; quickly identifies new badges or notification counts |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Low | Notices most interface changes within 2-3 seconds; occasionally misses peripheral notifications but catches central updates; detects error states and warning banners reliably; notices when modal content changes; catches most form validation feedback; aware of sidebar or panel state changes |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Misses approximately 30-40% of non-central changes; frequently overlooks toast messages in corner positions; may not notice header updates during scrolling; sometimes misses inline form validation until submission fails; partial awareness of tab content changes; may miss loading states that complete quickly |
-| 0.6-0.8 | High | Frequently misses status updates and notifications (50-60%); often unaware when page content refreshes automatically; misses error messages that disappear on timer; fails to notice shopping cart count updates; overlooks changed button states (enabled/disabled); misses success confirmations after form submissions |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Fails to notice most interface changes unless directly cued; completely misses timed notifications and toasts; unaware of background data refreshes; does not notice when forms reset after errors; misses navigation state changes entirely; requires explicit confirmation dialogs to acknowledge any change; frequently confused by wizard progress that advances without apparent cause |
-
-## Web/UI Manifestations
-
-### Common Scenarios Where Change Blindness Affects Users
-
-**Page Load Transitions**
-- User clicks link, page loads new content, but user keeps looking at same area expecting old content
-- AJAX updates complete silently, user continues interacting with stale data
-- Lazy-loaded images or content appear without user awareness
-
-**Modal and Overlay Changes**
-- Error message appears in modal while user focuses on form fields
-- Modal content updates (e.g., confirmation step) without user noticing the change
-- Overlay dismissal happens, but user doesn't realize underlying page changed
-
-**Notification Failures**
-- Toast notifications appear and auto-dismiss before user notices
-- Badge counts increment on navigation items without detection
-- Alert banners appear at top of page while user scrolls below
-
-**Form State Changes**
-- Validation errors appear inline but are scrolled out of view
-- Submit button becomes disabled/enabled without user awareness
-- Form fields auto-populate or clear without detection
-
-**E-commerce Specific**
-- Cart item counts update without user noticing
-- Price changes during session go undetected
-- Stock status changes ("In Stock" to "Out of Stock") are missed
-
-## 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 |
-|---------------|-------------|-----------|
-| Working Memory | r = -0.38 | Lower working memory reduces capacity for change monitoring |
-| Patience | r = -0.25 | Impatient users miss changes during rapid navigation |
-| Reading Tendency | r = -0.31 | Low readers scan less, miss peripheral changes |
-| Metacognitive Planning | r = -0.29 | Poor planners less likely to monitor for expected changes |
-| Interrupt Recovery | r = 0.42 | High change blindness makes recovery from interruptions harder |
-
-## Design Implications
-
-### For High Change Blindness Users
-
-- Use animation and motion to draw attention to changes
-- Implement persistent notifications rather than auto-dismissing toasts
-- Require explicit acknowledgment for critical state changes
-- Position important updates in current focus area, not periphery
-- Use contrasting colors and visual weight for changed elements
-- Add sound or haptic feedback for important notifications
-- Implement "change highlighting" that persists for 3-5 seconds
-
-### For Low Change Blindness Users
-
-- Subtle animations are sufficient for notification
-- Brief toast messages are acceptable
-- Can rely on peripheral awareness for secondary updates
-- Standard notification patterns work effectively
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Value | Rationale |
-|---------|-------|-----------|
-| Rushing Rachel | 0.75 | Time pressure and rapid scanning increases change blindness |
-| Careful Carlos | 0.25 | Methodical verification catches most changes |
-| Distracted Dave | 0.85 | Frequent attention shifts and multitasking maximize blindness |
-| Senior Sam | 0.70 | Age-related attention narrowing increases susceptibility |
-| Focused Fiona | 0.30 | Concentrated attention reduces change blindness |
-| Anxious Annie | 0.55 | Anxiety narrows attention but heightens vigilance for threats |
-| Mobile Mike | 0.65 | Small screens and multitasking increase blindness |
-| Power User Pete | 0.35 | Familiarity with patterns helps detect unexpected changes |
-
-## Measurement Approaches
-
-### Experimental Paradigms
-
-1. **Flicker paradigm**: Alternating between original and modified images with blank screen
-2. **Mudsplash paradigm**: Brief visual disruption concurrent with change
-3. **Cut paradigm**: Changes during simulated "camera cuts" or page transitions
-4. **Gradual change paradigm**: Slow, continuous modifications over time
-
-### Web-Specific Metrics
-
-- Time to notice toast notification
-- Detection rate for inline validation errors
-- Response to badge count increments
-- Awareness of auto-refresh events
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Mental Model Rigidity](./Trait-MentalModelRigidity.md) - Related perceptual limitation
-- [Working Memory](./Trait-WorkingMemory.md) - Capacity constraint that affects change detection
-- [Reading Tendency](./Trait-ReadingTendency.md) - Scanning patterns affect peripheral awareness
-- [Trait Index](./Trait-Index.md) - Complete trait listing
-- [Distracted Dave](../personas/Persona-DistractedDave) - High change blindness persona
-
-## Bibliography
-
-DiVita, J., Obermayer, R., Nugent, W., & Linville, J. M. (2004). Verification of the change blindness phenomenon while managing critical events on a combat information display. *Human Factors*, 46(2), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.2.205.37340
-
-Levin, D. T., & Simons, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 4(4), 501-506. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214339
-
-O'Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A., & Clark, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of 'mudsplashes'. *Nature*, 398(6722), 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/17953
-
-Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. *Psychological Science*, 8(5), 368-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00427.x
-
-Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. *Perception*, 28(9), 1059-1074. https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059
-
-Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 5(4), 644-649. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208840
-
-Varakin, D. A., Levin, D. T., & Fidler, R. (2004). Unseen and unaware: Implications of recent research on failures of visual awareness for human-computer interface design. *Human-Computer Interaction*, 19(4), 389-422. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1904_5