cbrowser 18.63.0 → 18.63.2

package/docs/traits/Trait-SelfEfficacy.md

@@ -1,199 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Self-Efficacy](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-SelfEfficacy)**
-
----
-
-# Self-Efficacy
-
-**Category**: Tier 2 - Emotional Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (low) to 1.0 (high)
-
-## Definition
-
-Self-efficacy measures an individual's belief in their capability to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific outcomes. In web interaction contexts, self-efficacy determines whether users believe they can successfully complete tasks, how many solution paths they attempt before giving up, and whether they attribute failures to personal inadequacy or external factors. High self-efficacy users approach unfamiliar interfaces with confidence, persist through challenges, and view obstacles as surmountable. Low self-efficacy users doubt their abilities, abandon tasks prematurely, and may avoid attempting complex interactions altogether.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-> "Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active the efforts. Those who persist in subjectively threatening activities will eventually eliminate their fear."
-> -- Bandura, A., 1977, p. 194
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. *Psychological Review*, 84(2), 191-215.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "Computer self-efficacy was found to be a significant determinant of behavioral intention and perceived ease of use. Individuals with higher computer self-efficacy were more likely to use computers and perceived them as easier to use."
-> -- Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A., 1995, p. 192
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. *MIS Quarterly*, 19(2), 189-211.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Persistence increase (high vs low) | 3x more attempts | Bandura (1977) |
-| Task completion rate difference | 35-40% higher for high self-efficacy | Compeau & Higgins (1995) |
-| Abandonment speed (low self-efficacy) | 40% faster on first error | Derived from behavioral research |
-| Computer Self-Efficacy Scale reliability | alpha = 0.95 | Compeau & Higgins (1995) |
-| Effort expenditure correlation | r = 0.62 with self-efficacy | Bandura (1977) |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Low | Abandons 40% faster on first error; avoids complex tasks entirely; says "I can't do this" internally; attributes all failures to personal inadequacy; seeks help immediately or gives up; unwilling to try unfamiliar UI patterns; clicks only on familiar elements; avoids forms with many required fields |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Low | Hesitates before attempting new interactions; gives up after 1-2 failed attempts; blames self for unclear error messages; seeks external validation before proceeding; avoids "advanced" or "expert" features; prefers guided wizards over open-ended interfaces; may complete simple tasks but abandons at first complexity |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Attempts new interactions with some hesitation; tries 2-3 solution paths before seeking help; balanced attribution between self and system; willing to explore but needs periodic success to continue; can complete moderately complex tasks; may pause to plan approach before difficult sections |
-| 0.6-0.8 | High | Approaches unfamiliar interfaces with confidence; tries 4-6 solution paths before abandoning; attributes failures to system issues or temporary obstacles; actively seeks solutions rather than help; comfortable with trial-and-error exploration; interprets error messages as debugging information; assumes tasks are achievable |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Tries 6+ solution paths; views all tasks as solvable; treats errors as informative feedback; may override warnings believing they know better; enjoys mastering complex interfaces; assumes ability to complete any task; may underestimate actual difficulty leading to overconfident behavior; rarely seeks help even when warranted |
-
-## Trait Implementation in CBrowser
-
-### Solution Path Attempts
-
-CBrowser models self-efficacy through the number of alternative approaches attempted:
-
-```typescript
-// Number of solution paths tried before abandoning
-const solutionAttempts = Math.floor(1 + (selfEfficacy * 7));
-// Low self-efficacy: 1-3 attempts
-// High self-efficacy: 6-8 attempts
-
-// Willingness to try unfamiliar elements
-const explorationConfidence = 0.3 + (selfEfficacy * 0.6);
-// Low: 30% base willingness
-// High: 90% willingness
-```
-
-### First-Error Response
-
-```typescript
-// Speed of abandonment after first error
-const firstErrorPersistence = 1 - (0.4 * (1 - selfEfficacy));
-// Low self-efficacy: 40% reduction in persistence (abandons faster)
-// High self-efficacy: minimal impact
-
-// Attribution style after error
-const selfBlameRatio = 0.7 - (selfEfficacy * 0.5);
-// Low: 70% self-attribution ("I messed up")
-// High: 20% self-attribution ("The interface is unclear")
-```
-
-### Self-Efficacy State Tracking
-
-```typescript
-interface SelfEfficacyState {
-  currentEfficacy: number;      // Dynamic efficacy level (0-1)
-  recentSuccesses: number;      // Count in current session
-  recentFailures: number;       // Count in current session
-  domainConfidence: Map<string, number>;  // Task-specific confidence
-}
-
-// Efficacy updates based on outcomes
-function updateEfficacy(state: SelfEfficacyState, success: boolean): void {
-  if (success) {
-    state.currentEfficacy = Math.min(1, state.currentEfficacy + 0.05);
-    state.recentSuccesses++;
-  } else {
-    state.currentEfficacy = Math.max(0, state.currentEfficacy - 0.08);
-    state.recentFailures++;
-  }
-}
-```
-
-## 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)).*
-
-Research and theoretical models indicate the following correlations:
-
-| Related Trait | Correlation | Research Basis |
-|--------------|-------------|----------------|
-| Resilience | r = 0.56 | Both serve as protective factors against failure impact |
-| Persistence | r = 0.48 | Self-efficacy fuels sustained effort (Bandura, 1977) |
-| Risk Tolerance | r = 0.42 | Confident users take more interface risks |
-| Comprehension | r = 0.35 | Some correlation; competence builds confidence |
-| Curiosity | r = 0.38 | Confident users explore more freely |
-| Anxiety (inverse) | r = -0.52 | Self-efficacy buffers against performance anxiety |
-
-### Interaction Effects
-
-- **Self-Efficacy x Comprehension**: High efficacy + low comprehension creates overconfident users who attempt tasks beyond their ability
-- **Self-Efficacy x Patience**: Low efficacy + high patience may lead to prolonged ineffective attempts without trying alternatives
-- **Self-Efficacy x Resilience**: Combined high values create maximally persistent users
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Self-Efficacy Value | Rationale |
-|---------|---------------------|-----------|
-| power-user | 0.85 | Experts have extensive mastery experiences building confidence |
-| first-timer | 0.35 | No prior success to build confidence; uncertain of abilities |
-| elderly-user | 0.40 | May doubt abilities with "modern" technology despite other competencies |
-| impatient-user | 0.55 | Moderate; impatience not related to self-doubt |
-| mobile-user | 0.60 | Familiar with touch interfaces; moderate confidence |
-| screen-reader-user | 0.70 | Developed high competence navigating accessibility challenges |
-| anxious-user | 0.25 | Anxiety undermines belief in ability to succeed |
-| skeptical-user | 0.50 | Skepticism about sites, not about own abilities |
-
-## UX Design Implications
-
-### For Low Self-Efficacy Users (< 0.4)
-
-1. **Early wins**: Design easy initial steps that build confidence
-2. **Progress indicators**: Show how far they've come to reinforce capability
-3. **External attribution**: Error messages should blame the system, not the user
-4. **Guided paths**: Provide step-by-step wizards instead of open interfaces
-5. **Social proof**: Show that others successfully completed the task
-6. **Help accessibility**: Make help easily visible without stigma
-
-### For High Self-Efficacy Users (> 0.7)
-
-1. **Challenge engagement**: Provide complex options for those who seek them
-2. **Autonomy**: Allow skipping tutorials and guided flows
-3. **Power features**: Surface advanced capabilities
-4. **Warning calibration**: Ensure warnings are credible; overconfident users may dismiss weak warnings
-5. **Error details**: Provide technical information for self-diagnosis
-
-### Sources of Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977)
-
-Design interventions can leverage the four sources:
-
-| Source | Description | UX Application |
-|--------|-------------|----------------|
-| **Mastery experiences** | Prior successes at similar tasks | Progressive complexity, early wins |
-| **Vicarious experience** | Observing others succeed | Video demos, user testimonials |
-| **Verbal persuasion** | Encouragement from others | Encouraging microcopy, supportive error messages |
-| **Physiological states** | Reduced anxiety and stress | Calm visual design, clear layouts |
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Trait-Resilience](./Trait-Resilience.md) - Recovery from setbacks (strongly correlated)
-- [Trait-Persistence](./Trait-Persistence.md) - Behavioral persistence (downstream effect)
-- [Trait-Comprehension](./Trait-Comprehension.md) - Understanding ability (distinct from confidence)
-- [Trait-RiskTolerance](./Trait-RiskTolerance.md) - Willingness to take interface risks
-- [Trait-Index](./Trait-Index.md) - Complete trait listing
-
-## 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
-
-Bandura, A. (1986). *Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory*. Prentice-Hall.
-
-Bandura, A. (1997). *Self-efficacy: The exercise of control*. W.H. Freeman.
-
-Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. *MIS Quarterly*, 19(2), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
-
-Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. *Academy of Management Review*, 17(2), 183-211. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279530
-
-Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. *Information Systems Research*, 9(2), 126-163. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.126
-
-Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. *Psychological Bulletin*, 124(2), 240-261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
-
-Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. *Information Systems Research*, 11(4), 342-365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872

package/docs/traits/Trait-SocialProofSensitivity.md

@@ -1,155 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Social Proof Sensitivity](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-SocialProofSensitivity)**
-
----
-
-# Social Proof Sensitivity
-
-**Category**: Tier 6 - Social Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (low) to 1.0 (high)
-
-## Definition
-
-Social Proof Sensitivity measures the degree to which a user's decisions and behaviors are influenced by the observed actions, choices, and opinions of others. Users high in this trait heavily weight user reviews, star ratings, popularity indicators ("bestseller"), social media metrics (likes, shares), and behavioral signals ("1,247 people bought this today") in their decision-making. Users low in this trait make independent judgments based on personal criteria, are less swayed by popularity or consensus, and may even exhibit contrarian tendencies, avoiding options simply because they are popular.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-
-> "People use the actions of others to decide on proper behavior for themselves, especially when they view those others as similar to themselves."
-> - Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008, p. 472
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. *Journal of Consumer Research, 35*(3), 472-482.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
-
-### Supporting Research
-
-> "We view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it."
-> - Cialdini, 2001, p. 116
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Cialdini, R. B. (2001). *Influence: Science and practice* (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Provincial norm (same room guests) | 49.3% towel reuse | Goldstein et al. (2008) |
-| Generic norm (environmental appeal) | 37.2% towel reuse | Goldstein et al. (2008) |
-| Provincial norm advantage | +32.5% effectiveness | Goldstein et al. (2008) |
-| Review influence on purchase | 93% consumers read reviews | BrightLocal (2020) |
-| Star rating impact | 3.3 stars minimum for consideration | Spiegel Research (2017) |
-| Social proof conversion boost | 15-25% increase | Cialdini (2001) |
-| Similar others effect | 2x influence vs generic | Goldstein et al. (2008) |
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Very Low | Makes completely independent judgments; ignores reviews, ratings, and popularity indicators; may actively avoid popular options (contrarian tendency); distrusts "bestseller" claims; unaffected by social metrics; views popularity as irrelevant or even negative signal; bases decisions entirely on personal criteria and direct evaluation |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Low | Notices social proof without being strongly influenced; reviews are one minor input among many; skeptical of inflated metrics or manipulated reviews; makes most decisions based on personal analysis; may check reviews but doesn't weight them heavily; popularity doesn't increase appeal |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Moderate | Balances social proof with personal judgment; reviews influence but don't determine decisions; uses star ratings as screening filter; notices popularity indicators; more influenced when uncertain; standard weighting of social signals in decision-making; trusts aggregate opinions while maintaining some independent evaluation |
-| 0.6-0.8 | High | Strongly influenced by social proof; prioritizes highly-rated options; influenced by "most popular" labels; checks reviews before most decisions; "X people bought this" indicators increase purchase likelihood; shares and follows based on social metrics; trusts crowd wisdom over personal evaluation; avoids low-rated options regardless of personal interest |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Very High | Decisions dominated by social proof; won't purchase below 4-star ratings; "bestseller" labels are major decision factors; heavily influenced by review counts and social metrics; follows trends automatically; trusts popular opinion completely; experiences significant discomfort choosing unpopular options; susceptible to fake reviews and inflated social metrics |
-
-## Web/UI Behavioral Patterns
-
-### High Social Proof Sensitivity (0.8+)
-
-- **Reviews**: Always reads reviews before any purchase; won't buy with < 4 stars or few reviews
-- **Ratings**: Uses star ratings as primary filter; 4.5+ stars strongly preferred
-- **Popularity Indicators**: "Bestseller," "Most Popular," "Trending" labels increase appeal by 2-3x
-- **Social Metrics**: Like counts, share counts, follower numbers influence trust and engagement
-- **Real-time Activity**: "27 people viewing this" creates interest and urgency
-- **Testimonials**: Customer stories and case studies are highly persuasive
-- **Similar Users**: "Customers like you also bought" strongly influences additional purchases
-- **Review Sorting**: Prioritizes "most helpful" or "most recent" reviews
-- **Recommendations**: Follows "customers also viewed" and collaborative filtering suggestions
-
-### Low Social Proof Sensitivity (0.2-)
-
-- **Reviews**: May skip reviews entirely or read critically for information, not influence
-- **Ratings**: Star ratings don't determine choices; may choose 3-star option if it fits needs
-- **Popularity Indicators**: Ignores or is skeptical of "bestseller" claims; may view as marketing
-- **Social Metrics**: Indifferent to likes, shares, followers
-- **Real-time Activity**: "X people viewing" creates no response or mild annoyance
-- **Testimonials**: Evaluates factual content; unmoved by emotional appeals
-- **Similar Users**: Makes independent choices; collaborative filtering not influential
-- **Review Sorting**: May read negative reviews specifically to find edge cases
-- **Recommendations**: Explores independently rather than following suggestions
-
-## 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 |
-|------------------|-------------|-----------|
-| Authority Sensitivity | r = 0.42 | Both involve external validation seeking |
-| FOMO | r = 0.58 | Popular items create fear of missing out |
-| Self-Efficacy | r = -0.31 | Lower confidence increases reliance on others |
-| Emotional Contagion | r = 0.44 | Social proof often carries emotional content |
-| Risk Tolerance | r = -0.28 | Social proof reduces perceived risk |
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Value | Rationale |
-|---------|-------|-----------|
-| Busy Parent (Pat) | 0.70 | Uses reviews as efficient filtering mechanism |
-| Tech-Savvy Teen (Taylor) | 0.80 | Social validation highly important; trend-conscious |
-| Senior User (Sam) | 0.60 | Values recommendations but maintains some independence |
-| Impatient Professional (Alex) | 0.55 | Uses ratings for quick decisions but maintains expertise |
-| Cautious Newcomer (Casey) | 0.75 | Uncertainty increases reliance on others' experiences |
-| Accessibility User (Jordan) | 0.65 | Values others' accessibility experiences specifically |
-| Power User (Riley) | 0.25 | Trusts personal expertise; may be contrarian |
-
-## Design Implications
-
-### For High Social Proof Sensitivity Users
-
-- Display ratings and review counts prominently
-- Show popularity indicators ("X people bought this")
-- Include customer testimonials near decision points
-- Use "most popular" highlighting effectively
-- Show real-time activity when appropriate
-- Enable review filtering and sorting
-- Display similarity-based recommendations
-
-### For Low Social Proof Sensitivity Users
-
-- Provide detailed specifications and objective data
-- Enable direct product comparison
-- Don't rely solely on social proof for persuasion
-- Offer expert reviews or objective testing results
-- Provide information for independent evaluation
-- Avoid overusing popularity markers (may trigger reactance)
-
-### Ethical Considerations
-
-- Display genuine, verified reviews
-- Don't inflate or fake social metrics
-- Clearly label sponsored reviews
-- Show balanced review distribution (not just positive)
-- Allow users to filter by verified purchases
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Authority Sensitivity](./Trait-AuthoritySensitivity.md) - Expert-based influence
-- [FOMO](./Trait-FOMO.md) - Fear of missing popular items
-- [Emotional Contagion](./Trait-EmotionalContagion.md) - Emotional content of social proof
-- [Trust Calibration](./Trait-TrustCalibration.md) - Credibility assessment
-- [Trait Index](./Trait-Index.md) - All cognitive traits
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Cialdini, R. B. (2001). *Influence: Science and practice* (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
-
-Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. *Annual Review of Psychology, 55*, 591-621.
-
-Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. *Journal of Consumer Research, 35*(3), 472-482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
-
-Spiegel Research Center. (2017). *How online reviews influence sales*. Northwestern University.
-
-Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. *Journal of Marketing, 74*(2), 133-148.

package/docs/traits/Trait-TimeHorizon.md

@@ -1,267 +0,0 @@
-> **This documentation is no longer maintained here.**
->
-> For the latest version, please visit: **[Time Horizon](https://cbrowser.ai/docs/Trait-TimeHorizon)**
-
----
-
-# Time Horizon
-
-**Category**: Tier 3 - Decision-Making Traits
-**Scale**: 0.0 (present-focused) to 1.0 (future-focused)
-
-## Definition
-
-Time Horizon describes an individual's temporal orientation in decision-making, particularly how they weigh immediate rewards against delayed but larger rewards. Rooted in hyperbolic discounting research, this trait affects web behavior across purchasing decisions (instant gratification vs. waiting for sales), subscription choices (monthly vs. annual), security behaviors (convenience vs. long-term protection), and content consumption (quick entertainment vs. educational investment). Present-focused users strongly prefer immediate outcomes; future-focused users invest present effort for larger future returns.
-
-## Research Foundation
-
-### Primary Citation
-
-> "I propose a 'golden eggs' model of intertemporal choice. The model adopts a quasi-hyperbolic discount function and assumes that consumers are naive about their future preferences... The model generates short-run impatience and long-run patience."
-> — Laibson, 1997, p. 443
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. *The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112*(2), 443-478.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253
-
-### Hyperbolic Discounting Model
-
-The quasi-hyperbolic (beta-delta) model captures human time preferences:
-
-**Standard exponential discounting:** U = u(now) + delta * u(later)
-
-**Hyperbolic discounting:** U = u(now) + beta * delta * u(later)
-
-Where beta (0 < beta < 1) represents present bias - the additional devaluation of all future rewards.
-
-### Key Numerical Values
-
-| Metric | Value | Source |
-|--------|-------|--------|
-| Beta parameter (present bias) | 0.7-0.9 | Laibson (1997) |
-| Annual discount rate implied | 17-36% | Laibson (1997) |
-| Immediate vs 1-month delay discount | 30-40% | Frederick et al. (2002) |
-| 1-month vs 1-year delay discount | 10-15% | Frederick et al. (2002) |
-| Preference reversal rate | 58% | Read et al. (1999) |
-| Annual plan cost savings ignored | 15-20% | Industry data |
-| "Free trial" conversion requiring future payment | 60% lower than immediate | Various |
-
-### Present Bias Empirical Findings
-
-> "When subjects are asked to choose between $100 today and $110 tomorrow, many prefer the immediate reward. But when choosing between $100 in 30 days and $110 in 31 days, the same subjects often prefer to wait the extra day for more money."
-> — Frederick, Loewenstein, & O'Donoghue, 2002
-
-**Full Citation (APA 7):**
-Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. *Journal of Economic Literature, 40*(2), 351-401.
-
-**DOI**: https://doi.org/10.1257/002205102320161311
-
-## Behavioral Levels
-
-| Value | Label | Behaviors |
-|-------|-------|-----------|
-| 0.0-0.2 | Extreme Present Focus | Immediate gratification dominant; clicks "Buy Now" over "Save for Later"; chooses monthly billing over discounted annual; skips security setup for quick access; abandons onboarding that delays core value; strong preference for instant downloads over queued |
-| 0.2-0.4 | Present-Leaning | Prefers immediate options but will wait for significant rewards; may select annual billing if discount is large (>30%); quick account creation over secure setup; minimal investment in configuration |
-| 0.4-0.6 | Balanced Temporal | Considers both timeframes; evaluates immediate vs delayed tradeoffs; moderate willingness to invest setup time; responds to reasonable long-term incentives |
-| 0.6-0.8 | Future-Leaning | Invests present effort for future benefits; selects annual plans for savings; completes full onboarding; configures security properly; reads documentation before using; saves items rather than impulse buying |
-| 0.8-1.0 | Extreme Future Focus | Strong delayed gratification; extensive planning before action; always chooses longest billing cycle for maximum savings; comprehensive security setup; thorough learning investment; may over-delay immediate needs |
-
-## Web Behavior Patterns
-
-### Subscription and Billing
-
-**Present-Focused (0.0-0.3):**
-- Monthly billing despite higher total cost
-- "Start free trial" over "Buy annual plan"
-- Pay-per-use over committed plans
-- Ignores TCO (total cost of ownership)
-- Upgrades impulsively when features needed
-
-**Future-Focused (0.7-1.0):**
-- Annual billing for cost savings
-- Evaluates multi-year options
-- Considers long-term value over entry price
-- Waits for sales on non-urgent purchases
-- Plans subscription renewals in advance
-
-### Security and Privacy
-
-**Present-Focused:**
-- "Skip" on 2FA setup
-- Weak passwords for convenience
-- "Remember me" on shared devices
-- Ignores privacy settings for faster signup
-- Clicks through security warnings
-
-**Future-Focused:**
-- Enables all security features
-- Uses password managers
-- Reads privacy policies
-- Configures granular permissions
-- Updates software proactively
-
-### Onboarding and Setup
-
-**Present-Focused:**
-- Skips tutorials to use product immediately
-- Minimal profile completion
-- Default settings accepted
-- "I'll do it later" on optional steps
-- Quick-start over comprehensive setup
-
-**Future-Focused:**
-- Completes full onboarding
-- Configures preferences thoroughly
-- Watches tutorial videos
-- Connects integrations
-- Invests time in learning curve
-
-### Content Consumption
-
-**Present-Focused:**
-- Short-form content (TikTok, Reels)
-- Skips to interesting parts
-- Entertainment over education
-- Immediate satisfaction content
-- High bounce rate on long-form
-
-**Future-Focused:**
-- Long-form articles and courses
-- Educational content investment
-- Bookmark for later reading
-- Newsletter subscriptions
-- Documentation and reference material
-
-## 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 |
-|--------------|-------------|-----------|
-| [Patience](./Trait-Patience.md) | r = 0.68 | Future focus requires waiting tolerance |
-| [Persistence](./Trait-Persistence.md) | r = 0.52 | Long-term goals require sustained effort |
-| [Self-Efficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) | r = 0.34 | Confidence in future self enables delay |
-| [Risk Tolerance](./Trait-RiskTolerance.md) | r = -0.28 | Present focus correlates with risk-seeking |
-| [Satisficing](./Trait-Satisficing.md) | r = 0.21 | Future-focused may optimize more |
-| [Metacognitive Planning](./Trait-MetacognitivePlanning.md) | r = 0.45 | Planning requires future orientation |
-
-## Persona Values
-
-| Persona | Time Horizon Value | Rationale |
-|---------|-------------------|-----------|
-| **Distracted Teen** | 0.15 | Strong present bias, immediate gratification |
-| **Rushed Professional** | 0.35 | Time pressure creates present focus |
-| **Overwhelmed Parent** | 0.40 | Cognitive load reduces future planning |
-| **First-Time User** | 0.45 | Eager to see product value now |
-| **Anxious User** | 0.50 | Uncertainty about future affects planning |
-| **Careful Senior** | 0.60 | Methodical approach, considers consequences |
-| **Tech Enthusiast** | 0.65 | Invests in learning for mastery |
-| **Power User** | 0.70 | Configuration investment for long-term efficiency |
-| **Elderly Novice** | 0.55 | May rush due to frustration or be cautious |
-
-## Design Implications
-
-### For Present-Focused Users
-
-1. **Immediate value** - Show core value before requiring investment
-2. **Progressive onboarding** - Delay optional setup
-3. **Monthly options** - Even if annual is better value
-4. **Quick wins** - Early dopamine hits
-5. **Reduce friction** - Minimize steps to reward
-
-### For Future-Focused Users
-
-1. **Annual discounts** - Prominently display savings
-2. **Comprehensive onboarding** - Full setup options
-3. **Documentation access** - Learning resources
-4. **Long-term benefits** - Communicate future value
-5. **Security features** - Easy to enable
-
-### Ethical Design
-
-- Don't exploit present bias with dark patterns
-- Make long-term costs clear (subscription traps)
-- Default to user-beneficial options
-- Allow preference changes easily
-
-## Measurement in CBrowser
-
-```typescript
-// Time horizon affects billing and commitment decisions
-function selectBillingCycle(
-  options: BillingOption[],
-  traits: Traits
-): BillingOption {
-  // Sort by monthly cost (annual plans have lower monthly equivalent)
-  const sorted = options.sort((a, b) => a.monthlyEquivalent - b.monthlyEquivalent);
-
-  if (traits.timeHorizon > 0.7) {
-    // Future-focused: select best long-term value
-    return sorted[0]; // Cheapest per month (usually annual)
-  } else if (traits.timeHorizon > 0.4) {
-    // Balanced: consider if discount is compelling
-    const annualSavings = (sorted[sorted.length - 1].monthlyEquivalent - sorted[0].monthlyEquivalent)
-                          / sorted[sorted.length - 1].monthlyEquivalent;
-    if (annualSavings > 0.2) return sorted[0];
-    return sorted[sorted.length - 1];
-  } else {
-    // Present-focused: select lowest commitment
-    return sorted[sorted.length - 1]; // Monthly/shortest term
-  }
-}
-
-// Onboarding completion
-function completeOnboardingStep(step: OnboardingStep, traits: Traits): boolean {
-  if (step.required) return true;
-
-  const completionProbability =
-    step.immediateValue * (1 - traits.timeHorizon) +
-    step.futureValue * traits.timeHorizon;
-
-  return random() < completionProbability;
-}
-```
-
-## Hyperbolic Discounting Formula
-
-CBrowser uses the quasi-hyperbolic model:
-
-```typescript
-function discountedValue(
-  value: number,
-  delayDays: number,
-  traits: Traits
-): number {
-  const beta = 0.5 + traits.timeHorizon * 0.5; // 0.5-1.0
-  const delta = 0.95 + traits.timeHorizon * 0.05; // 0.95-1.0 per period
-
-  if (delayDays === 0) return value;
-
-  // Quasi-hyperbolic: immediate present bias + exponential
-  return value * beta * Math.pow(delta, delayDays / 30);
-}
-```
-
-## See Also
-
-- [Patience](./Trait-Patience.md) - Tolerance for waiting
-- [Persistence](./Trait-Persistence.md) - Sustained effort toward goals
-- [Self-Efficacy](./Trait-SelfEfficacy.md) - Belief in future success
-- [Satisficing](./Trait-Satisficing.md) - "Good enough now" vs optimal later
-- [Metacognitive Planning](./Trait-MetacognitivePlanning.md) - Strategic future thinking
-- [Persona Index](../personas/Persona-Index.md) - Trait combinations in personas
-
-## Bibliography
-
-Ainslie, G. (1992). *Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person*. Cambridge University Press.
-
-Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. *Journal of Economic Literature, 40*(2), 351-401. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205102320161311
-
-Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. *The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112*(2), 443-478. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253
-
-O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. *American Economic Review, 89*(1), 103-124. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.1.103
-
-Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Kalyanaraman, S. (1999). Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic. *Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12*(4), 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199912)12:4<257::AID-BDM327>3.0.CO;2-6
-
-Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. *Economics Letters, 8*(3), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7