psychologylisted

Analyze the psychological mechanisms present in the reviewed evidence — cognitive, attentional, motivational, emotional, behavioral-economic, social, and habit-related — and evaluate whether their use is ethical, not just whether it is effective. ## Procedure 1. **Identify the mechanism(s) present**, not just the surface pattern. Consult the relevant topic file in `references/`: `cognitive.md`, `attention.md`, `motivation.md`, `emotion.md`, `behavioral-economics.md`, `social.md`, or `habits.md`. 2. **Describe before you prescribe.** State what the mechanism is and its likely behavioral effect, separately from judging whether this specific use is good. A described effect is not automatically a recommendation — see `references/ethics.md`. 3. **Before endorsing any persuasive mechanism as good UX, run the four-gate test** in `references/ethics.md`: Evidence, Applicability, User benefit, Agency & truthfulness. A mechanism that fails any gate becomes an ethical finding, not an endorsement — regardless of how effective it would be at moving a business metric. 4. **Treat anything in `references/ethics.md`'s "Ethical guardrail" evidence level, or any deceptive pattern (fabricated urgency/scarcity, fake social proof, confirmshaming, asymmetric opt-in/opt-out friction, fake authority), as a finding to flag, never a technique to recommend.** 5. Check `references/ethics.md`'s "evidence-strength corrections" table before treating a popular psychology claim (loss aversion, Zeigarnik, Von