People value things and outcomes more highly if they had to exert more effort achieving them ("effort justification"). Ants do to. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-08983-001?doi=1 … h/t @Neuro_Skepticpic.twitter.com/2EI242QC3O
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It seems to be a post-social heuristic installation. Social: humans largely do what everyone else is doing. Heuristic: if it's hard to do, it must be valuable, or nobody would do it.
Think it's because of the sharpness of the contrast? The dark suffering of the effort vs the bright reward.
That is exactly our interpretation, yes.
I don't believe it bc that tweet was too short.
We interpret these results as arising from state-dependant learning: a reward experienced in a lower mental state causes a greater absolute increase in state than the same reward when already in a high state. So not effort justification.
While it does strictly speaking contradict optimal foraging, this is reasonable: it comes out of a by-product of a basic aspect of perception - psychophysics and Webers law. Other examples of non-optimal evolutionary hang-ups abound in biology.
Not that hard to understand; what the study really shows is that post hoc reasoning occurs in more than just humans.
I don't think this is reasoning per se - I believe it arises from a non-cognitive aspect of perception - the way in which stimuli are interpreted relative to ones current state, and diminishing returns on increasing state.
Where there is a will, there will be mental rationalization to justify how stupid it might have been. 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.