The first heuristic that comes into play is the false consensus effect. Kalaya may mistakenly believe that other members of the organization, club leaders, and even potential donors may share similar views about freedom of expression to hers. As a result, this may lead you to think that your protest against the fundraiser is justified, supported by others, and ultimately the most effective way to get the rule repealed. The second heuristic at play in this scenario is obedience to authority. Kalaya may feel obligated to her superiors to continue her fundraising efforts because she is worried about what they might think of her despite the unethical rules they have enacted against members' individual freedoms. The third heuristic that could influence Kalaya's decision would be excessive optimism. He may have a greater sense of confidence that his decision to stop fundraising will convince club officials to reverse the rule. His heightened belief in the protest's success could backfire, resulting in the rule remaining in place and the loss of any funds he might have acquired during the strike. Finally, Kalaya may be influenced by the morality of the role. In his role as a committee member, he has the duty to collect donations for the organization and fight for its success. However, in her role as a friend, Kalaya has a moral duty to support her friend's protest efforts against what she perceives to be