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 the same views as her regarding free speech. Therefore, this may lead him to believe that his fundraising protest is justified, supported by others, and ultimately the most effective way to get the rule revoked. The second heuristic at work in this scenario is obedience to authority. Kalaya may feel a responsibility to her superiors to continue her fundraising efforts because she is worried about what they might think of her despite the unethical rule they made at the against the individual freedoms of members. The third heuristic that could influence Kalaya's decision would be excessive optimism. She may be more confident that her decision to stop fundraising will convince club leaders to rescind the rule. Her increased belief in the success of the protest could backfire, resulting in the rule being upheld and the loss of any funds she may have acquired during the strike. Finally, Kalaya can be affected by the morality of roles. In her role as a committee member, she has a duty to collect donations for the organization and work for its success. Yet, in her role as friend, Kalaya has a moral duty to support her friend's protest efforts against what she perceives to be