³²An example was seen in a study where the subjects were told a story which suggested that an imaginary person entering a house would be either a burglar, or a real estate agent. When the imaginary person was more likely to be a real estate agent than a burglar—based on various cues such as what other characters in the story were thinking— they tended to ignore the possibility that the person is a burglar altogether, as seen in the predictions that they made about the behaviour of the imaginary person (Malt et al., 1995; Murphy and Ross, 2010). The authors also found a way of remedying the situation: if the subjects are asked what the probabilities of the two categories are, and their estimates are shown on the computer screen (say, “65% vs. 35%”), the subjects are able to take the uncertainty of the categorization into account.