hus, a distinction must be made between mindless enactment of scripts or schemata that may have detrimental results versus low levels of automaticity that may be beneficial for effective cognitive functioning. Although persistent routinization of responses

of a script, (5) conflict, compe tition, or confusion arising among two or more message goals and/or the means of achieving them, (6) anticipating negative consequences of a message yet to be transmitted, (7) nonroutine time delay or processing difficulty intervening between message formulation and actual transmission, (8) discrepant, asynchronous, or suspicion-arousing features of the modality, message, source, or situation (such as expecting invalid information, interacting with a reputedly untrustworthy source, or recognizing implausibilities in a message), and (9) experiencing a positive or negative consequence that is highly discrepant from previous consequences (e.g., experiencing a positive or negative violation of expectations or failing to achieve one's goals and plans).

The conversations were punctuated frequently by potential mindfulness prompts. Roughly 30% of the 30-s intervals involved a substantive reconfiguring of conversational objectives. Participants' self-reports and observational data indicated that mindfulness was encouraged by several factors consistent with the list provided above. Planning confusions and uncertainties about which actions to deploy in future conversational turns induced interactants to rethink their objectives. When plans were thwarted by the partner's lack of cooperation a similar effect occurred. Partner rule violations, including perceived invasions of privacy and excessive verbosity, elicited a mindful response, as did behavior that prompted suspicions about the partner's motives (e.g., perceived insincerity). Conversational intervals characterized by these apparently mindful reactions were associated with behavioral patterns, such as increased questioning, longer conversational turns, requests for evidence,!

When individuals pursue their goals in social situations, fellow interactants expect them to speak and act in certain ways and not others. Of course, in none but the most formal and ritualistic social contexts do strict interaction protocols require the enactment of a singular action plan, for example, bowing in the presence of royalty. Even so, most social interaction situations entail a finite range of anticipated and socially appropriate conduct attached to them (Berger & Kellermann, 1994). Encountering an unfamiliar setting or routine, failing to bring about desired goals and subgoals, having completion of a planned course of action thwarted, or projecting that one's intended actions may have adverse effects-all

Some common words found in the essay are:
Schul Burnstein, Vallacher Wegner, Berger Kellermann, Krull Pelham, , Berger Bell, Elicit Mindfulness, Pelham Krull, Knowlton Berger, Cappella Greene, et al, 1997 berger, berger et, goals plans, et al 1996, berger et al, al 1996, berger 1995 1997, berger 1997, own others', berger 1995, 1995 1997, cognitive resources, expectations own others', 1997 berger et,
Approximate Word count = 1676
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)