In experienced life. This character, unlucky at work, was named Adam and Jean for male and female participants, Oleandrin chemical information respectively. As a result, although Mike/Susan’s life was punctuated by unsuccessful loverelated events (e.g., I just asked her for her name and she answered: “I am sorry, I’m extremely busy and cannot waste my time!”), Adam/Jean’s life primarily involved work-related failures (e.g., I have been hired not too long ago, but I already had a challenging time with my boss. He stated that I had mistakenly filed some invoices, and that was a disaster). Lifestories had been wealthy in spatial, perceptual, and emotional details (e.g., [. . .] the flat is on 
Queen West, on the second floor of a Victorian residence painted in red having a blue ceiling It ‘s just that from time to time I can feel like such a nothing ). Life-stories had been subdivided a priori in conceptual units, each and every of which conveyed a bit of data, for instance a one of a kind occurrence, truth, statement, thought, and so on. (see also Levine et al., 2002 to get a comparable segmentation process). In the first version from the life-stories, which was administered to participants tested at University of Toronto (N = 14), the love-related story contained 199 conceptual units, plus the work-related story contained 233 conceptual units. Participants subsequently tested at Northwestern University (N = 15) received a slightly shortened version PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896565 of the love-related story and the work-related story, which both contained 171 conceptual units.Faux pas recognition taskThirty-seven social scenarios had been chosen and adapted from the “Faux Pas Recognition Test” (Baron-Cohen et al., 1999) or the “Social Stories Questionnaire” (Lawson et al., 2004), or made ad hoc (see Faux Pas Scenarios in Appendix for the list of scenarios used). Twenty-seven scenarios contained a violation of accepted social norms (a faux pas): a person mentioned some thing awkward that could hurt an individual (the victim). The remaining 10 scenariosinvolved neutral social interactions that did not include any faux pas (Neutral scenarios). In eight scenarios, the faux pas hit the victim on his/her intimate/romantic relationships (Enjoy scenarios; e.g., [. . .] Susan wondered whether or not her boyfriend also remembered their anniversary. Then he came out on the shower. “What were you saying honey? I couldn’t hear in the shower,” asked the boy. Susan mentioned: “I believed it could be good to go out for dinner given that now. . .” But he interrupted her: “Oh sorry honey, not these days: I promised some colleagues I’d join them for a drink! What about subsequent Saturday?”). In nine scenarios, the faux pas was concerning the victim’s qualified life (Function scenarios; e.g., Susan went to say bye for the director of her workplace, mainly because she was arranging to leave for her holidays. [. . .]. “Don’t be concerned,” answered the director, “I don’t believe your absence will lead to big challenges. Have exciting!”). Ten scenarios involved generic social violations that did not pertain particularly for the victim’s intimate/romantic or experienced life (Generic scenarios; e.g., Susan had 
just met an Italian colleague, Paola. [. . .] Susan wanted to invite Paola for dinner to acquire to understand her better. “Hey Paola, why don’t you come over for dinner some time, we just SKI II purchased a pasta machine and also you could support us figure the way to use it!” Paola answered: “Oh why not. . . but I guess you ought to be able to obtain it to perform. Wasn’t there an instruction manual?”). All participants thought of 20 scenarios: five Really like scenarios, 5 Perform scenarios, 5 Social scenar.In specialist life. This character, unlucky at work, was referred to as Adam and Jean for male and female participants, respectively. Thus, even though Mike/Susan’s life was punctuated by unsuccessful loverelated events (e.g., I just asked her for her name and she answered: “I am sorry, I am extremely busy and can’t waste my time!”), Adam/Jean’s life mostly involved work-related failures (e.g., I’ve been hired recently, but I already had a hard time with my boss. He said that I had mistakenly filed some invoices, and that was a disaster). Lifestories were wealthy in spatial, perceptual, and emotional information (e.g., [. . .] the flat is on Queen West, around the second floor of a Victorian home painted in red using a blue ceiling It ‘s just that from time to time I can feel like such a nothing ). Life-stories were subdivided a priori in conceptual units, every single of which conveyed a bit of information, for example a distinctive occurrence, fact, statement, thought, and so on. (see also Levine et al., 2002 for a similar segmentation procedure). Within the first version of the life-stories, which was administered to participants tested at University of Toronto (N = 14), the love-related story contained 199 conceptual units, plus the work-related story contained 233 conceptual units. Participants subsequently tested at Northwestern University (N = 15) received a slightly shortened version PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896565 on the love-related story and the work-related story, which each contained 171 conceptual units.Faux pas recognition taskThirty-seven social scenarios have been selected and adapted in the “Faux Pas Recognition Test” (Baron-Cohen et al., 1999) or the “Social Stories Questionnaire” (Lawson et al., 2004), or created ad hoc (see Faux Pas Scenarios in Appendix for the list of scenarios made use of). Twenty-seven scenarios contained a violation of accepted social norms (a faux pas): a person stated something awkward that may hurt someone (the victim). The remaining 10 scenariosinvolved neutral social interactions that did not include any faux pas (Neutral scenarios). In eight scenarios, the faux pas hit the victim on his/her intimate/romantic relationships (Adore scenarios; e.g., [. . .] Susan wondered no matter whether her boyfriend also remembered their anniversary. Then he came out with the shower. “What have been you saying honey? I could not hear in the shower,” asked the boy. Susan said: “I believed it will be good to go out for dinner since now. . .” But he interrupted her: “Oh sorry honey, not nowadays: I promised some colleagues I’d join them for a drink! What about subsequent Saturday?”). In nine scenarios, the faux pas was in regards to the victim’s experienced life (Perform scenarios; e.g., Susan went to say bye to the director of her office, since she was preparing to leave for her holidays. [. . .]. “Don’t worry,” answered the director, “I don’t think your absence will trigger big problems. Have fun!”). Ten scenarios involved generic social violations that did not pertain particularly towards the victim’s intimate/romantic or expert life (Generic scenarios; e.g., Susan had just met an Italian colleague, Paola. [. . .] Susan wanted to invite Paola for dinner to have to know her improved. “Hey Paola, why do not you come over for dinner some time, we just bought a pasta machine and also you could assist us figure the best way to use it!” Paola answered: “Oh why not. . . but I guess you ought to be capable to get it to function. Wasn’t there an instruction manual?”). All participants regarded as 20 scenarios: 5 Really like scenarios, 5 Operate scenarios, five Social scenar.