  The answers people give when asked to 'think of the unexpected' for everyday
event scenarios appear to be more expected than unexpected. There are expected
unexpected outcomes that closely adhere to the given information in a scenario,
based on familiar disruptions and common plan-failures. There are also
unexpected unexpected outcomes that are more inventive, that depart from given
information, adding new concepts/actions. However, people seem to tend to
conceive of the unexpected as the former more than the latter. Study 1 tests
these proposals by analysing the object-concepts people mention in their
reports of the unexpected and the agreement between their answers. Study 2
shows that object-choices are weakly influenced by recency, the order of
sentences in the scenario. The implications of these results for ideas in
philosophy, psychology and computing is discussed
