《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）conformity——Going Along Versus Going Alone - When Fundamental Motives Facilitate Strategic（Non）Conformity.pdf

Going Along Versus Going Alone: When Fundamental Motives Facilitate Strategic (Non)Conformity Vladas Griskevicius, Noah J. Goldstein, Chad R. Mortensen, Robert B. Cialdini, and Douglas T. Kenrick Arizona State University Three experiments examined how 2 fundamental social motives—self-protection and mate attraction— influenced conformity. A self-protective goal increased conformity for both men and women. In contrast, the effects of a romantic goal depended on sex, causing women to conform more to others’ preferences while engendering nonconformity in men. Men motivated to attract a mate were particularly likely to nonconform when (a) nonconformity made them unique (but not merely a member of a small minority) and when (b) the topic was subjective versus objective, meaning that nonconformists could not be revealed to be incorrect. These findings fit with a functional evolutionary model of motivation and behavior, and they indicate that fundamental motives such as self-protection and mate attraction can stimulate specific forms of conformity or nonconformity for strategic self-presentation. Keywords: nonconformity, mating goals, fear, self-presentation, social influence Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain Imagine that Solomon, a young professor, and three of his male colleagues meet for dinner at a new restaurant. Inspecting the slate of delectable dishes on the menu, the young professor soon finds himself in a dilemma: What should he order? His new colleagues, however, are unanimous in their selections: Eerily reminiscent of a scene from a classic social psychological study, one by one, each man confidently orders the same item. Considering the choices of the group, how do you think Solomon will order? Over half a century of research on conformity informs us that people are heavily influenced by the actions and beliefs of others (Asch, 1956; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Moscovici, 1985; Sherif, 1936). Given that the young professor is likely motivated to gain the approval of his colleagues (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and to make a good decision (White, 1959), conformity would help him realize each of these general goals (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Goldstein & Cialdini, in press). In fact, the restaurant predicament is teeming with factors that make conformity especially probable: The decision is public (Argyle, 1957; Campbell & Fairey, 1989); the professor finds the group desirable (Dittes & Kelley, 1956); the group is composed of no fewer than three individuals (Asch, 1956; Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969); the group’s opinion is unanimous (Asch, 1956); the other group members are similar to the professor (Festinger, 1954; Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2006; Hornstein, Fisch, & Holmes, 1968); and he is uncertain about his decision (Tesser, Campbell, & Mickler, 1983). However, what if, in the process of ordering, the young professor’s attention is suddenly drawn to the beautiful waitress awaiting his selection? Despite the presence of numerous factors known to spur conformity, going along with his rivals in front of a potential mate is unlikely to draw her attention or impress her (Buss, 2003; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). In fact, the goal of attracting a romantic partner may be more effectively served through deliberate nonconformity, which can make a man stand out as independent and assertive (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Simpson, Gangestad, Christensen, & Leck, 1999). Now consider what would happen if the group was composed of young women who were being served by an attractive male waiter. Would a woman dining with her female colleagues also nonconform when she is motivated to attract a potential romantic partner? Sizable literatures indicate that people harbor predilections both to stand out and to fit in (e.g., Brewer, 1991; Maslach, Stapp, & Santee, 1985; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Given these oftencompeting tendencies, the present research examines how certain powerful human motives can influence people’s tendency to stand out through nonconformity or to fit in through conformity. More specifically, in three experiments, we investigate how conformity and nonconformity may be influenced by two fundamental social motives: the goal to attract a mate and the goal to protect oneself from danger (Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003; Maner et al., 2005). In addition to examining potential sex differences, the studies also aim to elucidate the psychological processes by which fundamental motives can elicit differential tendencies to conform. Conformity and Motivation Conformity is behavioral change designed to match or imitate the beliefs, expectations, or behaviors of real or imagined others (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Decades of research have shown that conformity is highly prevalent (see Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) Vladas Griskevicius, Noah J. Goldstein, Chad R. Mortensen, Robert B. Cialdini, and Douglas T. Kenrick, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University. This research was facilitated by National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships awarded to Vladas Griskevicius and Noah J. Goldstein and by National Institutes of Health Grant 5R01MH64734 awarded to Douglas T. Kenrick. We thank Josh Ackerman for his helpful comments on a previous version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vladas Griskevicius, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. E-mail: vladasg@asu.edu Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 91, No. 2, 281–294 0022-3514/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.281 281 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly

and that the tendency to imitate is sometimes so swift and mindless that it is almost automatic (Bremner, 2002; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Gopnik, Meltzhoff, & Kuhl, 1999). One reason why conformity is so ubiquitous is that it is often adaptive: Following others often leads to better and more accurate decisions, especially when we face uncertainty (Cialdini, 2001; Crutchfield, 1955; Mackie, 1987). This kind of accuracy-based conformity is known as informational influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), and it persists because in many cases it is the most efficient form of behaving (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999). Consistent with the underlying accuracy function of informational influence, when people have an elevated motivation to be accurate and find themselves in relatively ambiguous situations, conformity becomes increasingly likely (Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman, 1996; Levine, Higgins, & Choi, 2000). A second underlying reason why people tend to conform is that going along with or mimicking another person tends to produce liking (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993). This kind of approval-based conformity is known as normative influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), and it serves to facilitate the goal of affiliation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Insko, Drenan, Solomon, Smith, & Wade, 1983; Martin & Hewstone, 2003). Normative influence is especially potent because people who deviate from the group are more likely to be punished, ridiculed, and even rejected by other group members (Janes & Olson, 2000; Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Levine, 1989; Miller & Anderson, 1979; Schachter, 1951). For example, in the classic Asch (1956) line studies, participants tended to conform with the group not necessarily because they believed the consensus of the group reflected the correct response but often because it was easier to go with the crowd than to face the consequences of going against it (Crutchfield, 1955). Correspondingly, when people have a heightened desire to affiliate with a group, mimicry tends to increase (e.g., Lakin & Chartrand, 2003). Although conformity can confer numerous benefits on an individual, nonconformity can also be advantageous (e.g., Argyle, 1957; Hollander, 1958). Nonconformity includes two types of behavior: (a) independence, or resisting influence; and (b) anticonformity, or rebelling against influence (Nail, MacDonald, & Levy, 2000; Willis, 1963). Both types of nonconformity tend to be effective in differentiating people from others, which can satisfy a need for individuation or uniqueness (Maslach et al., 1985; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). For example, when a person’s uniqueness is threatened by an encounter with a highly similar individual, such a situation increases the tendency to nonconform (Duval, 1972; Weir, 1971, as cited in Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). Given that both conformity and nonconformity can be beneficial, this duality raises an important question: What contexts will lead to the emergence of conformity, and what situations will facilitate nonconformity? The answer may depend on the person’s currently active goal. Fundamental Social Motives Our perceptions, cognitions, and behavior are profoundly influenced— both consciously and nonconsciously— by a large variety of goals and need states (e.g., Bargh, 1990; Chartrand & Bargh, 2002; Simpson et al., 1999). From an evolutionary perspective, the goals and motives having the most immediate impact on behavior are likely to be those that, over the course of human evolutionary history, have been most closely linked to adaptive outcomes in social groups, such as attracting and retaining mates, protecting oneself from danger, and attaining and maintaining status (Bugental, 2000; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003). Empirical investigations based on this perspective have addressed various questions in psychology and have found evidence consistent with this framework (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Haselton & Buss, 2000; Maner et al., 2005; Todd & Gigerenzer, 2000). Although there are good theoretical reasons to believe that an evolutionary perspective could enrich the understanding of social influence processes, there is thus far almost no empirical work that has done so (Sundie, Cialdini, Griskevicius, & Kenrick, in press). The present research was aimed to bridge social influence research and evolutionary psychological models by examining how two fundamental social motives—protecting oneself from harm and seeking a romantic partner—influence people’s tendency to conform. Self-protection and mating goals are central to survival and reproduction, and as we discuss below, each goal may lead to different patterns of responding to social influence attempts. Self-Protective Motivation and Conformity We are here today because our ancestors were successful at navigating through the dangers posed by everyday life, making decisions that served their self-protective interests. A long history of research suggests that stimuli indicating the presence of danger acutely activate a self-protective goal and an associated pattern of affect (Plutchik, 1980); this goal then efficiently facilitates perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors associated with greater survival success in ancestral environments (Maner et al., 2005; & O¨ hman & Mineka, 2001; Schaller, 2003; Schaller et al., 2004). Many selfprotective behaviors involve group-cohesive processes (Taylor et al., 2000). To increase the probability of survival, many species of animals, for instance, often strategically mimic others (Wickler, 1968), and individuals tend to herd together to be less conspicuous when threatened by a predator (Hamilton, 1971). Mimicry and imitation have been posited to serve a similar safety-enhancing function in humans (Dijksterhuis, Bargh, & Miedema, 2000), suggesting that a motive to protect oneself from danger may facilitate actions designed to avoid standing out of a crowd. Dangerous situations also induce stress and anxiety, which tend to increase the need to affiliate in both human and nonhuman animals (e.g., Schachter, 1959; Taylor et al., 2000). The need to affiliate in times of danger is consistent with findings from terror management theory, which show that people’s desire to affiliate tends to increase after they consider the frightening thought of their own death (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Soloman, 1997; Wisman & Koole, 2003). In summary, research in several areas suggests that when a self-protective motive is active, people should be more likely to go along with the group either to affiliate or to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Mate-Attraction Motivation and Conformity Survival is necessary, but not sufficient, for evolutionary success. Besides surviving, our ancestors were also all successful at reproduction. Not surprisingly, people’s cognitions and behaviors are strongly affected by motivational states specifically linked to reproduction. Stimuli indicating the potential for reproductive success tend to activate a mating goal and its associated affective 282 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly

responses (Scott, 1980); this goal in turn facilitates perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors associated with greater mating success in ancestral environments (Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Maner et al., 2005; Roney, 2003; Wilson & Daly, 2004). One key to successfully attracting a mate is taking opportunities to positively differentiate oneself from one’s rivals (Buss, 2003); and nonconforming can be an effective method to attract attention and to show a distinction between a person and the larger group (Ridgeway, 1978; Schachter, 1951). Thus, it is possible that a mating motive could lead people to go against the group in order to stand out. Because men and women tend to prefer slightly different characteristics in a romantic partner, men and women seeking to attract a mate may also differ in exactly how and to what extent they will attempt to stand out from their rivals (Barkow, 1989). Traits that women prefer in a mate include willingness to take risks, decisiveness, assertiveness, independence, and general characteristics of leadership (Buss, 2003; Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987). Notably, these are all characteristics that can be conveyed by nonconforming with a group of potential rivals (e.g., by disagreeing with the group). In contrast, traits that men prefer in a mate focus less on social dominance and more on agreeableness and the mate’s ability to facilitate group cohesion (Campbell, 2002). Not only may the successful display of these traits be undermined by going against the group, but conforming more to the group may actually lead a woman to appear more agreeable while facilitating group cohesiveness. Consistent with these differentially preferred characteristics in men and women, research indicates that women are more concerned than men about the quality of interpersonal relationships, group cohesiveness, and the development of shared norms in a group (Eagly, 1978; Eder & Sandford, 1986). Correspondingly, not only do men have a higher drive to display independence and distinctiveness in a group (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross & Madson, 1997), but women are much quicker to shun female group mates who act against group norms (Goodwin, 1990). Thus, given differing mate preferences for men and women, it is likely that a motive to attract a mate should produce nonconformity for men, but a mate-attraction motive should actually produce more conformity for women. Positive and Negative Group Judgments When one faces the choice of publicly going along with or going against the preferences of the group, this decision is likely to depend on the nature of the group’s preference. Consider, for example, a situation in which a person is visually inspecting an unusual painting at a museum with a group of acquaintances. Before the person decides to conform or nonconform from the group’s opinion of the painting, it may be important for him or her to consider first whether the others’ consensus is that they like or dislike the painting—that is, whether the group judgment is positive or negative. For the individual in the museum, stating that he likes a unique painting is likely to convey positive dispositional information (i.e., “I am generally positive about novel things like paintings”); whereas stating that he dislikes the painting may convey a negative disposition (i.e., “I am generally negative about novel things like paintings”). Given that a mating motive is likely to make people sensitive to self-presentation (Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 2003), and given that both sexes value some degree of agreeableness in a mate (Green & Kenrick, 1994), mating motives are likely to lead both men and women to present themselves as positive and likable individuals. However, the ability to convey positive dispositional information through conformity or nonconformity hinges on whether the judgment of the group is positive or negative. Consider again the museum situation from a man’s perspective. If the group decries the painting as plebeian and amateur (a negative judgment), the man can convey a positive disposition by going against the group. However, if the group praises the painting’s penetrating genius (a positive judgment), going against the group does not convey a positive disposition. Thus, although a mate-attraction motive should produce male nonconformity when the group judgment is negative (thereby allowing a man to convey both independence and positive dispositional information by going against the group), the effects of the mating motive should be muted for men when the group judgment is positive (resulting in a conflict between wanting to appear independent and to appear positive). Whether the group judgment is positive or negative should also influence when mating motives should lead women to conform more. When the group judgment is positive, a woman can convey a positive disposition by going along with the group. However, when the group judgment is negative, going along with the group does not convey positive information. Thus, although a mateattraction motive should lead women to conform more when the group judgment is positive (thereby allowing a woman to convey positive dispositional information by going along with the group), the effects of the mating motive for women should be muted when the group judgment is negative. Study 1 The initial study examined how two fundamental social goals—a motive for self-protection and a motive to attract a mate—influence men and women’s tendency to conform in a same-sex group (as compared with people primed with neutral motives). Self-protection and mate-attraction motives were primed through short imagination scenarios. Afterward, conformity was measured by the degree to which the positive versus negative judgment of the group influenced participants’ ratings of a painting (see Mucchi-Faina, Maass, & Volpato, 1991). We hypothesized that, when a self-protective mindset was primed, men and women’s conformity would increase. Moreover, this increase in conformity was predicted to persist regardless of whether the group judgment was positive or negative. Regarding mate-attraction motives, different predictions were made for men and women. For men, we predicted that a mating mindset would produce nonconformity primarily when the group judgment is negative, which would enable men who go against the group to appear independent and convey a positive disposition. For women, we predicted that a mating motive should produce more conformity primarily when the group judgment is positive, which would allow women who go along with the group to appear more agreeable and convey a positive disposition. Method Participants Two hundred thirty-seven participants (113 male, 124 female) were recruited from introductory psychology classes as partial fulfillment of FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY 283 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly

their class requirement. All participants came to the lab in same-sex groups of 3– 6 and were seated at private computers that were visually shielded from others by partitions. The mean age for women was 19.2 (SD 1.6), and the mean age for men was 19.8 (SD 1.9). Design and Procedure The study design was a between-participants 2 (participant sex) 4 (motive prime: mate attraction, self-protection, “scenario” control, or “noprime” control) 2 (group judgment: positive vs. negative) design. In the first part of the study, participants rated the attractiveness of multiple images that they believed were used to establish their aesthetic preferences. After the ratings, they underwent one of the four priming manipulations. After the prime, participants entered a computer chat room with 3 same-sex individuals with whom they believed they would later have a face-to-face discussion on aesthetic preferences. In the chat room, they publicly rated one of the images that they had previously rated on how interesting or uninteresting they believed it to be. Half of the time the ratings of the other 3 group members were programmed to be positive, and half of the time the group judgment was negative. The chat room was arranged so that the participant was always the last person in the group to provide a public rating. Conformity measure. The purpose of the first part of the study was to ascertain the participants’ actual private preferences for a specific artistic image that would later serve as the key image of interest in the chat room (with the initial private rating of the image serving as a covariate for the chat-room rating of the image). To reduce pressures to be consistent between the private and the public ratings, and to decrease possible suspiciousness, participants also rated 39 distracter images on the extent to which they thought each image was interesting. The images were collected from the Internet and consisted of various complex and simple graphic artistic designs and abstract paintings. Ratings were provided on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all interesting) to 9 (very interesting). Participants were led to believe that the 40 images were part of a much larger set and that other participants were likely rating a different set of images. Their ratings for the 40 images indicated a wide range of preferences. However, the mean rating for the key image was 5.00 (SD 1.71), which was at the midpoint of the scale. After the private ratings, participants were informed that there was another group of participants in a different room that was also currently working on the same study. They were then told that they had been randomly assigned to a group of four same-sex participants from the two rooms, and the group was linked together by computer in a virtual chat room. Participants were told that in the second half of the study, all 4 members of their group would meet face to face to discuss their individual aesthetic preferences. The chat room was ostensibly the first step in the group discussion and served to publicly ascertain everyone’s aesthetic preferences, which would be the focus of the later discussion. This part of the procedure was designed to ensure that participants were accountable for their responses in the chat room because they might later need to justify their responses in the face-to-face discussion. In the chat room, participants again rated their preferences for the key image. They were led to believe that the image was randomly chosen by the computer and that it might not have been previously seen by them or their 3 group mates. However, it was arranged so that, as participants rated the image, they could see on the screen the ratings of their group members, who were programmed to provide their ratings before the participants. Half of the time, the group judgment was positive (8, 8, 7), indicating that they thought the image was highly interesting; the other half of the time, group judgment was negative (2, 2, 3), indicating that they thought the image was very uninteresting. The rating of the image constituted the dependent measure of the study. Given that participants had no prior interaction with their group mates, their public rating of the image in the chat room was the first piece of information they conveyed about themselves to the group. Priming procedure. Just before participants entered the chat room, they underwent a focusing task that served as the motive prime manipulation. In the task, they read one of three short scenarios that were designed to activate a self-protection, a mate-attraction, or a neutral motive. Each of the three scenarios was of similar length (about 850 words) and contained the same instructions: “Please carefully read the following scenario. As you read, try to imagine yourself in the scenario and create a vivid mental picture.” In the self-protective scenario, participants imagined being in a house alone late at night. As the scenario progressed, they overheard scary noises outside and believed that someone had entered the house. After calling out and receiving no reply, the story ended as someone was about to enter the bedroom. In the mate-attraction scenario, participants imagined being on vacation with their friends. While on vacation, the reader met a highly desirable person of the opposite sex and spent a romantic day with the new romantic interest. The scenario ended as the two people were passionately kissing on a moonlit beach and feeling a strong desire to be with each other.1 The study had two separate control conditions: a scenario control and a no-prime control. In the scenario control, participants read a scenario similar in length to the other two scenarios, except that it was devoid of threat- or romance-inducing content. In the control scenario, participants imagined getting ready to go to a much-anticipated concert with a same-sex friend. They imagined that, during the night of the show, they could not find the concert tickets. Later, the friend arrived with the tickets, and they both headed off to the show anticipating a delightful musical experience. In the no-prime control, participants went to the chat room without reading any scenario. The no-prime control was not expected to produce different levels of conformity, compared with the scenario control. However, having both control conditions ensured that any potential differences in conformity between the control and the substantive motive conditions were not produced by the specific contents of the control scenario. To assess whether the three different scenarios were effective at inducing the desired motives and their associated affective states, a separate group of 46 male and female participants underwent one of the three scenario prime manipulations. Immediately afterward, they indicated the extent to which they were experiencing threat, a desire to protect themselves, romantic arousal, and a desire to attract a romantic partner. Responses to these items were measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all) and 7 (very much). There were no interactions or main effects involving participant sex, indicating that the scenarios had a similar effect on men and women. As seen in Table 1, the self-protection scenario elicited significantly more feelings of threat and a stronger desire to protect oneself, compared with either the control condition or the mate-attraction condition ( ps .001). Conversely, the mate-attraction scenario elicited significantly more romantic arousal and a stronger desire to attract a romantic partner, compared with either the control condition or the selfprotection condition ( ps .001). Thus, both the self-protection and the mate-attraction scenarios were effective at inducing the intended motives and associated affective states. Results We measured the extent of participants’ conformity by examining the degree to which their public ratings of the target image were influenced by the ratings of their 3 group mates. Half the time, the ratings of the group were high (8, 8, 7), indicating a positive group judgment; half the time, the ratings were low (2, 2, 3), indicating a negative group judgment. Conformity by the participants in the former case was signified by higher ratings; conformity in the latter case was signified by lower ratings. For the statistical analyses, all ratings were standardized, whereby a higher 1 The mate-attraction prime did not suggest that this encounter was a brief romantic fling, nor did the prime suggest that the encounter was the beginning of a meaningful relationship. 284 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

rating by participants always constituted more conformity, regardless of whether group judgment was positive or negative. The means for the conformity measure in the control conditions were all above the midpoint of 5.0, indicating that there was some degree of conformity in the control conditions as would be expected. Analyses indicated that there were no significant differences in conformity in either of the two control conditions between men and women. As expected, the two control conditions also did not significantly differ from one another, and the control conditions were thus combined for the remainder of the analyses. To test the specific hypotheses of the study, we performed a series of planned contrasts, all using the preimage ratings as covariates. Conformity and Self-Protection It was predicted that a self-protective prime (compared with a control condition) would produce a significant increase in conformity for both sexes. As seen on the left side of Figure 1, a planned contrast comparing conformity in the control and the selfprotection conditions indicated that this was indeed the case, F(1, 160) 4.78, p .030, 2 .029. Also consistent with predictions, the effects of the self-protection prime did not differ for men and women, and the effects of the prime remained similar regardless of whether the group judgment was positive or negative ( ps .50). Thus, a state of threat produced an increase in conformity for both men and women, and this increase was unaffected by the valence of the group judgment. Conformity and Mate Attraction The effects of a mate-attraction prime (compared with a control) were predicted to be different for men and women. Consistent with this prediction, results indicated a significant two-way interaction with motive and participant sex, F(1, 177) 6.33, p .013, 2 .035. For men, it was predicted that a mating prime would produce less conformity, compared with the control, when group judgment was negative but not necessarily produce less conformity when group judgment was positive. Consistent with this prediction, results indicated a two-way interaction with motive and group Table 1 Mean Self-Reported Affect and Motivation for All Motive Prime Scenarios Affect/motivation item Control (n 16) Self-protection (n 15) Mate attraction (n 15) Threat M 2.00 5.20* 1.47 SD 0.89 1.74 0.92 Desire to protect yourself M 2.31 5.53* 2.07 SD 1.30 1.64 1.67 Romantic arousal M 1.63 1.53 5.00* SD 0.96 1.25 1.81 Desire to attract romantic partner M 1.94 1.20 5.33* SD 1.57 0.56 1.91 * p .001, indicates diference from control scenario. -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 +0.50 +1.00 SELF-PROTECTION MATE-ATTRACTION Positive Negative Positive Negative PRIMED MOTIVE MEN WOMEN Equal to Control GROUP EVALUATION EXTENT OF CONFORMITY Figure 1. Effects of self-protection or mate-attraction motives on conformity depending on whether group judgment was positive versus negative (Study 1, adjusted means). Positive values denote an increase in conformity relative to the control; negative values denote a decrease in conformity relative to the control, or nonconformity. FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY 285 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.