SYNCHRONY AND CONFORMITY andconcaqucntcanncrceagcopentionandcelnesofocdl Results muth 2012 Wiltermuth&Heath 2009)In these earlier studie d the sam 5.38.SD=0.98)than in asynchrony conditions (M=3.69.SD= n each cas ,Fl,82)> .69,P<00 another.F.82)229.p>13.Thus,particip ants in both Method 1) others perceived their objective 161)participated in groups They were randomly cach behavior.Th .92,p ed synchronous behavior und in time to this h not 9.39 participants performe tcahdgano perform the iors at own pa (p pleted the product pple attention to what other oing did t differ significantly in in ntion the aid to others'behavior ("l paid attention to were ing)(b)their tly as others were doing to a significa ater extent in th M feel tha was be 2.55,SD 124),F2,82)= 31.20 felt ng th ny)ind that both inte I synchrony cipants estim d the extent to wh h the felt that the did the n both dummy variables and the proposed mediator intentional svnchrony was reduced to nonsignificance (=14 to7(happ）. =.36).whereas the effect of the goal to behave like others Asynchrony 9,79124 4.48(125 4.24(1.46. 359(127八 3.44 424 dicated in parenthese and consequently can increase cooperation and feelings of social attachment (Hove & Risen, 2009; Paladino et al., 2010; Wilter￾muth, 2012; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). In these earlier studies, participants’ feelings of affiliation were directed toward the same individuals with whom they had previously interacted. It seemed intuitively unlikely that these feelings would mediate the effects of performing synchronous behavior on conformity to anonymous individuals who had not been engaged in this behavior. Neverthe￾less, this possibility was worth evaluating empirically. Method Eighty-five Canadian undergraduate students (29 male, Mage 19.89 years, SD 1.61) participated in groups of 6 to 8 persons each for course credit. They were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In intentional synchrony conditions, participants engaged in synchronous behavior under conditions identical to those employed in Experiment 1. In incidental synchrony condi￾tions, participants learned the same four body movements with the experimenter but were then told to perform the exercises in time to a metronome. Thus, although their behavior was synchronized, performing this behavior was not their objective. In asynchrony conditions, participants performed the same behaviors but were told to perform the behaviors at their own pace. In all conditions, participants performed the exercises for around 10 minutes. After finishing the exercises, participants completed the product preference task administered in previous experiments. Then, they reported their agreement with several items pertaining to (a) the attention they paid to others’ behavior (“I paid attention to what others were doing”), (b) their goal while doing the exercise (“My goal was to do exercises exactly as others were doing them”), (c) the perceived restriction on their behavioral freedom (“Performing the exercise task made me feel that my behavior was being restricted”), and (d) their closeness and similarity to other partic￾ipants (“I felt personally close to other participants who were performing the exercises,” “I felt similar to other participants who were performing the exercises”; r .31, p  .01), all along a scale from 1 (disagree very much) to 7 (agree very much). Finally, participants estimated the extent to which they felt that they did the exercise synchronously along a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) and reported their general mood along a scale from 1 (sad) to 7 (happy). Results Manipulation check. Our manipulation of behavioral syn￾chrony was successful. Participants reported their behavior to be more similar to others in both intentional synchrony conditions (M 5.81, SD 1.04) and incidental synchrony conditions (M 5.38, SD 0.98) than in asynchrony conditions (M 3.69, SD 1.20), in each case, F(1, 82)  35.69, p  .001, whereas judg￾ments in the two synchrony conditions did not differ from one another, F(1, 82) 2.29, p  .13. Thus, participants in both incidental synchrony and intentional synchrony conditions were aware that they had performed the exercises in synchrony with others. As noted presently, however, they perceived their objective of performing the behavior to differ in the two conditions. Conformity. Participants’ adoption of others’ preferences in each behavior condition is shown in the first row of Table 3. The effect of behavior conditions was significant, F(2, 82) 4.92, p  .05, 2 .11, and indicates that participants copied others’ pref￾erences significantly more in intentional synchrony conditions (M 10.96, SD 1.65) than in either incidental synchrony conditions (M 10.14, SD 1.38), F(1, 82) 4.67, p  .05, or asynchrony conditions (M 9.79, SD 1.24), F(1, 82) 9.39, p  .01, whereas conformity in the latter two conditions did not differ (F  1). Participants’ mood did not affect their conformity (p  .71). Supplementary data shown in the next two rows of Table 3 confirmed our assumptions concerning the factors that underlie these differences. Although participants’ attention to what others were doing did not differ significantly in intentional and incidental synchrony conditions, participants reported trying to do exercises exactly as others were doing to a significantly greater extent in the intentional synchrony condition (M 5.07, SD 1.24) than in either incidental synchrony conditions (M 4.10, SD 1.15) or asynchrony conditions (M 2.55, SD 1.24), F(2, 82) 31.20, p  .001, 2 .43. Mediation analyses involving all three behav￾ior conditions (we created dummy variables for intentional and incidental synchrony) indicated that both intentional synchrony ( .37, p  .01) and the “goal to behave exactly as others” ( .37, p  .001) were significantly related to conformity. When both dummy variables and the proposed mediator were entered into the predictor of conformity, however, the effect of intentional synchrony was reduced to nonsignificance ( .14, p .36), whereas the effect of the goal to behave like others Table 3 Actors’ Conformity and Process Measures as a Function of Behavioral Synchrony: Experiment 3 Measure Intentional synchrony Incidental synchrony Asynchrony F Conformity 10.96 (1.65)a 10.14 (1.38)b 9.79 (1.24)b 4.92 I paid attention to what others were doing. 5.26 (1.06)a 4.72 (1.13)a,b 4.48 (1.18)b 3.45 My goal was to do exercises exactly as others were doing them. 5.07 (1.24)a 4.10 (1.15)b 2.55 (1.24)c 31.20 Performing the exercise task made me feel that my behavior was being restricted. 4.48 (1.25)a 4.24 (1.46)a,b 3.59 (1.27)b 3.44 I felt personally close to other participants who were performing the exercises. 5.11 (1.09)a 4.34 (1.11)b 4.14 (1.36)b 5.12 I felt similar to other participants who were performing the exercises. 5.19 (1.04)a 4.55 (1.30)b 3.93 (1.03)c 8.58 Note. Cells with unlike subscripts in each row differ at p  .05. Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. p  .05. p  .01. 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. SYNCHRONY AND CONFORMITY 67