JACOBSON.MORTENSEN.AND CIALDINI of the primary study.Immdiately following by the survey questions be nted to limit the extent to area might e and a full deb might be strongly ciated withex ut the pursuit or avoidance of certain eha Results and Discussion artic We began by submitting the dependent measures ton st the likely to choos oriented pro shaveended,most havec orm co ndition.F(.78)832. 005. T2=096.A1s with predictions,participants eportedrelinelesself& this manipulation. participant emo n in the (1980.1983) then read a 、oned fecing marganallyiton c ptive 60, for the n by informing parti ants that the uppo that point study exposed to a descript nine out rsonal goals (e.g soci he veys while n out o ent read "p nine out of ten former pa n the orms' er the decision to c han when it had been 1994 cales that o assess the degree of 5000 we hav is supported by s likely that this is the result of differe in the r In this m that they hac hesefor behavior Descriptive (n 41) Injunctive (n 39) SD SD 1,78) 039 296 12.00 189 8.32 005 elf-A 87 ongoing and unrelated study that had begun in the previous se￾mester. No information was given regarding the topics addressed by the survey questions because we wanted to limit the extent to which a particular topic area might evoke preexisting norms that could interfere with or attenuate our norm manipulation (e.g., health-related questions might be strongly associated with existing injunctive norms about the pursuit or avoidance of certain behav￾iors). Participants were told that they would be asked to indicate their choice regarding the surveys after all primary experimental tasks were complete and that no penalties or extra rewards would be associated with their decision. Participants in the descriptive norm condition then read the following: “In past instances in which study sessions have ended early, most students have chosen to stay for the full hour and complete extra surveys.” In the injunctive norm condition, participants instead read, “In a survey conducted last semester, most students indicated that, in instances in which study sessions end early, they felt that participants should be willing to stay for the full hour and complete extra surveys.” Immediately following this manipulation, participants com￾pleted the measure of intrapersonal versus interpersonal self￾awareness (Wegner & Giuliano, 1980, 1983). They then read a short message designed to serve as a “booster shot” for the initial norm manipulation, used due to the presence of multiple dependent measures. This message began by informing participants that they had completed roughly one third of the study to that point in the session and reminded them that they would be given the option to complete extra surveys at the end of the primary study. In the descriptive norm condition, the message concluded with the fol￾lowing statement, “Roughly nine out of ten former participants have decided to complete the optional surveys while one out of ten has decided to leave early.” In the injunctive norm condition, this concluding statement read, “Roughly nine out of ten former par￾ticipants indicated that they thought others should stay to complete the optional surveys while one out of ten has thought this isn’t necessary.” After this norm booster shot, participants completed items from the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) and PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994) scales that were included to assess the degree of conflict participants experienced over the conformity/nonconfor￾mity decision. Participants then received a second reminder mes￾sage. In this message, participants were informed that they had completed two thirds of the study to that point in the session and were reminded of the option to complete extra surveys at the end of the primary study. Immediately following this second reminder message, participants responded to the single-item measure of decision conflict. The session concluded with a funneled suspicion probe and a full debriefing. No extra surveys were actually ad￾ministered to participants. Results and Discussion We began by submitting the dependent measures to one-way ANOVAs, with norm type as the independent variable. Table 2 summarizes these analyses. Consistent with predictions, partici￾pants were more likely to choose interpersonally oriented pro￾nouns in the injunctive norm condition than in the descriptive norm condition, F(1, 78) 8.32, p .005, p 2 .096. Also consistent with predictions, participants in the injunctive norm condition reported experiencing a greater degree of conflict over the conformity decision, F(1, 78) 4.39, p .039, p 2 .053, and reported feeling less self-assured, F(1, 78) 4.50, p .037, p 2 .055, than in the descriptive norm condition. Participants also reported feeling marginally less positive emotion in the injunctive than in the descriptive condition, F(1, 78) 2.60, p .111, p 2 .032, but did not report feeling greater negative emotion (F  1). The results of this experiment provide additional evidence to support our claims regarding the norms’ effects on goal-related cognition. Participants exposed to an injunctive norm were more likely to direct attention toward interpersonal aspects of self than those exposed to a descriptive norm. This supports the idea that the two norms lead individuals to focus on somewhat different sets of goals—with interpersonal goals (e.g., social approval) being more salient after exposure to injunctive norms than descriptive norms. Critically, this experiment also provides evidence for differences in the norms’ effects on the experience of conflict over the con￾formity/nonconformity decision. Supporting our theoretical argu￾ment, participants reported experiencing a greater degree of con￾flict over the decision to complete extra surveys when it had been framed using an injunctive norm (most think you should do these) than when it had been framed using a descriptive norm (most have chosen to do these). As we have argued, and as is supported by evidence from both the present experiment and Experiment 1, it seems likely that this is the result of differences in the primary goals that underlie conformity to each type of norm and in the differential presence of secondary goals that can compete with these for control over behavior. Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance Results for Dependent Variables in Experiment 2 Descriptive (n 41) Injunctive (n 39) M SD M SD F(1, 78) p p 2 Interpersonal self-awareness 10.39 2.96 12.00 1.89 8.32 .005 .096 Conflict over conformity decision Single item 2.24 1.14 2.80 1.22 4.39 .039 .053 Self-Assurance (PANAS) 4.30 1.04 3.76 1.22 4.50 .037 .055 General Positivity (PANAS) 4.42 0.99 4.04 1.13 2.60 .111 .032 General Negativity (PANAS) 2.18 0.91 2.21 0.86 0.03 .871 .000 Note. PANAS Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. 440 JACOBSON, MORTENSEN, AND CIALDINI 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.