286 GRISKEVICIUS ET AL judgment for men.F(1.173)=6.62.p=011.=.037.As seen 003,m° iors in relatively automaticma It also is consisten no difference between the mating and the fo and that females are not so much directly attracted to the compet nen (p men to go against th tive 1987 Forwomen it was prdicted that a matins prime would ead Study 2 primarily when group judgment was posi s sen in Figure 1.women in the negative).Alhough ths tendenc 064 nces between making men's t cy afforded b dispositional information about the women Discussion the topic on which a person is likely to be nonconforming close t fund mity and non conformity for men and )and Mucchi-Fai ven 1996.C0m nity pres sures operat both when een th dos.For instan.co sider the objective dilemma in the TVgame and wo show Who Wank oe re for their respons although the audience is never unani is.the the time 0w1ecki.20057】 introduces the r formity was muted.For fits of being verifiably on an issue tweigh thos ty sp ng merely e.Tha with the group somev his or her choice.is likely to make a favorable 1 in which th we may expe ive and on.the power of the mating motive tonswomen's stent with formity effects even when the g was ed of same-se men's and women's conformity on subjective versus objective dividuals.Thajudgment for men, F(1, 173)
6.62, p
.011, 2
.037. As seen on the right side of Figure 1, when group judgment was negative, a mate-attraction prime led men to conform significantly less than men in the control condition, F(1, 44)
9.57, p
.003, 2
.179. However, when the group judgment was positive, there was no difference between the mating and the control conditions for men ( p  .95). Thus, mating motives led men to go against the group specifically when group judgment was negative, meaning that nonconformity could be used to convey positive dispositional information. For women, it was predicted that a mating prime would lead them to conform more primarily when group judgment was posi￾tive. Although the two-way interaction with motive and group judgment for women was not significant, F(1, 173)
1.64, p
.20, as seen in Figure 1, women in the mating condition did conform somewhat more than women in the control condition when group judgment was positive, F(1, 41)
3.61, p
.064, 2
.081. However, when group judgment was negative, the romantic prime had no effect on women’s conformity relative to the control ( p  .70). Thus, a romantic mindset led women to conform somewhat more primarily when group judgment was positive, meaning that higher conformity could convey positive dispositional information about the women. Discussion Study 1 showed that temporarily activating different fundamen￾tal social motives produced different and theoretically meaningful tendencies toward conformity and nonconformity for men and women. As predicted, a motive to protect oneself from danger— even imagined danger—led both men and women to conform more. Being in a state of fear produced more conformity regardless of whether the group judgment was positive or negative. That is, participants conformed more regardless of whether they would be conveying positive or negative dispositional information. In contrast to a self-protection goal, a motive to attract a mate not only produced different effects for men and women, but each of these effects was qualified by whether the group judgment was positive or negative. For men, a romantic prime produced noncon￾formity specifically when the judgment of the rest of the group was negative. That is, a mating motive led men to go against the group when nonconformity could convey positive information about the men (e.g., “I am the type of person who generally likes novel things and I am independent”). However, when the group judg￾ment was positive and nonconformity could not be used to convey positive information, the power of the mating motive to engender nonconformity was muted. For women, a romantic prime produced a trend toward more conformity specifically when the judgment of the group was positive. That is, a mating motive led women to go along with the group somewhat more when conformity could convey positive information about them. However, when group judgment was negative and conformity could not convey positive information, the power of the mating motive to increase women’s conformity was muted. These findings are consistent with an evolutionary functional perspective of social influence (Sundie et al., in press). It is also notable that a mating prime produced these sex-specific (non)con￾formity effects even when the group was composed of same-sex individuals. That is, even in a situation that did not directly involve attracting a mate, simply being in a mate-attraction mindset pro￾duced functional patterns of conformity. This finding suggests that priming a fundamental social motive, such as mate attraction, may activate a specific mental set that serves to facilitate cognitions and behaviors in a relatively automatic manner. It also is consistent with the possibility that males compete with one another for status, and that females are not so much directly attracted to the compet￾itiveness per se but to the indirect result—that is, to status as reflected in relative standing among other males (Sadalla et al., 1987). Study 2 The initial study showed that, when men were primed with a motive to attract a mate, they tended to go against the group (at least when group judgment was negative). Although this tendency to nonconform for men makes sense from a consideration of sex differences between mating and the desire to appear independent, men’s nonconformity is nevertheless puzzling. Given that confor￾mity is generally adaptive because it leads to increased accuracy in decision making, men’s tendency to nonconform indicates that mating motives appear to lead men to behave less adaptively by disregarding any potential gains in accuracy afforded by confor￾mity. From a functional perspective, however, this perplexing dilemma might be better understood if one considers the content of the topic on which a person is likely to be nonconforming. A closer look at conformity and minority influence research reveals a potentially crucial distinction in the kinds of content that are generally used across studies: Sometimes the topic is subjec￾tive (e.g., preferences, opinions), and at other times it is objective (e.g., trivia questions; see Maass, Volpato, & Mucchi-Faina, 1996). Conformity pressures operate both when topics are subjec￾tive (e.g., Allen, 1975; Santee & Maslach, 1982) and objective (e.g., Sherif, 1936). However, there is a key difference between the two types of content: A subjective quandary by definition does not have a verifiably correct answer, whereas an objective predicament does. For instance, consider the objective dilemma in the TV game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?: Contestants unsure of an answer to a multiple-choice question can poll audience members for their responses; although the audience is never unanimous, the response favored by the majority tends to be correct over 90% of the time, and it is almost always chosen by the contestant (Sur￾owiecki, 2005). A situation with an objectively optimal solution, therefore, introduces the powerful self-presentational consideration of being perceived as right (as well as the objective benefit of avoiding a faulty choice). Indeed, the self-presentational and objective bene￾fits of being verifiably correct on an issue should outweigh those of being merely like or unlike the majority. After all, someone who nonconforms on a topic, but is shown to be objectively wrong in his or her choice, is hardly likely to make a favorable impression on a romantic candidate. Thus, we may expect that, in contrast to Study 1, in which the topic was subjective, when a topic has an objective, demonstrably correct position, mating motives should lead both men and women to conform more to the majority view, because the majority typically counsels correctly in such matters (Laughlin, Zander, Knievel, & Tan, 2003; Surowiecki, 2005). Study 2 tested how a motive to attract a mate would influence men’s and women’s conformity on subjective versus objective topics (compared with participants primed with a neutral motive). Unlike in Study 1, in which the group could indicate a positive or 286 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