FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES AND CONFORMITY 289 As in Study 2.particip ould se s of previous surve would produ conformity for we n.Con tent with thi e the owhen the 0uFL,213) told th 3.04.As seen on the left side of Figure 3.when the r o 2 45 fille ed first on the sur ventionally significant,F(1.213)2 that wer (4).and half e two types of najo Results when the majority was split (all ps0).Thus.in summary orm in a small o when the s was unanim that i when going agains ed ahiy The small roup the majority -that ex din rmity in the co conditionTo st the be pa pe Conformity on Objective Items When n the majority was u but not necess 2.84.p=093.701m the majority was unanimous,a mating prime produced a signifi- CONTENT TYPE t+0.75 SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE ■MEN *050 025 ☐WOMEN 025 05 Unanimous Split Unanimous Spl MAJORITY TYPE Figure 3.Effects of ma have a painting by Van Gogh or Monet? For the objective questions, along with the 3 previous items, the fourth item asked: Which country do you think has more consumers, Finland or Norway? As in Study 2, participants could see the responses of previous survey takers. However, it appeared that only 4 individuals had thus far completed the survey. Because participants were told that the survey questions changed rather frequently, they had no reason to be suspicious of the low number of respondents. The viewable responses of the 4 previous survey takers were strategically arranged. The two filler items were always split 2/2 (i.e., 2 people had indicated a preference toward one response, whereas 2 other people had indicated a preference for the opposing response). One of these filler items always appeared first on the survey to decrease suspiciousness. Of the four subjective and four objective items, half had previous responses that were unanimous (4/0), and half of the items had previous responses showing that the majority was split (3/1). The pairings of the two types of majorities with the specific survey items and the specific responses within each item were counterbalanced. Results As in the first two studies, regardless of the particular choice advocated by the majority, participants’ responses were converted into a conformity index for each item, whereby higher numbers indicated a higher degree of conformity. There were no significant sex differences in conformity in the control condition. To test the specific hypotheses of the study, we performed a series of planned contrasts for the subjective items and the objective items. Conformity on Subjective Items When topics were subjective, it was predicted that mating goals would (differentially) influence men and women’s conformity depending on whether the majority was unanimous versus split. Consistent with this prediction, results indicated a three-way in￾teraction with participant sex, motive, and majority type, although this interaction was not conventionally significant, F(1, 213)
2.84, p
.093, 2
.013. When the majority was unanimous, it was predicted that a mating prime would lead men to nonconform and a mating prime would produce more conformity for women. Consistent with this prediction, results indicated a significant Participant Sex Motive interaction when the majority was unanimous, F(1, 213)
9.30, p
.003, 2
.042. As seen on the left side of Figure 3, when the majority was unanimous, men showed a significant decrease in conformity in the mating condition, compared with the control, F(1, 213)
7.45, p
.007, 2
.034. In contrast, a mating prime led women to conform somewhat more, although this difference was not conventionally significant, F(1, 213)
2.22, p
.138, 2
.010. When the majority was split, it was predicted that the effects of the mating motive on subjective conformity would be muted. Indeed, as seen in Figure 3, there were no significant interactions with participant sex and motive, main effects, or simple effects when the majority was split (all ps  .70). Thus, in summary, when topics were subjective, a mating prime led men to noncon￾form in a small group when the group was unanimous—that is, when going against the group could make the men distinct. For women, a mating prime produced somewhat higher conformity in a small group when the majority was unanimous—that is, when going along with the group would be particularly effective at displaying agreeableness and fostering group cohesion for women. Conformity on Objective Items When topics were objective, it was predicted that a mating prime would produce an increase in men and women’s conformity primarily when the majority was unanimous, but not necessarily when the majority was split. Consistent with this prediction, results indicated a Motive Majority Type interaction for objective items, although this interaction was not conventionally significant F(1, 213)
3.44, p
.065, 2
.016. As seen in Figure 3, when the majority was unanimous, a mating prime produced a signifi￾Figure 3. Effects of mate-attraction motives on conformity depending on whether content was subjective versus objective, and on whether the majority was unanimous or split (Study 3). 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 289 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.