GRISKEVICIUS ET AL social groups.such as attracting and retaining mates.proecting 9:Gopnik.Meltzhoff.Kuhl.999).One reason w tal.2000:Kemrick.Li Bumer.2003) ning status (Bugen Empirical investigations based on this perspective have ad- we (Cialdini 200 mides&Tooby.1992 000L.A 1&E ists because in many cases itis the most fomm an elevated motivation to be accurate and find themselves in Griskevicius.Kenrick,in press).The present research wa Choi.)r why ople tend to he duc oduction.and a in to socmay le influ ch Gerard and mith.Wade.1983:Martin Self-Protective Motivation and Conformity influence is especially oth s sts A long histor uggests that stin ung the pre dang with afect()this goal then 无 y of th ncr eas Lakin&Chartrand.03) when threatened by a predator (Hamilton.1971).Mimicry and 95 2000 t influence (Nail,MacDonald. ting that a motive to protect self from dang 9631.B01 indivi (Ma ch et al.1985:Snyd need to affiliate in both hum nonh with a highl ent with finding and p cial,this duality raise death 00s nski Greenbe 2.&Solo 1997-Wis mportar The answer may depend on the person's currently active goal. wghbmt e like roup either to affiliate or to avoid Fundamental Social Motives Mate-Attraction Motivation and Conformity Survival is necessary.but not sufficient.for evolutionary su Bargh.90:Chartrand Bargh and motives havin spcifically linked to anevolutionaand 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 con￾formity 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 per￾sists because in many cases it is the most efficient form of behaving (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999). Consistent with the under￾lying 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 nor￾mative 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 indi￾vidual, nonconformity can also be advantageous (e.g., Argyle, 1957; Hollander, 1958). Nonconformity includes two types of behavior: (a) independence, or resisting influence; and (b) anti￾conformity, 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 influ￾enced— 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 (Bugen￾tal, 2000; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003). Empirical investigations based on this perspective have ad￾dressed 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 theo￾retical 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 psy￾chological 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 percep￾tions, 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 self￾protective 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; Wis￾man & Koole, 2003). In summary, research in several areas sug￾gests 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 suc￾cess. 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 suc￾cess 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