62 DONG,DAL.AND WYER mindset do not exist in isolation.Rather.they are specifie plan the the would not beactivated under behavior or only observe it. unrelated to the shema in which a of the Actor-Observer Differences in Reactions to Behavior avior is contained. s the the thers mindset are likely to ave not oealppoPl tting g on whether indi soal elevanc Their focusin um may be hether they personally engage in the behavior or only hat individuals happen to be purs for a review,see Fiske&Taylor,1991)Jones and Nisbett (1971) ndivi postulatehatndrvidals attribute othe ior to factors tha this behavior Th tors'attention when the factors com into play.Reactance may be hey ar in atta typically drawn to Effects of Psvchological Reactance that e for hesp that of other s Res on fre n Molouk shes then and b engupta.2011) ed differed from these.In Ex ts to con vince a to on ome part ants engaged in a s es of exercise r synch ecrease rath ed a product evaluation question that a pro tion.they their conformi najority-ende P also induce For examplc. 4:Wang.Zhu.&Shiv,2012:Xu et al.2012).In administering I close to e task (Xu eir judgments That is if n ple feel that behaving or alter How they may tha from those that others der desirable le therefore expected that with the s primar ns go (1974)found that me seeing another person's freedom uct-choice less of whether the observers expected to interact with the person on the actors'behavior without regard to the goal to which imindset do not exist in isolation. Rather, they are contained in specific plan-goal schemas that are activated in the course of conscious goal-directed activity. In the present context, this means that a behavioral mindset would not be activated under conditions in which an individual’s behavior occurs for reasons that are unrelated to the plan-goal schema in which a concept of the behavior is contained. These considerations have general implications for the condi￾tions in which the effects of a copying-others mindset are likely to be evident. As we have noted, the concept of copying others might be part of a plan to attain goals other than behavior synchrony (social approval, getting a correct answer, etc.). The pursuit of these goals could also induce a copying-others mindset, thereby affecting judgments and decisions in other situations. On the other hand, if individuals incidentally copy others’ behavior in the course of pursuing a goal whose schema does not contain the concept of copying others, a copying-others mindset will not be activated and performing the behavior should have little effect. Moreover, even if copying others’ behavior is relevant to the goal that individuals happen to be pursuing, a copying-others mindset may not have an effect unless individuals think about the instru￾mentality of their behavior in attaining this goal. If individuals’ attention is drawn to their behavior per se, independently of its goal-relevance, other factors come into play. Reactance may be one of these factors. Effects of Psychological Reactance Consciously engaging in synchronous behavior requires indi￾viduals to sacrifice their freedom of action and subordinate their behavior to that of others. Restrictions on freedom can induce feelings of reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). According to reactance theory, people who feel that their freedom is threatened often attempt to reassert their individuality by engag￾ing in behavior that distinguishes themselves from others and by resisting social pressure to conform. For example, a person’s overly zealous attempts to convince a colleague to collaborate on a project can often decrease the colleague’s motivation to do so. Similarly, an unsolicited recommendation to see a movie might decrease rather than increase the likelihood of seeing the movie (Fitzsimons & Lehmann, 2004). Moreover, when people perceive that a promotion is intended to control their consumption, they reassert their individuality by choosing alternatives that are incon￾gruent with those the promotion advocates (Kivetz, 2005). Situational factors can also induce reactance. For example, restricting personal space by requiring persons to sit close to others can motivate them to reassert their freedom by choosing more unique alternatives in a later choice task (Xu, Shen, & Wyer, 2012). The requirement to engage in synchronous behavior could have analogous effects. That is, if people feel that behaving syn￾chronously threatens their freedom of action, they may reassert their individuality in a later situation by choosing actions that differ from those that others advocate or consider desirable. Moreover, reactance not only can be activated by restrictions on one’s own freedom but also can occur vicariously. Andreoli et al. (1974) found that merely seeing another person’s freedom being threatened decreased participants’ ratings of the desirability of stimuli that were ostensibly liked by others. This was true regard￾less of whether the observers expected to interact with the person who imposed the threat. In the present context, this suggests that people can feel the restrictions on freedom imposed by synchro￾nous behavior regardless of whether they personally engage in this behavior or only observe it. Actor–Observer Differences in Reactions to Behavior As the preceding discussion indicates, the cognitive and moti￾vational factors that come into play when individuals encounter synchronous behavior could have either positive or negative ef￾fects on their later judgments and decisions. In fact, both effects could occur, their relative magnitude depending on whether indi￾viduals focus their attention on the goal to which the behavior is directed or focus on the behavior itself, independently of its goal relevance. Their attentional focus, in turn, may be influenced in part by whether they personally engage in the behavior or only observe it. This possibility is suggested by research on actor– observer differences in attributions and judgments (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; for a review, see Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Jones and Nisbett (1971) postulate that individuals attribute others’ behavior to factors that are salient to them from the perspective from which they view or imagine this behavior. Thus, actors’ attention when they perform goal-related behavior is directed outward, on the goal they are pursuing and their behavior’s effectiveness in attaining it, whereas observers’ attention is typically drawn to characteristics of the actors’ behavior per se. These differences in perspective can in￾fluence the explanations that people give for the actors’ behavior (Regan & Totten, 1975; Storms, 1973). They can also have an impact on individuals’ perceptions of their own versus others’ conformity (Pronin, Berger, & Molouki, 2007), their self￾perceptions (Libby, Shaeffer, Eibach, & Slemmer, 2007), the in￾tensity of their emotional reactions (Hung & Mukhopadhyay, 2012), and their reliance on concrete versus abstract information (Yan & Sengupta, 2011). The effects we examined differed from these. In Experiment 1, some participants engaged in a series of exercises either synchro￾nously or asynchronously, and this behavior was observed by others. Then, as part of an ostensibly unrelated experiment, all participants completed a product evaluation questionnaire in which other consumers’ preferences for the products were indicated, and their conformity was inferred from the likelihood of choosing majority-endorsed options (for the use of this measure in prior research, see Berger & Heath, 2007; Huang, Zhang, Hui, & Wyer, 2014; Wang, Zhu, & Shiv, 2012; Xu et al., 2012). In administering these measures, we told participants to report their personal pref￾erences without giving them an indication of the criteria they should use. Therefore, their judgments could be based in part on their perceptions that others’ preference were indications of prod￾uct quality or, alternatively, social desirability. However, a copying-others mindset should have an impact on their conformity over and above these motivational factors. We therefore expected that participants with the goal of engag￾ing in synchronous exercise would focus primarily on this goal and the effectiveness of their behavior in attaining it. To this extent, the concepts activated by their behavior should induce a copying￾others mindset, leading them to copy others’ preferences in the product-choice task. In contrast, observers are more likely to focus on the actors’ behavior without regard to the goal to which it 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. 62 DONG, DAI, AND WYER