GRISKEVICIUS ET AL agreeableness or group cohesion depends on the size of the group a mating rime failed to goals in small group men (all ps75).Thus, whe Thus,the seeming inc hich is precisely nding of the predictions or the actual findings lings appear to ir majority when optin to Discussion The resuls of Study 3 replicated and extended the General Discussion nen's confor omen' s conformity. expected.this inc conform more when when the m As would be was un hrea nge sus of 3 to 1.Se when content t was subjectiv to attra y tended t ase the like e cither men's or conformit ied by three ke his un nly finding fo ps suppor Study 1.t ffects That is,one's d d lly thur up or thi n is u into a maiority information wo m fo tof th support motive ceable the effect of the mating motive to noas can be mity was muted is split into minority of 1.g ment of the group was positive.Ho of the ndins a ally appear Nota bly.the valer of seln the group's judgment had no inf ing that self- -P y was notnan isted thi the grou proven to h rate.In contrast.when the topi of not likely to be the mpared with 100 peopl who pre er.who tende with the ple who prefer Option B is much less hird.as en in Suudy 3.when in a small group.mating goals als led men to nonconfom ed w group wacant increase in conformity for men and women, compared with the control, F(1, 211)
3.88, p
.050, 2
.018. When the majority was split, however, a mating prime failed to produce a difference from control for men or women (all ps  .75). Thus, a mating prime produced an increase in conformity on objective items only when the majority was unanimous, which is precisely when men and women could have more confidence in the accuracy of the majority position. Discussion The results of Study 3 conceptually replicated and extended the findings from the previous two studies by illuminating the pro￾cesses by which mating motives differentially influence men’s and women’s conformity. First, as in Study 2, when the content was objective, mating motives tended to produce an increase in men and women’s conformity. As would be expected, this increase was strongest when the majority of four was unanimous, which is a stronger indicator of the correct response compared with a split consensus of 3 to 1. Second, when content was subjective and the majority of 4 was unanimous, mating motives led men to noncon￾form and produced a pattern of higher conformity for women. However, when consensus opinion in the group was split into a majority of 3 and a minority of 1, mating motives failed to influence either men’s or women’s conformity. This unanimous-only finding for men in small groups supports the notion that mating motives lead men to go against the group likely because they motivate men to appear unique and assertive. Each of these self-presentational goals can be optimally achieved through nonconformity primarily when the majority in a small group is unanimous. When consensus is split into a majority of 3 and a minority of 1, going against the group is less likely to make men look unique or assertive. The unanimous-only pattern for women supports the idea that mating motives are likely to lead women to conform more in part because they motivate them to appear agreeable and foster group cohesion. Each of these self￾presentation goals can be optimally achieved through conformity primarily when the majority in a small group is unanimous. When consensus is split into a majority of 3 and a minority of 1, going along with the group is less effective at enabling women to appear agreeable and fostering group cohesion for the entire group. The findings of this study may initially appear at odds with the findings from Study 2. In that study, mating motives led men to nonconform and led women to conform more even though the majority was not unanimous. However, there is a key methodolog￾ical difference between the studies: In Study 2, the ostensible “group” consisted of over 100 individuals; whereas in this study, the group consisted of only 5 individuals, including the participant. Given that mating motives should produce male nonconformity when going against the group enables men to be relatively distinct, the effectiveness of the mating prime to produce nonconformity should depend on the size of the group and the size of the majority. In larger groups, relative distinctiveness can be achieved via non￾conformity even if the majority is not unanimous; that is, a person can appear relatively distinct if he is one of 10 people who prefer Option A compared with 100 people who prefer Option B. In a small group, however, being 1 of the 2 people who prefer Option A compared with the 3 people who prefer Option B is much less effective at achieving distinctiveness. A similar rationale also applies to women: The effectiveness of conformity to convey agreeableness or group cohesion depends on the size of the group and the size of the majority, whereby conformity is more effective at achieving these self-presentational goals in small groups when the majority is unanimous. Thus, the seeming inconsis￾tency between the Studies 2 and 3 does not undermine the theoretical grounding of the predictions or the actual findings. Indeed, the findings appear to indicate that people are under￾standably sensitive to the size of the group and the size of the majority when opting to (non)conform. General Discussion The present research examined how the temporary activation of two fundamental social motives—a motive to protect oneself from danger and a motive to attract a mate—influenced tendencies to conform. Findings indicated that a self-protective mindset led both men and women to conform more. That is, when people were motivated to avoid threat and to protect themselves from danger, they tended to go along with the group. In contrast, a mating mindset generally produced different effects for men and women. For men, the goal to attract a mate generally led them to go against the preferences of others; whereas for women, the goal to attract a mate generally tended to increase the likelihood that women would conform to the group. However, these general effects of mating motives on (non)conformity were qualified by three key factors. First, as seen in Study 1, the effects of mating motives depended on whether the judgment of the group was positive or negative. That is, one’s decision to (non)conform depended on whether the group opinion was essentially thumbs up or thumbs down. The valence of the group’s judgment of a novel stimulus strongly influences what kind of dispositional information would be con￾veyed by a person’s (non)conformity. For men, a romantic prime produced nonconformity specifically when the judgment of the group was negative. However, when group judgment was posi￾tive—and nonconformity could not be used to convey positive information—the effect of the mating motive to engender noncon￾formity was muted. For women, a romantic prime tended to produce somewhat more conformity specifically when the judg￾ment of the group was positive. However, when group judgment was negative—and conformity could not convey positive informa￾tion—any effect of the mating motive for women was muted. Notably, the valence of the group’s judgment had no influence on the effectiveness of self-protection goals to increase conformity, suggesting that self-protection goals are less sensitive to concerns of positive or negative self-presentation. Second, as seen in Studies 2 and 3, mating goals led men to nonconform only on topics that were subjective. That is, men went against the group only when they couldn’t be proven to be incor￾rect and when going against the crowd could not result in choices that were less accurate. In contrast, when the topic was objective, mating motives actually caused men to conform more. This finding makes sense given that going against the majority opinion on a matter of objective fact is not likely to be the most adaptive behavior, and is often subject to being verified as foolish as opposed to independent. The effects of mating motives for women, however, who tended not to take stands against group opinion, did not depend on whether the topic was subjective or objective. Third, as seen in Study 3, when in a small group, mating goals led men to nonconform and led women to show somewhat of an increase in conformity only when the majority of the group was 290 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