SYNCHRONY AND CONFORMITY ence reactance for rea suggested by Andreoli( themselves performing the beh uall expected that actorsbehavior was synchronous than when it was not izing the phe na we Additional Implications ltematively,whether other goals that lea It is conceivable that per it o r in attaining the goal to which e'h releva hus actors their atte should be om not nec al at er e to co equire cop ing one her's beh or ted To this both actors and observer eactions to the synchro s on a product preference task,to which cither the goal no efeets behavior activation more actions to the goal to which the or is directed,an our results are reported. o to which it pe Experiment 1 reely chose this activity hen they feel they were forced to ve that tcompletedaprodiuctcho which th f the behavior in oal relevan Second should theoreticall nption that observers tion of the reactions Wan of others med an altemative inter 1.2012)f el lonely sh should not be acti ated and a copying-others m hen they report the their later conformity.Experiment 3 provided evidence of this differ ereased conformity in this condition.As will be seen,however,this was not the cas ather than about the restrictions on their freedom required in order One hundred forty-six Hong Kong undergraduates (55 male 22.01 years.sp observers pay to the actors'behavior and the goal to which it is Nere randomly assigned to conditions of a 2 (behavior synehro nt 4 ous vs.asynchronous)(participant roe:actor vs.observer) ed that g observers to take tive reduced the reactance they experienced and led the actors'behav- nto two groups pertains. To this extent, they should be sensitive to the restrictions on freedom imposed by the behavior and should vicariously ex￾perience reactance for reasons suggested by Andreoli et al. (1974). We therefore expected that observers would be less likely to conform to others’ opinions in the product-choice task when the actors’ behavior was synchronous than when it was not. Additional Implications The preceding hypotheses assume that actors and observers typically differ in the relative attention they pay (a) to the effec￾tiveness of the actors’ behavior in attaining the goal to which it is directed and (b) to the actors’ behavior per se, independently of its goal relevance. Thus, actors should be more likely to experience reactance if their attention is drawn to their behavior per se rather than to its instrumentality in attaining the goal at hand. Corre￾spondingly, observers should be less likely to experience reactance if their attention is drawn to the goal to which the actors’ behavior is directed. To this extent, several situational factors could influ￾ence both actors’ and observers’ reactions to the synchronous behavior through their mediating influence on (a) perceptions of the freedom to engage in the behavior, (b) the relevance of copying others’ actions to the goal to which their behavior is directed, and (c) the relative attention paid to the actors’ behavior per se versus the goal to which it pertains. Restrictions on freedom. Synchronous behavior is less likely to induce a negative reaction when individuals feel that they have freely chosen this activity than when they feel they were forced to engage in it (Brehm, 1966; see also Bem, 1972). Observers are also less likely to perceive that actors’ behavior constitutes a restriction on freedom if the actors volunteered to engage in the behavior. Thus, both actors and observers may express less reactance and, consequently, may be more likely to adopt others’ behavior in a later situation in the first case than in the second. Experiment 2 investigated this possibility. Goal relevance. Second, actors’ behavior should theoretically induce a copying-others mindset only if the actors consciously engage in the behavior for the purpose of matching their behavior to that of others. If actors incidentally match others’ behavior without intentionally doing so, a plan-goal schema that contains the concepts associated with copying others should not be acti￾vated and a copying-others mindset should not be induced. In this case, therefore, the actors’ synchronous behavior should not affect their later conformity. Experiment 3 provided evidence of this contingency. Attention differences. Although reactance and a copying￾others mindset can both contribute to actors’ conformity, the magnitude of these contributions may vary. To reiterate, actors are likely to think about their behavior in relation to the goal at hand rather than about the restrictions on their freedom required in order to attain the goal. In contrast, observers’ attention is more likely to be focused on the actors’ behavior per se. If this is so, however, the relative effects of this attention difference might be reduced or even reversed by changing the relative attention that actors and observers pay to the actors’ behavior and the goal to which it is directed. Experiments 4 and 5 confirmed this possibility. Experiment 4 showed that inducing observers to take the actors’ perspective reduced the reactance they experienced and led the actors’ behav￾ior to have an effect similar to its effects on actors themselves. Experiment 5 demonstrated that stimulating actors to imagine themselves performing the behavior in anticipation of actually doing so increased their sensitivity to the restrictions on freedom imposed by this behavior and thus decreased their later conformity. Other considerations arise in conceptualizing the phenomena we investigated. One question surrounds the extent to which the phenomena are specific to the goal of behaving synchronously or, alternatively, whether other goals that lead individuals to work together in pursuit of a common goal would have similar effects. It is conceivable that persons who interact with others in pursuit of a common goal will acquire a disposition to cooperate with others in a later situation. As we have noted, however, pursuit of a common goal does not necessarily involve copying others’ behav￾ior. (In fact, due to control conditions of the present research, actors had a common goal of doing the exercises; however, attain￾ment of the goal did not require copying one another’s behavior.) Thus, the pursuit of such a goal would not elicit a copying-others mindset that influences conformity to anonymous others’ judg￾ments on a product preference task, to which neither the goal nor the behavior required to attain it is relevant. We discuss the relative effects of goal activation and behavior activation more fully after our results are reported. Experiment 1 Experiment 1 confirmed the diametrically opposite effects of synchronous behavior on actors’ and observers’ judgments. Some participants were asked to perform exercises either synchronously or asynchronously. Other participants observed these exercises. Then, all participants completed a product choice task in which the market share of the choice alternatives was varied. We expected that engaging in synchronous behavior would increase the dispo￾sition to choose products that were ostensibly popular whereas observing this behavior would decrease this disposition. In addition to confirming this hypothesis, we (a) validated our assumption that observers’ reactions were mediated by thoughts about the restrictions on actors’ freedom of behavior and (b) disconfirmed an alternative interpretation of these reactions. Wang et al. (2012) found that persons who feel lonely show a preference for popular choice alternatives when they report these preferences publicly. (They show a preference for unique and distinctive alternatives when they report their judgments privately.) Judg￾ments in the present experiment were known only to the experi￾menter. Nevertheless, we expected that if observers of synchro￾nous behavior feel excluded from the main experiment and thus feel socially alienated, these feelings might account for their de￾creased conformity in this condition. As will be seen, however, this was not the case. Method One hundred forty-six Hong Kong undergraduates (55 male, Mage 22.01 years, SD 2.90) were recruited to participate voluntarily in exchange of HK$40 (approximately US$5). They were randomly assigned to conditions of a 2 (behavior: synchro￾nous vs. asynchronous) 2 (participant role: actor vs. observer) between-subjects design. Students participated in groups of 10 –12. Upon their arrival at the laboratory, participants were randomly divided into two groups 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. SYNCHRONY AND CONFORMITY 63