CONFORMING TO PREEERENCES MORE THAN ACTIONS 195 7 ce:henc (friends,in-group members)compared with distant others.We next report six s udies that test these hypotheses more infom native.for Study 1:I Will Eat What You Like o te whether people e to another person'actio hc ptions either beca se these are two framings of the sam eat the elected option (action)or not (preferer icted they would be less likelyto he person they observed selected)if the person ate his or her nd selection versus no oth peoplewil reca nption of Method memorie are likel ume (vs.strongly like) studies.and inc sing this n emember consuming this food more recently and more fr For St second we predict that people will only choc on in a com universit area:70 M ran the a binary depende implies that rich he if the 66 dyads (61 males,68 females.and 3 missing)that volunteered to m to other ctions as much as she orm to others pre Ve thus pred that individual tence ys action)bety leted when the ontions in the set complement (ys.con dict)each ewing gun Ve randomly ed participants in each dyad to move firs our effect in terms tha 191 Snyde experimenter verbally repeated the first mover's response ("So you they thought this In th among those who d the n 009 Whe ceking and mental sharing could.a experimente verbally repeated the first m like xx b ad ct ach other.I cause cho ing differently from a contr articipa nd the similar across conditions xcent the fir which cho ng gum his study partner ind the s more tha ndition The second mover then indicated the flayo raits of their ignificant others.in embers.or those with .first on the survey and then to th the s (Aro asted before answer Smith.Coats,&Walling.1999:Smith&Henry.1996).Be ing some questions on various product features (sof.sweet the second mover's choice,we did not analyze the product form less to the actions than the preferences of close others evaluation measureshigher personal cost than expressing preference; hence, action information could at times be objectively a stronger signal of value. On the other hand, situations exist in which preference could be more informative, for example, if people provide this information after they have had more experience with their choice compared with those expressing preference only. To provide a clean test of our theory, we address situations in which preference and action convey similar objective information on the options, either because these are two framings of the same choice, or because respondents learn about a preference in both conditions and we vary whether it is followed by action (e.g., the chooser further consumed her choice). We provide three types of evidence for mental sharing as the underlying cause for the words-speak-louder effect. First, we hy￾pothesize that people will recall greater past consumption of items that others have had versus items that others have indicated they prefer. This hypothesis requires that the items are frequently con￾sumed (e.g., breakfast foods) such that biased memories are likely. We predict, for example, that upon learning that others frequently consume (vs. strongly like) a specific breakfast food, individuals will remember consuming this food more recently and more fre￾quently. Second, we predict that people will only choose something different if the new option complements the option that others selected. Mental sharing implies that a person can enrich her experience by choosing differently; however, if the options con￾tradict each other, she gains little from “owning” them both, and will choose to conform to others’ actions as much as she would conform to others’ preferences. We thus predict that individuals will conform less to others’ actions than to others’ preferences only when the options in the set complement (vs. contradict) each other. Comparing conformity in complementary versus contradictory choice sets further helps us address a potential alternative expla￾nation for our effect in terms of uniqueness seeking (i.e., that people choose differently to signal their unique identity, Brewer, 1991; Snyder & Fromkin, 1977). According to this alternative perspective, behavioral appeals (“everyone is doing it”) are less effective than attitudinal appeals (“everyone is talking about it”) among those who seek uniqueness, because conformity to actions is a stronger signal of a lack of uniqueness (Griskevicius et al., 2009). Whereas uniqueness seeking and mental sharing could, at times, produce a similar effect, uniqueness seeking implies less conformity to others’ actions than words when the items in a set contradict each other, because choosing differently from a contra￾dicting set provides a greater signal of uniqueness. By contrast, the perspective of mental sharing predicts less conformity to actions than words when the items complement each other, because indi￾viduals choose differently whenever they can achieve a comple￾mentary experience. Finally, people mentally share close others’ actions more than distant others’ actions; for example, people feel they share the traits of their significant others, in-group members, or those with whom they identify, more than distant others (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Goldstein & Cialdini, 2007; Norton et al., 2003; Smith, Coats, & Walling, 1999; Smith & Henry, 1996). Because mental sharing underlies our effect, we predict a stronger effect for closer friends. We therefore hypothesize that individuals will con￾form less to the actions than the preferences of close others (friends, in-group members) compared with distant others. We next report six studies that test these hypotheses. Study 1: I Will Eat What You Like To test whether people conform less to another person’s action versus preference, we had the participants in Study 1 watch an￾other person choose between two flavors of chewing gum and either eat the selected option (action) or not (preference). Partici￾pants then made their choice among the same options. We pre￾dicted they would be less likely to conform (i.e., choose the option the person they observed selected) if the person ate his or her selection versus not. Method Participants. Our general rule of predetermining sample sizes in all studies was at least 20 participants per condition for lab studies, and increasing this number in noisier—field and online— settings. For Study 1, we predetermined a sample size of 35 natural dyadic groups (i.e., undergraduate students who sat with another person in a common university area; 70 people) per condition, because we ran the study in a field setting with a binary dependent variable. We ran the study throughout 1 week, returning a total of 66 dyads (61 males, 68 females, and 3 missing) that volunteered to participate in the study. Procedure. The study employed a 2 (other’s response: pref￾erence vs. action) between-subjects design. Participants completed a survey on an evaluation of chewing gums. We used two flavors of Orbit gum (Wintermint and Sweetmint) that participants had, in past experiments, deemed similarly appealing. We randomly assigned participants in each dyad to move first versus second. In the preference condition, the experimenter asked the first mover to indicate which flavor he or she liked better. The experimenter verbally repeated the first mover’s response (“So you like xx better”) and handed him/her a survey on which the partic￾ipant evaluated the selected chewing gum without tasting it (how soft, sweet, refreshing, and delightful they thought this was). In the action condition, the experimenter asked the first mover to indicate which flavor he or she liked better and wanted to taste in this study. The experimenter verbally repeated the first mover’s response (“So you like xx better and want to taste it”) and handed him/her a different survey along with the selected chewing gum. The participants first tasted the chewing gum and then evaluated it (how soft, sweet, refreshing, and delightful it was). Next, the experimenter handed the second mover a survey, which was similar across conditions, except the first question asked which chewing gum his or her study partner indicated they liked (preference condition) or liked and was currently having (action condition). The second mover then indicated the flavor he or she wanted to taste, first on the survey and then to the experimenter. The experimenter handed the second mover his or her selected flavor, which participants tasted before answer￾ing some questions on various product features (soft, sweet, refreshing, and delightful). Because we were only interested in the second mover’s choice, we did not analyze the product evaluation measures. 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. CONFORMING TO PREFERENCES MORE THAN ACTIONS 195