ERQ

Studies I have to know:


Conformity:

  • Asch (1956)

    • 75% conformed whereas 25% did not

    • In controlled condition, less than 1% conformed

  • Abrams et al (1990)

    • Same as asch but in the second condition a participant was asked to record the responses instead as well as their own without saying it out loud, to see whether they would conform

    • Conforming responses 138/432 possible responses

    • 77% conformed 

    • No gender differences


Social Identity theory (SIT)

  • Rogers & Frantz (1961)

  • Abrams et al (1990)


Social cognitive theory (SCT)

  • Fagot (1978)

    • Boys more likely to be left alone by their parents than girls

    • Parents criticized girls more when they participated in motor activities like running or jumping

    • Parents found more appropriate behavior for girls than boys

  • Bandura (1961)

    • Children who observed aggressive model where more aggressive and showed signs of aggression both physically and verbally

    • Girls where more likely to imitate verbal aggression and boys physical aggression


Stereotyping

  • Rogers & Frantz (1961)

    • Given a survey

    • 348 out of 500 responses showed a mean score of 3

    • 77%

  • Hamilton & Gifford (1976)

    • Repeated measures design

    • Group A had more positive traits than group B

    • Positive traits for group B (54%) and negative traits group B (65%)

    • Positive traits group B (74%) and negative traits group B (55%) 


Cultural dimensions

  • Kulkofsky et al (2011)

    • Collectivist cultures like china, personal importance or emotions played less of a role in recalled a flashbulb memory

    • Individualistic cultures put more attentions into the emotional and personal involvement of the memory

  • Berry (1967)

    • Temne had a higher rate of conformity (a collectivist culture) when told what other temne believed

    • Inuits had a lower rate of conformity than the scotts 

    • No significant difference within the groups


Enculturation

  • Berry (1967)

  • Fagot (1978)


L3: Conformity Research

  • Definition: Conformity is the tendency to adjust behavior, attitudes, or beliefs to align with those of a group or social norm.

  • Key Studies:

    • Asch (1951): Explored how individuals conform to a group even when the group is wrong. In his line-judgment experiment, participants often gave incorrect answers to match the majority.

    • Sherif (1936): Investigated conformity using the autokinetic effect, showing that individuals' judgments align with group norms when faced with ambiguous tasks.

  • Application: Understanding how social pressure influences decision-making and behavior in groups.

L4: Social Identity Theory (SIT)

  • Definition: SIT explains how individuals define themselves based on group memberships, which impacts intergroup behavior.

  • Key Concepts:

    • Social Categorization: Dividing people into "us" (ingroup) and "them" (outgroup).

    • Social Identification: Adopting the values and behaviors of the ingroup.

    • Social Comparison: Comparing the ingroup to outgroups, often leading to ingroup favoritism.

  • Key Study:

    • Tajfel et al. (1971): The minimal group paradigm demonstrated that even arbitrary group divisions lead to ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination.

  • Application: Understanding group behavior, prejudice, and identity formation.





L5: Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

  • Definition: SCT suggests that behavior is learned through observation, imitation, and modeling, influenced by personal, behavioral, and environmental factors.

  • Key Concepts:

    • Observational Learning: Learning by watching others.

    • Vicarious Reinforcement: Learning by observing the consequences of others' behavior.

    • Reciprocal Determinism: The interplay between personal factors, behavior, and the environment.

  • Key Study:

    • Bandura et al. (1961): The Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children imitate aggressive behavior, especially when modeled by someone of the same gender.

  • Application: Explains how behavior is shaped by social interactions and media.

L6: Stereotyping

  • Definition: Stereotypes are generalized beliefs about a group of people, which can influence perceptions and behaviors.

  • Key Concepts:

    • Formation: Often based on social categorization and cognitive shortcuts.

    • Effects: Stereotypes can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and stereotype threat.

  • Key Studies:

    • Hamilton & Gifford (1976): Illusory correlation demonstrated how people form false associations between group membership and behavior.

    • Steele & Aronson (1995): Showed how stereotype threat can impair performance, particularly among minority groups.

  • Application: Addresses prejudice, discrimination, and social inequalities.

L7: Cultural Dimensions

  • Definition: Cultural dimensions are frameworks that describe how cultural values influence behavior.

  • Key Concepts: Hofstede’s dimensions include:

    • Individualism vs. Collectivism: Emphasis on individual achievement versus group goals.

    • Power Distance: Acceptance of unequal power distribution.

    • Masculinity vs. Femininity: Focus on achievement versus care and quality of life.

    • Uncertainty Avoidance: Tolerance for ambiguity and risk.

  • Key Study:

    • Hofstede (1980): Identified cultural dimensions by analyzing IBM employees across countries.

    • Berry (1967): Compared conformity in collectivist (Temne people) versus individualist (Inuit people) societies.

  • Application: Explains cultural influences on behavior, communication, and societal norms.

L8: Enculturation

  • Definition: The process by which individuals learn and adopt the values, norms, and behaviors of their culture.

  • Key Concepts:

    • Direct Teaching: Learning through instruction by family or community.

    • Observational Learning: Learning cultural norms by observing others.

    • Participatory Learning: Actively engaging in cultural practices.

  • Key Study:

    • Odden & Rochat (2004): Observed how Samoan children learn cultural norms about fishing and hierarchy through observation rather than direct instruction.

  • Application: Explains how cultural identity and behaviors are transmitted across generations.


Practice ERQ (conformity):


Conformity is one of the many theories that is able to test the sociocultural approach. Conformity refers to the ability of an individual to follow or change beliefs or attitudes to match the approval they desire from a certain group. The sociocultural approach explores how factors like family, friends, or cultures, can influence one's behavior. In order to test this approach and the conformity theory, psychologists carried out studies like the Asch (1956) and the Abrams et al (1990) study to see how social influence can cause an individual to conform to their surroundings. 


In order to prove the sociocultural approach, psychologists conducted a study called Asch (1956). The aim of this study was to see if social pressure from a group would increase one's likelihood to conform. To test this, Asch conducted a lab experiment in highly controlled conditions and the psychologists used a sample of 123 males in the US. They split the participants into groups of 7, where 6 were confederates and 1 was a naive participant. In this study, there were 2 conditions. In the first condition, the naive participant was placed with the confederates and was asked to perform the same task. The task was to match the line shown on card 1 to a line shown on card 2 that was the same length. To test the conformity, the naive was placed second to last so that they could hear the rest of the responses before giving their response. There were a total of 18 and in 12 of these trials, confederates were asked to give the wrong answer. The results for this condition showed that over the 12 trials, 75% of participants conformed whereas 25% never conformed. In the second controlled condition, the naive participant was placed in a room alone and was asked to perform the same task giving their answer to the experimenter. Here, the results showed that less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer. In this experiment, asch had a good control of the variables which allowed for a higher validity of the study. This experiment can also be replicated easily, making it more reliable and testable. However, the study has a low ecological validity meaning that it cannot be easily applied to the real world, since it is less naturalistic. There are also some ethical concerns such as deception, since the participants were deceived and told that they were doing a vision test. There might also be some cultural bias, since this was only done to males who are studying in the US, meaning that culture may change the results of the study, limiting the generalizability of this. Overall, the study implies how social pressure can influence a person causing them to conform so that they won't feel rejected by the group. 


To further test conformity as part of the sociocultural approach, a study called Abrams et al (1990) supports this. This study is very similar to the Asch (1956) experiment, since it follows the bases of this. The aim was to determine if ingroup identity would affect one's willingness to conform. To test this, an independent sample design was used meaning that 2 different IVs were manipulated. The first IV was if the confederates were from an ingroup (psychology students) or an outgroup (history students). The second IV was whether the participants' responses were public or private. The sample used 50 undergraduate students with 23 males and 27 females, but only 3 confederates were in each group. This experiment also had 2 conditions. The first condition was the same as the Asch paradigm, which was also the public condition, where the task was to match the line on card 1 to the line of card 2 with the same length, placing the naive participant second to last again. Everyone gave their answers out loud. Throughout the 18 trials, confederates were asked to give incorrect answers for 9 of the trials and correct for 9 of the trials. The experimenter only recorded the naive participant's answer. In the second condition, which was the private condition, the experimenter asked the naive participant to note down the responses. The confederates then proceeded and gave their answer out loud, but the naive participant wrote down their answer privately. The study showed that 77% of all participants conformed to the erroneous confederates judgements on at least one trial. However, no gender differences were observed. The ingroup private and out group public conditions did not differ significantly. Furthermore, the study had a few strengths but also limitations. The manipulation of the IV and the controlled variables allowed for a clearer image of the results and validity. It is also able to test the social identity theory with the asch paradigm to prove conformity. However, the study may have cultural bias as this is only reflective to the population of university students and also has a low ecological validity, which means that the study cannot be representative of the wider population. The participants were also deceived, not following the ethical guidelines fully. Overall, the study implies that social categorization can play a key role in one's decision to conform publicly. 


Conformity plays a big role in the sociocultural approach. First of all, in order to support the approach, conformity is able to be tested through empirical evidence. Primarily through studies, conformity is tested by the Asch (1956) study as well as the Abrams et al (1990) study. These studies both aim to show how factors like social pressure or one's social identity can cause an individual to conform. Additionally, conformity can also be applied to real life situations. Although the studies may not be easily replicated or generalizable to a wider population, conformity can be seen in everyday life such as schools or jobs, where people fear rejection and want to feel part of the ingroup. Moreover, conformity also has predictive validity, meaning that the outcome can be predicted. This is true since in most cases the results of conformity are always expected and predicted by experimenters. 


To conclude, the sociocultural approach can be applied to our world by different theories, such as conformity. Both the Asch (1956) and the Abrams et al (1990) studies use different yet similar ideas to support how conformity of an individual can be formed. 


82% based on ERQ feedback bot


Practice ERQ (SCT):


The sociocultural approach includes many theories which can test this approach. For instance the social cognitive theory can be used to test how different factors like people, behaviors, and environments can affect the interactions between people. The sociocultural approach explores factors like people and environments which can affect the behavior of an individual. In order to test this approach and evaluate it, studies like Fagot (1978) and Bandura (1961) can support this by looking deeper into how these factors can affect an individual.


Firstly, the Fagot (1978) study can be used to look at the sociocultural approach. The aim of this study is to see to what extent parents play a role in gender role development. The study consists of a sample of 24 families which where 12 with girls and 12 with boys. The families were fair in sample, meaning that the parents were all living at home between the ages of 20-30 years old and all had children between 20-24 months. In order to prove the sociocultural approach, Fagot used a naturalistic observational study, meaning that there was no independent variable being manipulated. The observers used a list of 46 behaviors of children and 19 reactions of the parents. They observed how the parents interacted with each child and gender based on their behavior and took notes along the reactions. These observations were five 60 minute long observations over a period of 5 weeks per family. Once the observers had finished their observations, they conducted a questionnaire that asked the parents to decide whether the behaviors which were observed were more girl, boy, or neutrally appropriate. They also asked the parents to give their opinion on the socialization of sex roles. The results of this naturalistic observation proved that boys were more likely to be left alone by their parents than girls. Parents also criticized girls when they were participating in motor activities like jumping or running. More appropriate behavior was found for the girls rather than the boys by the parents. Moreover, the study also has strengths and limitations referring to how effective it is. For example, some strengths for this study were that it was a naturalistic observational study, meaning that these facts happened naturally and were not influenced by independent variables. This means that the study has a high ecological validity and can be applied to more real life situations. Since the study also used 2 observers, there is a high inter-rater validity, meaning that observations were checked and unbiased. However, the sample used for this study is very weak since it has a sampling bias of using only 24 families, which were all linked to the university and where all white americans. This makes the study ungeneralizable to the wider population. The behaviors observed were also very limited as there were more behaviors which could have been possible. Overall, this study implies that parents are not fully aware of the methods they used to categorize their children socially. 


Secondly, the Bandura (1961) study can also be used to test the sociocultural approach. This study is a lab experiment, meaning that it is done under highly controlled conditions. The aim of the Bandura (1961) study was to see whether children could learn aggressive behavior by watching the behavior of the adult. To do this, the study used a sample of 36 boys and 36 girls between 37 and 69 months. The models were one male and one female. To perform the study, there were 3 main conditions. One condition was the control group, a group exposed to the aggressive model, and one group exposed to the passive model. Firstly, the observers pre tested the aggressiveness of the children to see their aggression levels. Then, in the first condition, the model ignored the doll displayed and played with blocks for 10 minutes. In the aggressive condition, the model started bashing the doll after a minute of being in the room and showed both physical and verbal aggression. After 10 minutes, the children were taken to a room with toys by the experimenter, and were asked to stay there and choose their favorite toys to reserve. Then, each child was taken into a room for 20 minutes which had both aggressive toys like fake guns and knives and non aggressive toys like bears and crayons. The child was observed through a one way mirror by the observers. In the results, the observers were looking for 3 main types of imitation: verbal aggression imitation, physical aggression imitation, and non-aggressive imitation. The results of this study showed that boys were more aggressive than girls in general. Children who had observed the aggressive model made more aggressive acts than the children who had observed the non-aggressive model. Boys showed more physical aggression and girls proved to have more verbal aggression. This study also had a lot of strengths and weaknesses, however the weaknesses seem to overweigh the strengths. For instance, the study also used a matched pair design which allowed the researchers to control different aggression styles for different groups. However, the study has a low ecological validity meaning that it cannot be generalized easily since it was done under highly controlled abnormal conditions. This also means that the children being exposed and tested with strangers is not normal. The ethical guidelines are also not fully followed since the participants were deceived and the children were exposed to aggression causing undue stress and harm which could lead to permanent beliefs that aggression like that is normal. Finally, the study implies that children are more likely to imitate aggression based on the same sex model they are exposed to. 


Furthermore, the social cognitive theory can be evaluated by using empirical evidence and applied to the real world. The empirical evidence which this theory used is through the different studies that can support the idea of this theory. In this case, studies like Fagot (1978) and  Bandura (1961) are able to exemplify how different behaviors and environments could affect a childs behavior and interaction between other individuals. Additionally, the social cognitive theory can also be applied to real life situations. For instance, it can be seen in the everyday life of a person who works or interacts with other people and is exposed to different environments. Moreover, the social cognitive theory is mainly unbiased since it can be measured through natural environments as well as use different variables to test the theory, without involving biased opinions. 


To conclude, despite the strengths and limitations of each study, the sociocultural approach is able to be highlighted through the social cognitive theory by different studies like Fagot (1978) and Bandura (1961). The social cognitive theory can also be evaluated through its applications to the real world as well as the empirical evidence it uses. 


15/22 marks


Study recaps


Rogers & Frantz (1961)


This study was a correlational study that wanted to see the role of stereotypes in conforming to a group. They used a sample of 500 white Europeans that had been living in Rhodesia for either fewer than 5 years or more than 40 years. The sample was stratified to country of birth, age, sex,etc. The task was as follows; they were given 66 examples of laws and times where white Europeans were treated differently from africans. Then, they were given 4 response choices to the questionnaire. 0 was that it's very important to keep and maintain the laws. 2 was that it wasn't as important to maintain the law. 4 was that it was being considered if the law should discontinue. And 6 was that it's very important for the law to discontinue. The results showed that out of 500 responses, 348 of them fell below the mean score of 3, which meant that most people chose either 0 or 2. There were correlations between the european country of birth and the length they lived in rhodesia for. The strengths for this study is that it was easily generalizable to other cultures and countries and can also be replicated. However, since its also a cross sectional study, the opinions and responses may change over a longer period of time. There might be bias since the participants completed the survey themselves.


Rogers & Frantz (1961) is a correlational study that wanted to test the role of stereotypes in conforming to a group. There was a sample of 500 white Europeans that were living in Rhodesia for either fewer than 5 years or up to 40 + years. The sample was also stratified to country of birth, age, amount of time living in rhodesia, etc. Firstly, the participants were given 66 examples of laws were Africans and Europeans were treated differently. They were given 4 response choices: 0 is very important to keep the laws, 2 was not as significant to keep any laws, 4 a preference to discontinue the law, and 6 is very important to discontinue the law. Once the participants were asked to complete this, the results showed that 348 out of 500 responses fell below the mean score of 3.00. Results also stated that there was a significant correlation between the participants age, country of birth, etc. to the length they were living in Rhodesia for. Finally, results also supported that people who have been living in Rhodesia for a shorter period of time, gave more conservative opinions than residents of a longer amount of time. Furthermore, the study showed both strengths and limitations. Firstly, since the study used a big sample and could easily be representative for most of the population in that country, it can be easily generalized. It may not be as easy to transfer it for other cultures, but for similar cultures or countries, the study can easily be replicated. However, the study also used a cross -sectional design instead of longitudinal, meaning that over a longer period of time, the opinions may change and the cultures may be shifting. Overall, the study implies that attitudes and stereotypes about Africans influence newcomers more than residents of a long time. 



Hamilton & Gifford (1976)


This study was a repeated measures design and wanted to see if stereotyping led to illusory correlations. They used a sample of 40 Americans (20 males and 20 females). They were shown slides with statements about a group, simply named group A and group B. Group A had more participants than group B. Their first task was to match whether the statement was from a person in group A or group B. The statements were both negative and positive all referring to individuals of those groups. Then, they were asked to rank the members of the group based on their traits. Finally, they were given a booklet with more statements made from people in group A and B, and were asked to say which group had made the statement. The results showed that people in group A had more positive statements than group B, with 74% for A and 54% for B. Group B had 65% of negative traits and group A was given 55% negative statements. The study has low ecological validity since this was an artificial study but the internal validity of the study is high since there were no pre existing stereotypes.


The Hamilton & Gifford (1976) study was a repeated measures design and wanted to test if stereotyping led to illusory correlations. To do this, they used a sample of 40 Americans (20 females and 20 males). They were split into groups of 2 called group A and group B. group A had more people than group B. Firstly, they were given a set of statements about individuals in the groups and were asked to identify which group it belongs to. After that, they were asked to describe their group using traits like popularity, intelligence, social, etc. Then, they were given a booklet with more statements about the groups that were created by members of the group and were asked to identify who wrote the statements. The results proved that group A had more positive traits than group B, with 74% and 54%. Group B had 65% negative traits and group A had 55% of negative traits. More positive traits were recalled for group A than for group B in the booklet. Furthermore, the study also had limitations and strengths. For instance, there is an internal validity with no pre-existing stereotypes. However, the study has a low ecological validity since it only focuses on a very small number of Americans and it was also very artificial. Overall, the study proves that the bigger the group, the less stereotypes are made. 


Kulkofsky et al (2011)


Kulkofsky used a cross-cultural survey to see whether cultures played a role in flashbulb memories. The study used a sample of 274 adults that were all in the middle class from different countries (turkey, germany, china, UK, US). Each participant was given 5 minutes to recall a flashbulb memory that was a public event from more than a year ago. Then, they were asked 5 questions related to the memory. These questions included questions like what time was it, when was it, where, etc. Then, they were given 4 more questions to answer related to how they relate to the memory. For example, if it was surprising. The original questionnaire was in english but it was back translated to the native language of the participant. The results showed that collectivist cultures like China did not relate or put emphasis on the emotional and personal importance of how they remember the memory. Individualistic cultures however, used their emotions and personal relevance to find the flashbulb memory. The strengths of this study were that the questionnaires were back translated meaning that they were made into the native language of the participant. However, the study could have ecological fallacy since the cultures only represent a small portion of the culture which could have different results. 


Kulkofsky et al used a cross cultural survey to see whether culture affected the ability to recall flashbulb memories. The study used a sample of 274 adults that were all from different middle class countries (china, germany, turkey, Uk, and US). To conduct their experiment, they gave each individual 5 minutes to recall a public event memory that had happened from at least one year ago. Then, they were firstly asked 5 questions about the memory, for example where it happened, when it was, etc. After that, they were given 4 more questions related to the significance of the memory. For instance, how they were involved, how surprising it was etc. The questions were translated to the native language of the participants using back translation from bilingual experts. The results of this study showed that more collectivist cultures like China did not use emotions or involvement to play a role in the way they recall their memories. However, individualistic cultures like Germany, emotions as well as the involvement of the individual in the memory played a bigger role in how they recalled the memory. Moreover, the strengths of this study is that it uses different cultures to understand how they can affect their ability to recall flashbulb memories. The fact that the questions were back translated is also a strength since it made sure the individuals understood what they were expected to do and made the validity as well as reliability of the test higher. However, the study has an ecological fallacy which means that just because a person from this culture is able to recall memories like this, doesn't mean that other people from the same culture will undergo the same process. Overall, the study proved that the type of culture may play a role in the method used to recall a flashbulb memory.


Berry (1967)


Berry conducted a quasi experiment to measure the level of conformity for individualistic and collectivist cultures based on the asch paradigm. Berry used a sample of 120 participants in each group, which was 3 groups based on the culture. The first group was the Temne (sierra leone collectivist culture), the second group was the Insuit of an Island in Canada, which represented the individualistic culture and the last group was a reference group using the scotts. The groups were made of people with no western education and with people that were transitioning to western education or employment. The task was similar to the asch experiment, since the participants were given a sheet with one line at the top which they had to match to one of the lines on the paper. They were given 2 test trials before to make sure they understood. They were put into a room alone and then completed the task. After the 2 trials, they were then given to complete the same task, however, the experimenter had shown them which line the majority of their culture chose to “help” them decide. The results showed that collectivist cultures like Temne had a higher rate of conformity when told what the other temne believed. The Inuits had a lower rate of conformity than the scotts but overall there were no ingroup differences. The strengths of this test was that the controlled conditions strengthened the inter-rater validity and the study is highly replicable. Although, the limitations of this study question its temporal validity since it's a bit outdated and could be different nowadays and its ecological validity is also low as this is an artificial study. 


Berry used a quasi experiment to test whether the level of conformity is affected by individualistic or collectivist cultures using the asch paradigm. Berry used a sample of 120 participants that were split into 2 groups. The first culture group was the Temne which was the sierra leone collectivist culture. The second group was the Inuits that were people from an island near canada, which represented the individualistic culture. The last group were the scots that were used as a reference group. Additionally,the groups were made of people that either had Western education or were transferring to a western education and western employment. Once the groups were made, the participants were asked to match the line at the top of the paper to a line of equivalent size from the options below. They had 2 trials to ensure everyone understood the assignment. They had a total of 6 trials. In the 3rd trial, they were asked to complete the same task but the experimenter gave them a hint. They told the participants which line was the most chosen by the people of the same culture as the  participant and then let them choose again. The results proved that more collectivist cultures like the Temne had a higher rate of conformity when told what other Temne chose. The Inuits had a lower conformity rate than the scotts. The strengths of this study is that the control condition of the study gave a higher validity of the results. However, because this study is highly artificial, it lacks ecological validity which means that it cannot be applied to other populations. The study is also a bit dated which questions its temporal validity and whether such cultures still would have the same results. Overall, the study suggests that the type of culture can change the level of conformity. 


Asch (1956)


Asch wanted to see if social pressure would cause an individual to conform. This was done using a lab experiment under highly controlled conditions. Asch used a sample of 123 males studying in the US. Firstly, they were split into groups of 7, where 1 participant was a naive participant and the rest were confederates. To test the aim of the study, Asch used 2 conditions. In the first conditions, the participants were given a line on one card and then a set of 3 lines on another card. Their task was to match the line on card 1 to a line on card 2 of equivalent size and give their responses out loud. To see if the naive participant would conform, they were seated second to last so they could hear most of the responses. Out of the 18 trials, in 12 of them, the confederates were asked to give the wrong answer and see if the naive participant would conform. The results for this condition showed that 75% of participants conformed whereas 25% did not conform. In the second condition, the naive participant was in a room alone with the experimenter and was asked to complete the same task. In this condition, the conformity of the participants was less than 1%. The study has both strengths and limitations. Primarily, the use of a control condition (second condition) made sure that the task was not ambiguous. However, the study suffers from a sampling bias as it only focuses on males studying in the US. This also makes the ecological validity of the experiment very low since it cannot be applied to a wider range of people and cannot be generalized as easily. The use of deception does not meet the ethical guidelines of this experiment, since the participants were told that they were performing an eye test. Overall, Asch was able to imply that under social pressure, the majority of individuals would conform to feel less rejected by society.


Abrams et al (1990)


Abrams et al wanted to investigate if one's social identity causes them to conform. This was done using a lab experiment, following Asch's paradigm. Abrams et al used a sample of 50 undergraduate students (23 males and 27 females) which were either psychology or history students in the US. In order to split the groups, Abrams et al used the psychology students as the ingroup and the history students as the outgroup. This study also had 2 conditions: public and private. In the public condition, 3 confederates and 1 naive participant were taken into a room and were given a line on card 1 and a line on card 2. Their task was the same as the Asch experiment, where they had to match the line of card 1 to a line on card 2 of equivalent size. The confederates gave the wrong responses for most of the trials to see if the naive participant would conform. All answers were given out loud and the naive participant was placed second to last in order to hear all the responses. In the second condition, which was the private condition, the naive participant was asked by the experimenter to record the responses of the confederates whilst the experimenter had to “operate” the computer. The naive participants' response was given silently and written on the piece of paper. The results showed that 77% of responses in the public condition were conformed and 23% did not conform, which is similar to the Asch experiment. There were no gender differences seen and in the private condition, 138/432 possible responses were conformity. The strengths of this test is that it was a lab experiment and that the IV was well controlled allowing the experimenters to see differences. However, the study suffers from sampling bias since it only uses US students and are all undergraduate, making the study have a low ecological validity also due to it being artificial. This means that the study cannot be applied to situations very well and isn’t as generalizable. Overall, Abrams et al aims to prove that one's social identity can affect the conformity of ingroup and outgroups.