Difficulty: Introductory to Intermediate | Prerequisites: Familiarity with Social Identity Theory (categorisation, identification, comparison) and Asch's line-judgement conformity paradigm.
Abrams et al. bridges two major areas in social psychology: conformity (how much people go along with others) and social identity (how group membership shapes behaviour). Asch's classic line study showed that people conform to a group even when the group is clearly wrong, but it left open the question of whether it matters who that group is. Abrams et al. tested exactly this: does it matter whether the people pressuring you are from your own group or a different one? This study is a direct extension of both Asch and Tajfel's Social Identity Theory.
Abrams et al. replicated an Asch-style line-judgement task but manipulated whether the confederates were from the participant's in-group or an out-group, and whether responses were public or private. Conformity was highest when confederates were in-group members and responses were public. The study shows that social categorisation plays a key role in the decision to conform.
Conformity
Adjusting your behaviour or opinions to match those of a group. In simple terms, going along with the crowd.
Confederate
A person secretly working with the experimenter who poses as a real participant. In this study, the three confederates gave deliberately incorrect answers on certain trials.
In-group (in this study)
First-year psychology students from the same university as the participant. They share a salient social identity with the participant.
Out-group (in this study)
Students from a different department (ancient history) at the same university. They do not share the participant's most salient group identity.
Independent variable (IV)
The factor the experimenter manipulates. This study had two IVs: (1) whether confederates were in-group or out-group, and (2) whether participants responded publicly or privately.
Dependent variable (DV)
The outcome measured. Here, the proportion of trials on which participants conformed to the confederates' incorrect answers.
Public vs. private response conditions
In the public condition, participants gave their answers out loud. In the private condition, participants were told (via a cover story) to write their answers down instead.
Independent samples design
Each participant took part in only one of the four conditions. This avoids order effects but requires more participants.
Stimulus line / comparison lines (Asch paradigm)
Participants were shown one stimulus line and three comparison lines. One comparison line was the same length as the stimulus. The task was to identify the matching line. The correct answer was obvious.
To determine whether in-group identity would affect a person's willingness to conform. Abrams et al. tested the role of social identity on social conformity (the likelihood of going along with others).
Independent samples design
Four groups, created by manipulating two independent variables
IV 1: Whether the confederates were from the in-group (psychology students) or an out-group (ancient history students)
IV 2: Whether the participant's responses were public (spoken aloud) or private (written down)
This gives a 2x2 design: in-group/public, in-group/private, out-group/public, out-group/private
50 students (23 males, 27 females)
All were first-year psychology students
At the start, three confederates were introduced either as first-year students from the psychology department (in-group) or as students of ancient history from the same university (out-group)
No talking was allowed between participants and confederates
Participants were shown a stimulus line and then three comparison lines, one of which matched the stimulus
Students had to identify which of the three lines matched the stimulus line
There were 18 trials. In 6 of the 18 trials, the confederates gave correct responses; in the other 12, they gave incorrect responses
Confederates and naive participants sat in a row facing a monitor
The participant was placed at the end of the row, so they answered last
Participants gave their answers from first to last in the row (the participant always heard the confederates' answers before giving their own)
All responses were given out loud, and the experimenter recorded responses
In the private condition, a cover story was used: the naive participant was told to record their answer privately by writing it down (this removed the social pressure of a public response)
77% of participants conformed to the erroneous confederate judgements on at least one trial
The proportion of conforming responses overall was 138 out of 432 (32%)
Conformity was maximised in the out-group public condition (M = 0.75)
The two private conditions did not differ much from each other (means around 3.00 and 2.33)
The key finding: conformity was highest when participants responded publicly to out-group confederates
Social categorisation plays a key role in a person's decision to conform publicly. People tend to exaggerate the difference between "us" and "them," and members of our own group are perceived to share a common set of traits. When responding publicly, participants were more likely to conform to demonstrate belonging or avoid standing out from the group norm.
Students often confuse this study with Asch's original. The critical difference is that Abrams et al. added in-group/out-group manipulation. Asch did not vary group identity.
A common error is thinking conformity was highest in the in-group public condition. The source notes actually indicate conformity was maximised in the out-group public condition (M = 0.75), which may reflect participants distancing themselves from an out-group norm or other factors in the specific data. Be sure to check your lecturer's emphasis on this point, as interpretations may vary.
Students sometimes forget that the private condition used a cover story (a deliberate deception). The participants were not simply given a private option; they were told a lie to justify the change in response method.
Some students assume that "independent samples" means independent variables. It refers to the design: each participant was in one condition only.
⚠️ Be able to name both IVs and the DV
⚠️ Know the 2x2 design and what each of the four conditions was
⚠️ Understand the key finding: conformity was affected by group membership and response type
⚠️ Be able to explain why this study supports Social Identity Theory (it shows that categorisation affects real behaviour, not just attitudes)
⚠️ Know what an independent samples design is and why it was used here
⚠️ The use of deception (the cover story in the private condition) is a common ethics discussion point
True or false: Abrams et al. used a within-subjects design. (False: it was an independent samples design.)
Fill in the blank: The two IVs were whether confederates were in-group or out-group, and whether responses were ________ or ________. (Public or private.)
True or false: 77% of participants conformed on at least one trial. (True.)
Fill in the blank: The confederates gave incorrect answers on ________ out of 18 trials. (12.)
True or false: Participants in the private condition were simply given a choice to respond privately. (False: a cover story was used to justify the private response method.)
Q: What was the aim of the Abrams et al. study?
A: To determine whether in-group identity would affect a person's willingness to conform in an Asch-style line-judgement task.
Q: Describe the experimental design, including both independent variables.
A: Independent samples design with two IVs. IV 1 was whether confederates were presented as in-group (psychology students) or out-group (ancient history students). IV 2 was whether the participant responded publicly (out loud) or privately (written down). This created four conditions.
Q: What percentage of participants conformed on at least one trial?
A: 77%.
Q: In which condition was conformity highest, and what does this tell us about social identity?
A: Conformity was highest in the out-group public condition. This supports the idea that social categorisation affects conformity: people's responses are shaped by who is watching and whether those people share the same group identity.
Q: How does this study support Social Identity Theory?
A: It shows that social categorisation (classifying confederates as in-group or out-group) directly influenced behaviour (conformity rates). This demonstrates that group membership is not just a label; it changes how people act in social situations.
Q: What ethical issue arises from the private condition?
A: Deception. Participants in the private condition were told a cover story (a lie) to justify why they should write their answers down rather than say them aloud. This raises questions about informed consent.
This study links directly to Social Identity Theory (see the companion notes on SIT and Sherif's Robbers Cave), since it tests whether SIT's categorisation stage has real behavioural consequences. It also connects to Asch's conformity research: Abrams et al. essentially added a social identity layer to Asch's paradigm. If your course covers normative vs. informational social influence, this study is relevant: the public/private manipulation speaks to whether conformity here was driven by a desire to fit in (normative) rather than genuine uncertainty (informational).
Abrams et al., conformity, Asch paradigm, Asch line study, social identity and conformity, in-group conformity, out-group conformity, public vs. private responses, independent samples, confederates, social categorisation, normative social influence, informational social influence, group pressure, 2x2 design, independent variables, dependent variable, deception in psychology, ethics in experiments, PSY 1100, General Psychology, Ohio State