Abrams et al (1990)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To test the role of social identity on one’s likelihood to conform (To determine if in-group identity would affect one’s willingness to conform)

Question 2

Method

Answer 2

Asch paradigm + independent samples design

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

50 undergraduate students (23 males + 27 females) enrolled in an introductory psych course

Question 4

Variables

Answer 4

Independent –
1) Whether the confederates were from an in-group or an out-group
2) Whether the participants responses were public or private
Dependent – whether they conformed

Question 5

Key factors of the experiment:

Answer 5

• ¬18 trials
• In 9 trials confederates gave the correct response vs in 9 trials confederates gave a unanimous incorrect response
• three confederates were introduced either as first-year students from the psychology department of a prestigious university (in-group) or as students of ancient history (out-group) from that same university
• Participant always placed at one end of the row

Question 6

Public vs private conditions

Answer 6

• Public vs private conditions
• Public: four members of the group gave their judgement out loud
• Private: one participant asked to note down the responses
• Real participant asked to record the responses

Question 7

Results

Answer 7

• Public vs private conditions
• Public: four members of the group gave their judgement out loud
• Private: one participant asked to note down the responses
• Real participant asked to record the responses

Question 8

Results part 2

Answer 8

• Public conformity exceeded the usual level in the in-group condition + far below normal in out-group condition
• tend to exaggerate the difference between us and the out-group while feeling that members of our group share a common set of traits
• in-group members may be seen as more correct, while out-group members are seen as less likely to be correct when participants are made conscious of their group membership

Question 9

Evaluation

Answer 9

• highly artificial
• low ecological validity
• deception
• high level of control
• difficult to generalize
• YAVIS (young, affluent, verbal, intelligent and social)
• Culturally biased (individualistic society)