The Role of Confederates in Research: Uses and Ethical Considerations

A confederate in research is a person who is part of the research team but appears to participants to be another participant, a bystander, or a member of the public. Confederates follow a scripted role to create a controlled social situation that allows researchers to observe how real participants respond. This article explains how confederates are used across research fields, the ethical obligations that apply, and the practical steps researchers should take when designing studies that involve them. The content is written for students, researchers, life-science professionals, and informed general readers who need a working understanding of confederate methodology.

What a Confederate Is and Is Not

A confederate is an actor or trained assistant who presents a predetermined behavior to research participants. The defining feature is that the participant does not know the confederate is part of the research team. This deception is often necessary because knowing the true role of the confederate would change how the participant behaves. For example, in a study of helping behavior, a researcher might drop pens on the ground while confederates stand nearby and appear not to notice. The participant's decision to help is meaningful only if the participant believes the confederates are ordinary pedestrians who are also ignoring the dropped pens [8].

Confederates are distinct from other research personnel. A research assistant who administers a questionnaire is not a confederate because their role is visible and understood. A confederate is always embedded in the social scene in a way that conceals their affiliation with the study. The concealment can be brief, as in a field experiment, or sustained, as in a multi-session laboratory study.

The term has a separate historical meaning in the context of the American Civil War, where Confederate monuments and memorializations have been studied as markers of racial violence and intimidation [9]. That usage is unrelated to research methodology and is mentioned here only to prevent confusion when searching the literature.

Core Uses of Confederates in Research

Confederates appear across many research domains. Their common function is to create a standardized social stimulus that can be repeated across participants. This standardization is what allows researchers to attribute differences in participant behavior to the experimental manipulation instead of to variation in the social environment.

Social Influence and Conformity Studies

The most famous use of confederates is in conformity research. In the classic Asch paradigm, a participant joins a group that is actually composed of confederates who give incorrect answers on a line-judgment task. The question is whether the participant will conform to the group's incorrect answer. Modern replications continue to use this design. One role-inverted version placed a single confederate in groups of four acquainted students and instructed the confederate to give incorrect responses on six of nine line-judgment tasks. The study found that participants were more likely to make errors when other group members had already responded incorrectly, which the authors interpreted as social conformity aimed at reducing the awkwardness of being the only dissenter [21].

A 2025 preprint extended conformity research into a social media analog. Four participants performed perceptual judgment tasks in groups with four confederates. The researchers reinforced either agreement with the majority of three confederates or agreement with the minority of one confederate. Majority conformity proved more potent, with a mean of 67.1 percent majority conformity under reinforcement compared to 53.4 percent minority conformity. The order of conditions mattered, as initial exposure to majority reinforcement made it harder for participants to later shift to minority reinforcement [19].

Obedience Research

Confederates are central to obedience studies. A partial replication of Milgram's obedience experiments used confederates in a carefully designed procedure that protected participant well-being. Seventy adults participated in a replication of Milgram's Experiment 5 up to the point where they first heard the learner's verbal protest at 150 volts. Because 79 percent of Milgram's original participants who passed this point continued to the end of the shock generator's range, the researchers could make reasonable estimates about what current participants would have done if allowed to continue. Obedience rates in the 2006 replication were only slightly lower than those Milgram found 45 years earlier. Notably, participants who saw a confederate refuse the experimenter's instructions obeyed as often as those who saw no model, and men and women did not differ in obedience rates [6].

This study illustrates an important ethical design strategy. The researchers did not allow participants to continue past the point where the learner protested. They used historical data to estimate what would have happened, avoiding the full deception and distress of the original procedure while still answering the research question.

Bystander Effect Research

The bystander effect is the finding that people are less likely to help when others are present. A 2021 field study examined whether priming the concept of responsibility could reduce this effect. Lone pedestrians were randomly assigned to conditions with no bystanders or three nonresponsive bystanders, and the researcher wore either a blank shirt or a shirt reading "Be Responsible." The researcher dropped eight pens about 15 feet from the pedestrian. The bystander effect was replicated, with 59.05 percent helping in the no-bystander condition versus 41.67 percent in the nonresponsive-bystander condition. The responsibility prime did not significantly increase helping [8].

This study shows how confederates can be used in natural field settings. The confederates were the nonresponsive bystanders, and their behavior had to be standardized so that every participant experienced the same social context.

Social Neuroscience and Emotion Research

Confederates are used in neuroscience studies that require real social interaction. A 2006 Nature study engaged participants in an economic game where two confederates played fairly or unfairly. Participants then observed the confederates receiving pain while brain activity was measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Both sexes showed empathy-related activation in pain-related brain areas toward fair players. However, these responses were significantly reduced in males when observing an unfair person receiving pain, and this was accompanied by increased activation in reward-related areas correlated with a desire for revenge [7].

A 2026 study used virtual peer confederates in a chatroom task with adolescent girls. The girls repeatedly anticipated being accepted or rejected by "mean" peers likely to reject and "nice" peers likely to accept. Girls with major depressive disorder showed attenuated habituation in the right amygdala when anticipating feedback from the mean peers, suggesting altered social learning at the neural level [15].

These studies demonstrate that confederates can be virtual as well as physical. The essential feature is that the participant believes the confederate is a real person with genuine social intentions.

Workplace and Organizational Research

Confederates are used to study workplace interactions. A study of workplace incivility used two experiments. In the first, participants worked virtually with an ostensible instigator and target. In the second, participants worked in person with confederates who were hired actors on a job task. The researchers found that observers of incivility tended to punish instigators while their reactions to targets were generally unaffected, and this effect was mediated by observers' negative emotional reactions toward the instigator [11].

This design shows how confederates can create realistic workplace scenarios that would be difficult to observe ethically in actual organizations. The confederates enacted scripted uncivil behavior, and the researchers measured how real participants responded as observers.

Eating Behavior Research

Confederates influence eating behavior in research settings. A systematic review and meta-analysis examined the influence of confederate peers on children's food intake. The meta-analysis showed that children ate more when exposed to a high-intake confederate compared to a no-intake or low-intake confederate. Larger effects were observed with remote confederates than with present confederates, and for healthy snacks compared to high-fat high-sugar snacks. The authors cautioned that subgroups were not compared statistically due to high heterogeneity and a small number of studies [10].

This research area shows how confederates can be used to study behaviors that are difficult to observe without creating a social context. A child eating alone behaves differently than a child eating with peers, and confederates provide a standardized peer presence.

Conversation and Communication Research

Confederates are used to study the dynamics of conversation. A 2017 study evaluated nine participants' allocation of speech and gaze to two conversational partners. German speakers participated in two 90-minute sessions where confederates uttered approval on independent variable-interval schedules. The study did not replicate earlier findings, as participants' response allocation did not show a systematic relation to the confederates' relative rate of approval. The strongest relations were to overall talk instead of approval, and participants talked more to the confederate who talked less, showing inverse or antimatching [13].

This study demonstrates that confederate-based research does not always confirm prior findings. The failure to replicate is itself informative and highlights the importance of reporting null results.

Gaze and Social Cognition Research

A 2026 study investigated how direct gaze during live interactions contributes to impression formation. Participants interacted with confederates acting as impression targets, rated each target's personality, and completed a gaze-cuing procedure. Results showed that participants mainly looked at the targets' eyes during interaction, particularly when eyes were visible. Direct gaze showed limited ability to predict impression accuracy but showed preliminary links with joint attention [14].

Simulation-Based Research

Confederates are widely used in simulation-based education and research. A 2016 report described confederate training within the context of the CPR CARES multicenter research study, which included two confederate roles with tightly scripted behavior to avoid confounding primary outcome measures. The authors described their training process, adherence assessment method, and suggested next steps for confederate training scholarship [12].

A 2014 article on confederates in health care simulations noted that the role is not as simple as it seems, indicating that confederate work requires careful attention to scripting, training, and performance quality [23].

Artificial Intelligence Research

A 2026 preprint used large language model-powered confederates that adopted varied political personas to test whether chatbots present different political realities to users with distinct inferred ideologies. The study found evidence of ideological pandering in which chatbots adapted their epistemic posture to inferred user ideology, recommended ideologically segregated news sources, and converged toward endorsing users' initial viewpoints in 60 to 90 percent of conversations [18].

This emerging use of confederates shows that the concept extends beyond human actors. The confederate role is defined by the concealment of the true purpose, which can be accomplished by software as well as by people.

At a Glance: Confederate Use by Research Domain

Ethical Considerations in Confederate Research

The use of confederates raises ethical questions that researchers must address before, during, and after data collection. The central tension is between the need for deception to create a valid social situation and the obligation to protect participant welfare and autonomy.

Deception and Informed Consent

Confederate research typically requires deception because participants cannot be told that some people in the study are actors. This creates a conflict with the general principle of informed consent. Researchers must weigh the scientific value of the deception against the participant's right to know what the study involves.

The ethical justification for deception rests on several conditions. The research must address a question that cannot be answered without deception. The deception must not conceal risks that would affect a reasonable person's decision to participate. The participant must be debriefed after the study. And the research must be reviewed and approved by an institutional review board or equivalent ethics committee.

The partial Milgram replication illustrates how researchers can reduce the ethical burden of deception. The researchers did not allow participants to continue past the point of the learner's first protest, using historical data to estimate what would have happened. This design preserved the scientific value of the obedience paradigm while reducing the distress that participants experienced [6].

Participant Welfare

Confederate studies can create distress. Participants may experience social pressure, embarrassment, or concern about their own behavior. The bystander effect study placed participants in a situation where they had to decide whether to help pick up dropped pens while others appeared not to notice. This is a mild social pressure, but it could create discomfort for participants who chose not to help [8].

The workplace incivility study exposed participants to uncivil behavior from confederates. While this was scripted and controlled, it still involved witnessing interpersonal mistreatment. The researchers had to ensure that the experience did not cause lasting distress and that debriefing adequately explained the purpose of the study [11].

Researchers should consider the emotional impact of confederate interactions and build in safeguards. These may include stopping rules, immediate debriefing, referral to support services, and exclusion of vulnerable populations when the study design cannot be adapted.

Confederate Welfare

The welfare of confederates themselves is an ethical consideration that is sometimes overlooked. Confederates may be asked to behave in ways that are uncomfortable, such as appearing to ignore someone in need or acting unfairly in an economic game. They may also face hostile reactions from participants who believe the confederate is a real participant.

The CPR CARES report described confederate roles in which behavior was tightly scripted to avoid confounding primary outcome measures. This tight scripting serves both scientific and ethical purposes. It ensures consistency across participants, and it protects confederates by giving them clear behavioral boundaries [12].

Researchers should train confederates to handle difficult participant reactions, provide them with a way to signal distress or withdraw from a session, and debrief them after each session. Confederate training is a specialized skill that deserves the same attention as participant safety.

Debriefing

Debriefing is the process of informing participants about the true nature of the study after their participation is complete. In confederate research, debriefing must explain the role of the confederate and the reason for the deception. The debriefing should also give participants the opportunity to ask questions and to withdraw their data if they wish.

Effective debriefing serves several purposes. It respects participant autonomy by providing information that was withheld during consent. It can reduce any distress caused by the deception by explaining the scientific rationale. And it can provide an educational benefit by helping participants understand the research process.

The timing of debriefing requires care. In field studies, debriefing may need to occur after the participant has left the immediate setting to avoid alerting other potential participants. In laboratory studies, debriefing can occur immediately after the session. Researchers should consider whether participants might encounter confederates again and whether the debriefing adequately prevents lasting suspicion or distress.

Designing a Study with Confederates

Designing a confederate study requires attention to several elements that are not present in other research designs. The following steps provide a practical framework.

Step 1: Determine Whether a Confederate Is Necessary

The first decision is whether the research question requires a confederate. If the social situation can be created without deception, or if the behavior of interest can be studied without a live social partner, a confederate may not be needed. The use of confederates adds complexity, cost, and ethical burden, so researchers should use them only when the research question demands it.

The NC3Rs Experimental Design Assistant provides a tool for planning experiments and avoiding common design problems. While it is oriented toward animal research, its principles of careful design, randomization, and blinding apply to any experimental study [3]. Researchers planning confederate studies should use such design tools to ensure their studies are adequately powered and their manipulations are clean.

Step 2: Define the Confederate Role Precisely

The confederate role must be defined in enough detail that different confederates can perform it consistently. This includes the confederate's appearance, behavior, timing of responses, and interaction with the participant. The CPR CARES report described confederate roles that were tightly scripted to avoid confounding primary outcome measures, and the authors emphasized the importance of adherence assessment [12].

The script should specify what the confederate does in every possible situation. This includes how the confederate responds to unexpected participant behavior. A confederate who improvises may introduce variation that confounds the results.

Step 3: Train Confederates Thoroughly

Confederate training is a specialized activity. The 2016 report on confederate training in simulation-based research noted that there is little literature on this topic and called for more scholarship [12]. Training should include rehearsal of the script, practice with difficult participant reactions, and instruction on when and how to signal the research team.

Training should also address the confederate's own comfort and safety. Confederates need to know what to do if a participant becomes distressed, hostile, or suspicious. They need a way to communicate with the research team during the session without breaking the illusion.

Step 4: Pilot the Study

A pilot test is essential for confederate studies. The pilot reveals whether the confederate role is believable, whether the script covers all likely situations, and whether the timing of events works in practice. The pilot also allows the research team to practice their own roles, including data collection and debriefing.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for health research that can help researchers plan and report their studies transparently [2]. While not all EQUATOR guidelines apply to confederate studies, the principle of transparent reporting is directly relevant. A confederate study that does not report the confederate training, scripting, and adherence assessment is difficult to evaluate or replicate.

Step 5: Assess Confederate Adherence

Adherence assessment is the process of checking whether confederates performed their roles as scripted. The CPR CARES report described a method of adherence assessment as part of their training process [12]. This may involve video recording sessions, having a second observer rate confederate performance, or reviewing confederate self-reports after each session.

Adherence assessment serves both scientific and ethical purposes. Scientifically, it ensures that the manipulation was delivered consistently. Ethically, it ensures that confederates are not improvising in ways that could harm participants or compromise the study.

Step 6: Plan the Debriefing

The debriefing should be planned as carefully as the confederate script. It should explain the role of the confederate, the reason for the deception, and the scientific value of the study. It should also give participants the opportunity to ask questions and withdraw their data.

The debriefing should be tested in the pilot phase. Researchers should consider how participants are likely to react to learning that they were deceived and prepare responses to common questions.

Records and Measurements in Confederate Studies

Confederate studies generate several types of records that researchers should maintain. These records support both scientific validity and ethical accountability.

Confederate Training Records

Training records document what each confederate was taught, when training occurred, and how the confederate demonstrated competence. These records are important for demonstrating that the confederate role was delivered consistently. The CPR CARES report described a training process that included adherence assessment, and such records would support the claim that confederate behavior was standardized [12].

Session Logs

Session logs record what happened during each data collection session. This includes the date and time, the confederate assigned, any deviations from the script, and any participant reactions that required attention. Session logs are essential for identifying problems with the confederate role or the study procedures.

Adherence Ratings

Adherence ratings quantify how well the confederate followed the script. These may be completed by a second observer, by video review, or by the confederate as a self-report. The ratings should be recorded in a way that allows the research team to identify sessions where the confederate deviated from the script and to determine whether those deviations affected the data.

Debriefing Records

Debriefing records document what was disclosed to each participant, whether the participant had questions, and whether the participant chose to withdraw their data. These records are important for ethical accountability and for responding to any participant concerns that arise after the study.

Data Management

The National Institute of Standards and Technology Research Data Framework provides guidance on managing research data across its lifecycle [1]. While the framework is general, its principles apply to confederate study data. Researchers should plan how data will be stored, protected, and shared before data collection begins. This includes deciding how confederate identities will be protected and how video or audio recordings will be stored and eventually destroyed.

Common Failure Patterns in Confederate Studies

Confederate studies can fail in predictable ways. Recognizing these patterns helps researchers design better studies and interpret results more carefully.

Confederate Drift

Confederate drift occurs when a confederate's behavior changes over time. A confederate who starts the study performing the role exactly as scripted may become more relaxed, more exaggerated, or more mechanical as the study progresses. This drift introduces variation that can confound results. Adherence assessment is the primary defense against drift, and retraining may be needed if drift is detected [12].

Participant Suspicion

Participants may become suspicious that the confederate is part of the research team. Suspicion can arise from confederate behavior that is too scripted, too inconsistent, or too unusual. Suspicious participants may behave differently, and their data may need to be excluded. Researchers should include a suspicion check in the debriefing and should report how many participants were excluded due to suspicion.

Confederate Improvisation

Confederates may improvise when they encounter situations not covered by the script. Improvisation can be helpful in maintaining the illusion, but it can also introduce uncontrolled variation. The 2014 article on confederates in health care simulations noted that the role is not as simple as it seems, suggesting that improvisation is a real risk that requires training and oversight [23].

Inconsistent Confederate Assignment

If multiple confederates are used, participants may be assigned to different confederates in ways that are not balanced across conditions. This can create confounds if confederates differ in appearance, behavior, or other characteristics. Researchers should randomize confederate assignment and should analyze whether confederate identity affected the results.

Failure to Replicate

Confederate studies may fail to replicate even when the original study was well designed. The 2017 conversation study did not replicate Conger and Killeen's earlier findings on matching in conversations, and the authors suggested that matching or antimatching in conversations is more likely due to induction than to reinforcement [13]. This failure to replicate is informative, but it also highlights the need for researchers to report their methods in enough detail that others can attempt replication.

Limitations of Confederate Research

Confederate research has inherent limitations that researchers should acknowledge when interpreting results.

Generalizability

Confederate studies create artificial social situations. The confederate is a stranger who behaves in a scripted way, which may not reflect how people interact with friends, colleagues, or family members. The role-inverted Asch experiment used groups of four individuals who were already acquainted, which is closer to real social settings, but most confederate studies use strangers [21].

Demand Characteristics

Participants may try to guess the purpose of the study and behave in ways they think the researcher wants. Confederate studies are designed to minimize demand characteristics through deception, but participants may still become suspicious or may behave differently because they know they are being observed.

Ethical Constraints

The ethical constraints on confederate research limit what can be studied. The partial Milgram replication stopped at the point of the learner's first protest, which means the study could not directly measure full obedience rates [6]. Researchers must accept that some questions cannot be answered with confederate methods because the ethical costs would be too high.

Confederate Variability

Despite training and scripting, confederates are human beings who vary in their performance. This variability can introduce noise into the data. The meta-analysis of children's food intake noted high heterogeneity and a small number of studies, which limited the conclusions that could be drawn [10].

Publication Bias

Studies that fail to replicate or that find null results may be less likely to be published. The conversation study that failed to replicate earlier findings was published, but many similar studies may not be. This can create a distorted picture of the evidence base.

Safety and Regulatory Context

Confederate research is subject to the same regulatory oversight as other human subjects research. In most jurisdictions, research involving human participants must be reviewed by an institutional review board or equivalent ethics committee. The review should address the use of deception, the risks to participants, the adequacy of the debriefing, and the welfare of confederates.

Researchers should be aware that regulations vary by jurisdiction and by institution. Some institutions have specific policies about deception research, and some funding agencies have additional requirements. Researchers should consult their institutional review board early in the design process and should be prepared to justify the use of confederates and deception.

The NCBI Literature Resources and PubMed provide access to the research literature on confederate methodology [4][5]. Researchers planning confederate studies should review the existing literature to understand what methods have been used, what problems have been encountered, and what reporting standards are expected.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Researchers should know when to escalate concerns about a confederate study. The following situations warrant immediate attention from a supervisor, the institutional review board, or an institutional official.

Participant Distress

If a participant becomes visibly distressed during a confederate session, the session should be stopped and the participant should be debriefed immediately. The research team should have a plan for responding to distress before data collection begins.

Confederate Safety Concerns

If a confederate reports feeling unsafe, threatened, or unable to perform the role, the research team should respond immediately. This may involve stopping the study, changing the confederate role, or providing additional training and support.

Breach of Deception

If a participant discovers the confederate's role during the session, the research team should decide whether to continue the session or stop and debrief. Continuing a session after the deception has been revealed can produce invalid data and can cause participant distress.

Serious Adverse Events

Any serious adverse event, such as a participant injury or a confederate injury, should be reported to the institutional review board according to institutional policy. The research team should document the event and the response.

Data Integrity Concerns

If adherence assessment reveals that confederates have deviated substantially from the script, the research team should consider whether the affected data can be used. The team should document the deviation and the decision about data inclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a confederate in research?

A confederate is a person who appears to be a participant, bystander, or member of the public but is actually part of the research team. The confederate follows a scripted role to create a controlled social situation. The participant does not know the confederate's true role, and this concealment is what makes the confederate method useful for studying social behavior.

Why do researchers use confederates instead of real participants?

Researchers use confederates when they need to create a standardized social situation that can be repeated across participants. A real participant cannot be instructed to behave in a scripted way without knowing the purpose of the study, which would change the social dynamics. Confederates allow researchers to control the social environment while keeping participants unaware of the manipulation.

Is it ethical to deceive research participants with confederates?

Deception in research is ethical only under specific conditions. The research must address a question that cannot be answered without deception. The deception must not conceal risks that would affect a reasonable person's decision to participate. Participants must be debriefed after the study. And the research must be approved by an institutional review board or equivalent ethics committee.

How are confederates trained?

Confederate training involves rehearsing the script, practicing responses to unexpected participant behavior, and learning when and how to signal the research team. The CPR CARES report described a training process that included adherence assessment, and the authors called for more scholarship on confederate training [12]. Training should also address the confederate's own comfort and safety.

What is adherence assessment in confederate research?

Adherence assessment is the process of checking whether confederates performed their roles as scripted. This may involve video recording, having a second observer rate confederate performance, or reviewing confederate self-reports. The CPR CARES report described adherence assessment as part of the training process [12]. Adherence assessment is important for both scientific validity and ethical accountability.

Can confederates be virtual or automated?

Yes. A 2026 study used virtual peer confederates in a chatroom task with adolescent girls [15]. A 2025 preprint used large language model-powered confederates that adopted varied political personas to test chatbot behavior [18]. The essential feature of a confederate is the concealment of the true role, which can be accomplished by software as well as by people.

What should researchers do if a participant becomes suspicious?

Researchers should include a suspicion check in the debriefing and should report how many participants were excluded due to suspicion. If a participant discovers the confederate's role during the session, the research team should decide whether to continue or stop and debrief. Continuing a session after the deception has been revealed can produce invalid data and can cause participant distress.

What are the main limitations of confederate research?

Confederate studies create artificial social situations that may not generalize to real interactions. Participants may try to guess the purpose of the study, and ethical constraints limit what can be studied. Confederates vary in their performance despite training, and studies that fail to replicate may be less likely to be published. Researchers should acknowledge these limitations when interpreting results.

Related Articles

• Scientific Posters: Designing a Figure-First Research Narrative
• Research Project Management: A Lightweight System for Complex Studies
• Circulation Research
• Circulation Research
• Circulation Research

References and Further Reading

• Research Data Framework. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Experimental Design Assistant. NC3Rs.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?. The American psychologist, 2009.
• Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others.. Nature, 2006.
• Be Responsible?. Experimental psychology, 2021.
• Confederate monuments and the history of lynching in the American South: An empirical examination.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021.
• The influence of experimental confederate peers on children's food intake: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Appetite, 2022.
• Observing workplace incivility.. The Journal of applied psychology, 2015.
• An Approach to Confederate Training Within the Context of Simulation-Based Research.. Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2016.
• Allocation of speech in conversation.. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2017.
• The links between direct gaze and social cognition - implications for impression accuracy and joint attention.. 2026.
• Reduced amygdala habituation to anticipated social rejection in youth with major depressive disorder.. 2026.
• Consistently refusing to go along both helps and hinders minorities to induce social tipping.. 2026.
• Sweetening fear exposure: study protocol for a multi-day, randomized controlled trial to study effects of glucose in exposure sessions of participants with public speaking anxiety.. 2026.
• AI Pandering: Constructing Diverging Political Realities through Conversation. 2026.
• Experimental analog of conformity in social media using single-subject design I: Increasing the task complexity and decreasing the authority effect. 2025.
• Daniel Library: Civil War Research: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 2019.
• The Minority Confederate Induced Errors of the Majority Members in the Role-Inverted Asch Experiment. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2024.
• Nonverbal correlates of confederates' touch: Confounds in touch research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1997.
• Confederates in health care simulations: Not as simple as it seems. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 2014.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.