<p><strong>Overview</strong></p>
<p>The manuscript describes a single-experiment study that aimed to assess if memories are differentially prone to conformity according to their emotionality. In a three-phase experiment (practice, training, and test), the authors evaluated the accuracy of participants’ memory to recall if they had seen an image before in the presence of a confederate. Using the Signal Detection paradigm, data were analyzed according to the emotionality of stimuli (neutral vs. negative), the retention interval between training and test (5 min vs. 48 h), the confederate’s responses (yes or no), and if the participants responded before or after the confederate. The results showed that although negative stimuli are better remembered than neutral stimuli, there were no differences in conformity between the two types of stimuli.</p>
<p>Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting experiment that could be more attractive to IJP’s audience if the authors highlighted the importance of the study and the implications of the findings.</p>
<p><strong>&nbsp;</strong><strong>Major observations</strong></p>
<ol>
<li class="show">The second paragraph of the introduction hints on the applied and theoretical importance of studying the effect of conformity on memory. Elaborating this point could later help developing the discussion towards the implications of the results.</li>
<li class="show">The last paragraph before “Presente estudo” presents conflicting results from previous studies, could you elaborate on the possible reasons for these differences?</li>
<li class="show">The second paragraph of the section entitled “Presente estudo”, goes back to reviewing previous studies, which defeats the whole purpose of the section supposed to focus on the present study. Consider restructuring the section by integrating the previous studies to the explanation of the possible causes of conflicting results mentioned in the previous point, and then moving on to stating the goals of your study.</li>
<li class="show">As I started reading the experimental design, it seemed to me that the variable “Confederado (Sim vs. No)” consisted of either having or not having a confederate present during the experiment, as a control for the presence of another person. However, as I continued reading all the way to the “Análise de dados” section, I realized that the variable referred to the confederate’s responses (yes or no) on each trial. The wording used in the first paragraph of the section entitled “Delineamento” could be clarified.</li>
<li class="show">Eliminate the phrase: “O efeito de conformidade entre itens neutros e negativos foi similar para os intervalos curto (5 min) e longo (48 h)” from the captions of Figure 4. It is an interpretation of the results.</li>
<li class="show">Before going to the ANOVAS, please describe Figure 4 in the results as a way to give the reader a general overview of the findings, and then show your statistical analyses confirming what is shown in the figure.</li>
<li class="show">What are the implications of replicating the results of Wright et al. (2012) and not those of Brown e Schaefer (2010) and Kensinger et al. (2016)? Are there any theoretical implications or why is this important?</li>
<li class="show">It is briefly mentioned that it is possible that the manipulation of the variable “emocionalidade” might have not been “strong enough”. Could you elaborate?</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Minor observations</strong></p>
<ol start="9">
<li class="show">If the manuscript would have been formatted according to APA style, the review would have been much easier; e.g., the manuscript did not have a title, and the lines were not numbered, making it difficult to point out specific parts of the manuscript.</li>
<li class="show">Throughout, check spelling and typos.</li>
<li class="show">Please use the standard subtitle structure of APA Style (e.g., consider eliminating the subtitle “Presente estudo”).</li>
</ol>