Abstract
Carlston and Cohen (1980) appear to have concluded that the negative, good, faithful, and evaluation apprehension subject roles are theoretically correct but that they do not represent a threat to valid inference. 7hese conclusions should be viewed very cautiously since the data were derived from subjects who were instructed to portray given roles and the manner in which subjects should have responded was suggested by very explicit cues. Additionally, the spontaneous behavior of subjects infrequently corresponded to that of subjects portraying the various roles. When one investigates subject motivations by means of role playing it is essential for one of the subject roles to mirror the spontaneous behavior of subjects. This did not occur in the Carlston and Cohen stud'.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
