A comparison of role-played and natural responses to identical circumstances

Abstract

Fifty-eight female college students participated in a study that compared the similarity of role-played and naturalistic behaviors in the context of a standard lab-based situation involving conversational interaction and requests to borrow class notes. Subjects were assigned to one of three groups: informed role-play, uninformed role-play, and actual (in vivo) behavior. Both role-play groups, but not actual behavior subjects, understood that the interaction was contrived, that their male protagonist was an experimental confederate, and that they should respond as they would if the situation were “real.” Informed role-play subjects also understood that the focus of the interaction was their assertiveness. Both role-play groups responded more assertively to the requests than did actual behavior subjects, with the difference being greater for informed role-play subjects.