Comment on interpretation of latitude of rejection as an 'artifact.'

Notes that the use of latitude of rejection as an indicator of involvement is based on findings from 2 dissimilar procedures for attitude research. Interpreting this indicator as artifactual owing to its correlation with own position, O. Markley neglected 1 procedure, assumed equal intervals (untenable for both methods), ignored variability of the rejected latitude across positions, and constructed a threshold measure unrelated to the threshold concept in the research under review. Available research not reviewed supports the indicator of involvement for persons upholding positions other than the extremes, although as previously proposed the relative sizes of acceptable, objectionable, and noncommittal latitudes should serve as a more adequate indicator. Markley defends his method of scaling for ordered alternatives.