self fulfilling prophecy

• what is self fulfilling prophecy?

  process where expectations of someone is reality by producing behaviours that confirm expectations

  • also referred to as Pygmalion effect (Merton, 1948)
• Pygmalion effect?

  • people form beliefs and opinions about you
  • peoples beliefs influence how they behave toward you
  • other peoples behaviour influence how we think about ourselves
  • our thoughts cause our behaviour which reinforces what others believe about us
• Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)?

  P: teachers in San Francisco were told 20 students were late bloomers, pupils having IQ test at start of year then tested again at the end. teachers predicting 20 bloomers came from 1st IQ test

  R: 20 bloomers did improve IQ compared to others in class

  C: teachers expected pupils to do better so were given extra attention to additional feedback
• Madon (2004)?

  P: 115 children aged 12-13 in USA. parents estimated how much alcohol they drink then children asked to say how much they actually consumed (correlational analysis)

  R/C: if both parents expected child to drink alcohol, child was more likely to do so. negative SFP had an effect on childs behaviour

  • no cause and effect so parents might just be good at predicting childs future drinking behaviour.
• Jahoda (1954)?

  P: Ashanti people (S. Ghana) studied. they give boys 'soul' names linking to the day of the week. boys named on monday = calm and peaceful. boys named on wednesday = aggressive and angry. 5 years of juvenile records were analysed.

  R: monday names were responsible for 6.9% violent crime, wednesday responsible for 22%.

  C: cultural expectations about behaviour led to them being treated differently according to labels
• evidence of SFP?

  good: Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) power of expectations in education. Madon (2004), parents have negative expectations about childs likelihood of drinking alcohol. Jahoda (1953), criminality in Ashanti people. Besemer (2013), labelling on criminal families.

  • explains gender differences (boys more likely to be agg) and individual differences in criminal behaviour

  bad: virtually impossible to study influence of SFP and labelling on crime due to ethical constraints (deliberately labelling people) evidence is linked with educational outcomes not crime.
• methodology used in SFP?

  good: research is in real life settings, high in ecological validity so labelling can be a credible factor of antisocial behaviour (psyc as a science)

  bad: existence of negative beliefs aren't directly observable so self report is relied on (Madon 2004). practical issues are raised in gaining valid information
• applications from SFP?

  society is more aware of the power of labels and how they influence a persons self-concept. during teacher training they must recognise the negative influence of SFP
• reductionism in SFP?

  purely social explanation, any biological factors? also unaware of how individual learns actual criminal behaviour they get so an incomplete explanation