Alternative explanations for self-fulfilling prophecy.

Archibald, W. Peter

doi:10.1037/h0035517

Cited by 39 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Experunent II found not only that high pubhc expectancies tended to be disliked, but that the penalty for inconsistent pubhc-private expectancies and for inaccurate pubhc expectancies was greater when the inconsistency or the inaccuracy mvolved public overestimation as opposed to public underestimation This fits nicely with data collected by Archibald (1971), who found that subjects required to reveal public expectancies rated themselves as higher m arousal or less comfortable than subjects not required to make public predictions, especially where they were required to publicly predict success while privately expecting failure We assume that subjects' ratings of consistent and inconsistent combmations of public and private expectancies m our experiments were based upon their having had a history of experience with these various combmations People hear others make a "public" statement to one audience and a "private" statement to another, and do so themselves, and can observe the imphcations and consequences (cf. Goffitnan, 1959, Gergen, 1972 People have experience vnth others whose self-presentations tvirn out always to be too high or too low, or appear inconsistent with other nonverbal cues Exploration of alternative ways of revealmg these inconsistencies as they occior m real life is a worthy focus for future research.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Effects of public and private expectancies on attributions of competence and interpersonal attraction1

Brickman¹,

Seligman

1974

J Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Effects of public and private expectancies on attributions of competence and interpersonal attraction1

Brickman¹,

Seligman

1974

J Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They interpret these results as evidence for a desire to avoid inconsistency. Although there have been a few successful replications of the above results (Brock, Edelman, Edwards, & Schuck, 1965;Cottrell, 1965;Haimowitz & Haimowitz, 1966), most of the replication attempts have not been supportive (see Archibald, 1974, for a list of 10 such studies). Mettee's model provides an alternative explanation for both the effect and its equivocal support: Subjects sometimes reject success in order to avoid disappointment, but the degree to which success is rejected depends upon the degree to which factors contributing to fears of disappointment (e.g., threats of later feedback) are present.…”

Section: Secondarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control.

Rothbaum

Weisz²,

Snyder³

1982

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1,780

1,282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is extensive evidence that people strongly value and are reluctant to relinquish the perception of control. Yet, both helplessness and locus of control theorists interpret various "inward" behaviors (passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness) as signs of relinquished perceived control. As evidence, they note that inward behavior frequently is accompanied by causal attributions to limited ability, chance, and powerful others-all attributions that suggest uncontrollability. In contrast, we claim,that these attributions and the behaviors to which they relate may often reflect a type of perceived control that is generally overlooked. People attempt to gain control not only by bringing the environment into line with their wishes (primary control) but also by bringing themselves into line with environmental forces (secondary control). Four manifestations of secondary control are considered: (a) Attributions to severely, limited ability can serve to enhance predictive control and to protect against disappointment. Passive and withdrawn behaviors reflect the attempt to inhibit unfulfillable expectations, (b) Attributions to chance can reflect illusory control, since people often construe chance as a personal characteristic akin to an ability ("luck"). Individuals who make attributions to chance may exhibit passivity and withdrawal in skill situations, reserving energy and emotional investment for situations that allow them to capitalize on their perceived strength-that is, being lucky, (c) Attributions to powerful others permit vicarious control when the individual identifies with these others. Submission to a powerful leader, a group, or a deity sometimes enables the individual to join in their power, (d) All of the preceding attributions may foster interpretive control, in which the individual seeks to understand and derive meaning from otherwise uncontrollable events in order to accept them. When perceived control is recognized in both its primary and secondary forms, a broad range of inward behaviors can be seen as efforts to sustain rather than relinquish the perception of control.Factor analytic studies with children (reviewed in Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978) and systematic observations of adults (e.g., Beck, 1967;Marks, 1977) have identified a This article was funded in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 1-RO1-MH-34210-01.The authors are indebted to Camille Wortman for her unusually thorough review of a draft of this article. Her comments added depth and clarity to many of the Central points.Requests for reprints should be sent to Fred Rothbaum, Department of Child Study, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155. set of interrelated problem behaviors including passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness (hereafter referred to as inward behavior). The popularity of the learned helplessness model (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978;Seligman, 1975) is due largely to its lucid account of at least some of these seemingly maladaptive behaviors (especially passivity and withdrawal). Adherents o...

show abstract

“…others, Livingston (1969), Archibald (1974) and Eden (1984). All of these argue that management ought to motivate workers by conveying high, but realistic, expectations.…”

Section: Proposition 4 Suppose the Conditions Of Propositions 2 Hold mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory

Ellingsen

Johannesson

2008

American Economic Review

485

309

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many people are sensitive to social esteem, and their pride is a source of pro-social behavior. We present a game-theoretic model in which sensitivity to esteem varies across players and may depend on context as well players' beliefs about their opponents. For example, the pride associated with a generous image is greater when the player holding the image is in fact generous and believes the observers to be generous as well. The model can account both for the fact that players' behavior sometimes depends on the opponents' unchosen options and for the prevalence of small symbolic gifts. Perhaps most importantly, the model offers an explanation for motivational crowding out: Control systems and pecuniary incentives may erode morale by signaling to the agent that the principal is not worth impressing. We are grateful to the Torsten and Ragnar Söderberg Foundation (Ellingsen) and the Swedish Research Council (Johannesson) for financial support. Thanks to George Baker, Kjell-Arne Brekke, Florian Englmaier, Ernst Fehr, Martin Flodén, Oliver Hart, Bengt Holmström, John Moore, Anna Sjögren, Jean-Robert Tyran, RobertÖstling, and especially Michael Kosfeld for helpful discussions. The paper has also benefited from comments by many other seminar and conference participants. Errors are ours.

show abstract

Alternative explanations for self-fulfilling prophecy.

Cited by 39 publications

References 46 publications

Effects of public and private expectancies on attributions of competence and interpersonal attraction1

Effects of public and private expectancies on attributions of competence and interpersonal attraction1

Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control.

Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About