Talk:Pygmalion effect

Untitled
I removed the following from the article:
 * Translated into a wikipedian setting: Wikipedia users will behave because Wikipedia expects them to.

See Avoid self-references. fabiform | talk 02:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itetaty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect quote
"Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right" - -Nassa Merheb In 2004. Google it, it's from Henry Ford, you'll have millions of citations, not Nassa Merhed in 2004. Darrellx (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

page flow
it seems there are distinct separate sections to this article, but no flow between them. Precisely why George Bernhard Shaw's play is referenced is unclear; additionally, to one who understands the reference, it becomes apparent that the article illogically flows from etymology --> definition --> term explanation. There ought either be section headings denoting the shift or at least a better transition between the separate article parts. Also, we should mention that this is Cooley's (and to some extent Mead's) term. (references, Earl Babbie: "The Practice of Social Research" 10th Ed., page 235). Jxn 07:07, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Why does it say that the effect is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion, whereas the only example which clarifies the allusion is taken out of Bernard Shaw's work, with no direct connection between the example and the myth?

The statements above indicate their author has not read the original study by Rosenthal and Jacobson which describes the "connection" referenced in synpsis form in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.80.240.250 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete description
There's a fuller description at the new Hawthorne effect article.

Also, the derivation of the name is less important then the effect itself.

And is this "effect" mainly speculation based on a single study, or what?

Last, but not least: what are the implications for teaching and learning in schools? If expectation is a significant factor, can it be managed to improve student achievement? Or can improper expectations be reduced?

I'm particularly interested in how the teacher's hopes affect the student. Given the materialistic view of human beings, one might expect that "only behavior" can be measured or studied. But simply deciding to "think about a matter" a certain way is possible.


 * I decided this wasn't going to work; i.e., that it was useless
 * Kelly decided that the best thing was for her to become a violinist; her grandfather said she had a talent for it.

Mark Twain said he could "live for two months on a compliment" (like it was a kind of food!).

And why do coaches or parents tell children, "You can do it!"? Does instilling confidence really have an effect on performance?

Why are some teachers or coaches significantly better than others? Some, spectacular so.

A related question is: why have teachers in many American cities formed labor unions which insist on contracts which adamantly refuse to allow any form of merit pay and insist on a pure seniority system? You get paid based on "qualifications", i.e., diplomas and certificates, but mostly on how many years you've been on the job. In NYC you start at around 35K and work up to around 90K.

But how well you teach is not measured or tracked, and has no bearing on you job assignments, your influence on curriculum, or your paycheck.

In private schools, a teacher will be paid, promoted or fired mainly on results. Entire schools are judged based on results: i.e., I send my child to Phillips Exeter Academy because he'll learn more there.

Perhaps the entire school uses the Pygmalion effect? You were chosen for this school because you're the best => the student feels the confidence teachers have in him, so really applies himself. Uncle Ed 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be wrong to say that a school or a teacher "uses the Pygmalion effect." It was not conceived of as a teaching method. It was conceived of as a social psychological phenomenon that takes place as a result of an expectancy induced in the mind of a teacher. Generally, the half-life of such expectancies is about two weeks. The reality of the student's performance usually enters the picture the teacher sees.


 * Students who attend Phillips Exeter are highly selected. If they come from disadvantaged homes, only the best students from disadvantaged homes are admitted (e.g., through the Prep-for-Prep program). Most of the other students come from very advantaged homes. The research indicates that children from very advantaged homes have many cognitive resources before they even enter elite private schools.


 * Of course, there are probably a few legacy admissions who are not as capable although many legacies are given the cognitive advantages their parents afford them. A number of legacies do not. And the teacher knows it. The daughter of a friend of mine remembers her Harvard economics professor, during an office visit, telling the daughter and a classmate who happened to have poor grades that the classmate can do better. Then for some reason the professor made an off-the-cuff derogatory comment about "legacy students," a comment that he should not have made. The classmate then told the professor that she is a legacy student.


 * My point is that the student's actual performance will more than overcome the expectations the teacher has about the student when the student first arrives in class. The evidence for the Pygmalion effect is just not there. Iss246 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Rosenthal
"The most surprising finding in our research," says Rosenthal, "has to do with what we called the 'psychological hazards' of unexpected intellectual growth." When so-called "lower track" students in the control group at Oak School (students who were not expected to shine) began to show marked improvement and growth, their teacher evaluations on such things as "personal adjustment," "happiness," "affectionate" declined. Says Rosenthal: "If the world thinks little of you, it's going to punish you if you begin to succeed." 

Stanford

 * In 1968 Harvard professor, Robert Rosenthal published, Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development (1968; expanded edition 1992). The book caused quite a stir with its basic conclusion, "when teachers expect students to do well and show intellectual growth, they do; when teachers do not have such expectations, performance and growth are not so encouraged and may in fact be discouraged in a variety of ways."

Fiction
In Destry Rides Again the hero convinces the corrupt showgirl to stop helping the gang of murderers by expressing his expectation that she's "different", "better than that" - and then she lives up to his expectation. Uncle Ed 12:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Oak School study
In a study by two psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968), published in their book Pygmalion in the Classroom, the experimenters told teachers that twenty percent of the children in a certain school showed unusual potential for intellectual growth. The names of 20 percent of the students were selected randomly, and revealed to the teachers. Eight months later, the chosen children showed significantly greater gains in IQ than the children who had not been showered with attention. This seems follow more or less what the book says, I believe pg 181, so shouldn't it be cited as a paraphrase? The wording "The names of 20 percent of the students were selected randomly, and revealed to the teachers." needs to more clearly separate the word teachers more from the word random as it is completely necessary to establish that the teachers knew nothing of the randomness.

"than the children who had not been showered with attention."-I don't see any reference in the study that the children were consciously treated any different. "Showering attention" implies much more than just being told the child shows "unusual potential for intellectual growth" Thanks(Freetoheal (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Future Earnings Potential
I heard about a study a few years ago that studied future earnings potential in 8th graders. They asked 8th graders a bunch of questions and looked back years later to compare their 8th grade answers with their wages. It turns out that high wages were more correlated to how much money the student expected to be earning than their grades, test scores, sex, race, etc. Unfortunately I am unable to find this study, but maybe someone else has heard of it.

Problems with Pygmalion
While Rosenthal's study is famous, there is no mention in the main article of the strong critiques his methodology later was subject to. In fact, the results of this entire study were called into serious question. That is not to say that the Pygmalion effect is not a true effect, but questions about the study should be mentioned here for balance.e


 * I added a section on criticism of the study. Iss246 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
If there is any merge at all, this should be merged with "Self-fulfilling prophecy", as this is only one instance of that. Goldfritha 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The pygmalion effect is very often cited as such in the literature (e.g. David Cooperider uses it as an argument pro appreciative inquiry. Therefor I think that the pygmallion effect should have a page of it own - i.e. no merger.

Clean up template
I added the clean up template because the second section is written in first person. IANAE on Wikipedia style guidelines, but I know an encyclopedia shouldn't be written in first person!

Is there a different pygmalion effect?
I don't really see how this relates to the original myth of pygmalion. Also, whenever I hear of the "pygmalion effect" it has always been described as a person trying to make a different person more like themselves; for instance: trying to get your girlfriend to like the same music as you do. Or, I suppose, in a greater sense, trying to get a person to think the same way you do. I heard this in literature class. Has anyone else heard this, and if so, does it go by a different name than "pygmalion effect"? Rebent 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In his influential poem Metamorphoses, a history of the world based on many myths, the Roman poet Ovid tells the story of Pygmalion, a Cypriot sculptor who makes a statue, Galatea, so beautiful that he wishes for a bride just as beautiful. Aphrodite, on her festival day, grants Pygmalion his wish by miraculously bringing Galatea to life.  The miracle with the Pygmalion effect is that students become how they are described by their teacher.   Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's not myth, but this Pygmalion, where Professor Higgins attempts to turn a Cockney flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, into a refined society lady.

pov problems
This article completely omits the serious critiques of the paper. See Samuel S. Wineburg's "The Self-Fulfillment of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy" in Educational Researcher for a start. AaronSw 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Elliot's Exercise
I can't find much specific information on Elliot's study except that it occurred. Can someone who's more familiar with it please elaborate? I think there are several things that need to be clarified, including the validity of the exercise (in a scientific manner), whether external variables were accounted for (including content of the tests), and so forth. The current section is quite vague.  . V .  [Talk 12:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not scientific
This article still sucks, and all my suggestions and questions from 3 years ago have been ignored. Has there only been one study on this so-called effect in 40 years? Has no one tried to replicate the results? Why are we changing the subject in midstream to how students rate teachers?

The question on the table is how much teacher expectation can affect student achievement. Science ought to be able to answer this question. If it has, then we should summarize the answer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems the book "Reaching Higher By Rhona S. Weinstein" Is packed with more about this phenomena and studies surrounding it, I'm not up to reading it right now though.(Freetoheal (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Incorrect date of Rosenthal-Jacobson study?
Many sources seem to indicate that the original Rosenthal-Jacobson study was in fact in 1966, not 1968. One such source is this published paper. Should this be changed? (This is my first contribution to a talk page.) Nabelekt (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson did their research in 1965, wrote it up in a 5-page paper in 1966 with Rosenthal as the first author, and expanded it to a 266-page book in 1968 with Jacobson as the first author, including a 26-page addendum by Rosenthal defending their research against the many attacks that had been made on their work during the preceding two years. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Example of Positive Feedback Loop
I attempted to add a reference to positive feedback loops to the introduction of this page, as I believe that the (a) Pygmalion effect is at least (theoretically) a clear example of such a dynamic and (b) it is unfortunate that so many terms have flourished as a reference to very similar concepts (e.g., Matthew effect, Pygmalion effect, Self-fulfilling Prophecy), which leads to a reduced ability to link findings across research areas, which I find somewhat saddening.

It is important to link to Positive feedback, because without such a link, we risk divorcing this particular example from the broader phenomenon.

User:Iss246, I am interested in your thoughts and whether we can find some common ground here. Also would be interested with regard to the evidence you mentioned in your edit summary.

BA Schuetze (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:BA Schuetze, you raise an interesting point. The Pygmalion effect could theoretically be an example of a positive feedback loop but the research supporting the Pygmalion effect is poor. To get an idea of how poor the research is, see Robert Thorndike's review of the book that introduced the concept (Thorndike, R.L. (1968). Reviewed work: Pygmalion in the classroom by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4), 708–711.). In addition, to get an idea of how effective it has been to induce expectations in teachers about specific students, see Raudenbush's meta-analysis of teacher induction studies (Raudenbush, S. W. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 85–97. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.85). The research shows that the half-life of teacher inductions is about two weeks. Over the two weeks, the reality of the personality of the student who sits in front of the teacher takes hold.


 * I do believe positive feedback loops exist. My view is that the Pygmalion effect is a bad example of one. I don't want to give WP readers a bad example of one.


 * Finally, you may ask why the Pygmalion effect has survived in some psychology textbooks--I'm not sure if you read the original book. The research on textbook writing shows that many textbook authors recycle what has been published in earlier textbooks without reading the primary sources or the critics of primary sources. Of course, the Pygmalion effect is headline-grabbing and authors under deadline who have to write quickly don't have the time to investigate with thoroughness. The Pygmalion effect thus survives in some psychology textbooks but thankfully it has been fading from view. Iss246 (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Iss246 Your argument seems to deal more with the legitimacy of the Pygmalion effect, than it does with regard the question of whether or not it constitutes a positive (reinforcing) feedback loop. I would urge you to google "Pygmalion effect" and look at the image results. This theory is clearly (and primarily) as represented as a feedback loop. I agree we should make a distinction between the theory and the results. With regard to the theory, we should point readers in the right direction for why social scientists might plausibly believe such an effect exists. As for whether this is a bad example of positive feedback, I note that this is not the page devoted to positive feedback loops, and I would never suggest this is a great example of the phenomenon. But the two ideas are related, and should be linked at least from Pygmalion effect -> Positive feedback (not vice-versa).


 * For reference, I agree that the evidence for inducing the Pygmalion effect is probably not very strong. In line with what you have written, I think it might make sense to add a separate header pointing to scholarly criticism, such as has been done with learning styles, Implicit-association test, and Theory of multiple intelligences (I am trained as an educational psychologist, so these are just a sample of the first controversial psychological theories that came to mind). BA Schuetze (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If the Pygmalion effect were real, then I would agree that it should be mentioned as an example of both a positive and negative feedback loop. But it is not real. At least that is what the evidence suggests. The Pygmalion effect is barely a footnote in the Sweeney-Sterman Systems Dynamics Review article you cite, suggesting that the authors had only passing familiarity with the research.

Let's look at what Robert Thorndike, whom I cited above, had to write about Pygmalion in the Classroom. This expert on psychometric theory wrote that "If these pretest ["IQ"] data show anything, they show that the testing was utterly worthless and meaningless. The means and standard deviations for the total first and second grade classes were [calculated by combining sub-groups]. What kind of test, or what kind of testing is it that gives a mean 'IQ' of 58 for the total entering first grade of a rather run-of-the-mill school?"

Later Thorndike wrote that "We can only conclude that the pretest Reasoning Test at this age is worthless."

Still later he likened the test Rosenthal and Jacobson used to an ill-working clock, "When the clock strikes thirteen doubt is cast on the last stroke but also on all that have gone before." Finally, he wrote, "When the clock strikes 14, we throw away the clock."

In conclusion, I don't think the Pygmalion effect merits being called an example of a positive or negative feedback loop. The research underlying the Pygmalion effect is just too shoddy. Iss246 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is what you wrote user:BA Schuetze. My comments are interlaced in the text and capitalized next to the sentence my comments criticize.


 * “Within sociology, the effect is often cited with regard to education and social class. The concept of stereotype threat could be considered an example of the Pygmalion effect, as it denotes a negative form of self-fulfilling prophecy.[3] [THIS IS A MAGAZINE ARTICLE, NOT A SCHOLARLY JOURNAL] Although evidence for the effect has been contested since the 1960s,[4][5][THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PYGMALION EFFECT IS MORE THAN CONTESTED; THE EVIDENCE IS MAINLY ABSENT; YOU NEGLECT TO MENTION THE RAUDENBUSH META-ANALYSIS THAT DEMONSTRATED ITS ABSENCE] the theoretical mechanism of the Pygmalion effect is a positive feedback loop connecting student achievement and teacher perceptions.[6][7][8]”[<--FINALLY, YOU BETRAYED YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE IF THE PYGMALION EFFECT IS A POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP, IT IS ALSO A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP.]


 * I AM GOING TO DELETE THE ADDITION. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE LEAD. Iss246 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * user:BA Schuetze, you got it so wrong in another way. The Pygmalion effect is not just about garden variety student achievement. It concerns IQ test performance. Iss246 (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Iss246, your last comment verges on bullying and I do not get the sense that you are willing to have calm, measured debate about this topic. As such, I will disengage from this conversation. Two last points. Firstly, I did not write the entire paragraph you have quoted above; the first sentence was written by someone else previously. Secondly, positive feedback loops are self-reinforcing, meaning they can be positive or negative in regards to their outcome's direction (a positive feedback loop does not always go up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BA Schuetze (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if what I said looked like bullying. The Pygmalion effect can only be a true positive feedback loop if the Pygmalion effect is a true effect. The evidence bearing on the Pygmalion effect tends to be negative. Iss246 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also if it a positive feedback loop then it can also be a negative loop. Tell the teacher that this boy or girl has a low IQ, then the child goes into a negative spiral. But the evidence is that such an induction largely doesn't happen. Iss246 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

partially or completely undermined?
@Iss246 Look at the history of the wording in question: The original version has been softened, then I made it more neutral, but now your version is even stronger than the original one. According to your wording the view is no longer partially undermined, but has no credibility, which means that it is undermined not partially but completely. Are you sure? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) "a view that has been undermined partially by subsequent research"  = original version
 * 2) "a view which some in pedagogy believe has been undermined partially in other research." = softened
 * 3) "a view that has been partially undermined by other research." = mine
 * 4) "a view that has lost credibility as a result of other research findings" = yours
 * The expression "lost credibility" reflects the balance of research that followed. I was actually rather kind. The study was very poor. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of Robert L. Thorndike, the leading educational psychology researcher of his era, in his review of the Rosenthal-Jacobson book. "We can only conclude that the pretest on the so-called Reasoning Test at this age is worthless. And, in the words of a European colleague, 'When the clock strikes thirteen, doubt is cast not only on the last stroke but also on all that have gone before.'" [American Educational Research Journal vol. 5(4), Nov 1968]. Thorndike was referring to the pretest on the reasoning IQ test. The mean score of these first graders was 58.0, which put most of them in the mentally challenged range. The standard deviation of the scores of this group was 36.8, which put some of the class in the profoundly retarded range. These were normal first graders in a "run-of-the-mill" school.


 * Let's not quibble about "partially undermined" or "undermined partially." It was a poor study. Let's not give readers of WP the wrong idea by hedging our words. Iss246 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It makes sense. Thank you :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going to have to buck the trend on this one and quibble about it. If you had said that the original study had lost credibility, I would have no objections. However, you said that the view had lost credibility, which I find to be a very questionable statement. To the best of my knowledge (which is almost certainly more limited than yours), this effect is still supported by evidence. The original study has been heavily questioned if not debunked, but the preponderance of evidence still supports the Pygmalion effect. Unfortunately, paywalls are preventing me from investigating this as thoroughly as I would like to, but I have edited the text in question to read "called into question." I would support the creation of a new sentence that states that the original study has lost credibility, but unless I am shown further evidence, I cannot in good conscience say that the effect has lost credibility. I'm always excited to learn if you have something to teach me on the subject. Warr40 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Named after the 1913 play, not the Greek myth?
The article states that the effect is named after the Greek myth. Several online sources contradict this, saying the effect is named after the play that itself was named after the myth. 2601:140:947F:77D0:AE8:CFBB:BDFB:55FE (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)