Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Ability Settings: An Experimental Study in Sports
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Ability Settings
Introduction and Background
Core Phenomenon: One person's expectations can influence another person's behavior, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ubiquity of Expectations: Expectations are central to most social situations, from first encounters to long-standing relationships, influencing perceptions of personality, preferences, and abilities.
Utility and Harm: Expectations can be useful (e.g., knowing a friend is extraverted for planning social events) but harmful if incorrect (e.g., inviting an introvert to a party).
Confirmation Processes: Perceivers often shape interactions to confirm their expectations of targets (Snyder & Stukas, 1999).
Perceptual Confirmation: Perceivers interpret targets' actions as consistent with their existing expectations.
Behavioral Confirmation: Targets' behavior objectively changes to become consistent with the perceiver's expectations.
Prior Research on Confirmation Effects:
Interpersonal Traits: Studies have shown both behavioral and perceptual confirmation for expectations related to attractiveness and sociability (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977), hostility (Snyder & Swann, 1978), and rejection (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998).
Task Performance (Pygmalion Effect):
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968): Manipulated teacher expectations in a classroom setting. Students randomly assigned high expectation consistently outperformed those without specific expectations. This boost is known as the Pygmalion effect.
Meta-analyses: Confirmed the Pygmalion effect in various contexts (McNatt, 2000; Kierein & Gold, 2000).
Athletics as a Research Setting:
Suitability: Sports provide an excellent context for studying the Pygmalion effect due to prevalent ability expectations and clear operational definitions for performance (scoring).
Coaches' Role: Coaches form expectations of players and act on them to maximize player effectiveness.
Previous Sport Studies (Observational):
Wilson and Stephens (2007): Found coaches gave less negative feedback and more workload to players with high ability expectations.
Behavioral Coding Studies: Demonstrated coaches provide higher quality (Horn, Lox, & Labrador, 2001) or more positive (Rejeski, Darracott, & Hutslar, 1979) feedback to high expectation players, especially during playoffs (Solomon, Goldern, Ciapponi, & Martin, 1998; Solomon & Kosmitzki, 1996).
Limitations of Observational Studies: These studies cannot establish a strong causal inference because findings could be due to coaches' accurate assessments of actual performance histories, rather than false expectations.
Goals of the Present Study:
To examine the causal influence of expectations on performance in an athletic setting using an experimental methodology.
To extend the applicability of expectation confirmation to a new domain (athletics), contributing to the understanding of its generality across domains.
Present Research Design and Hypotheses
Focus: Basketball free-throw shooting, an uncontested and controlled setting to assess accuracy.
Experimental Manipulation: Participants (undergraduate students with no prior basketball experience) were told they were participating in a study to understand individual differences in learning motor skills. They were assigned to one of two conditions: high-expectation or control. In the high-expectation condition, participants were falsely informed they had a natural aptitude for free-throw shooting based on a fabricated pre-test, while the control group received no specific information about their aptitude. This manipulation aimed to create differering expectations in the experimenter (perceiver) who would interact with the participants (targets).