What's new

self fulfilling prophecies

den4

先輩
15 Nov 2002
1,799
63
58
Two Self-fulfilling Prophecies Are Stronger, and More Harmful, Than One
By BJS
Created 01/03/2005 - 14:10

Time and again, research has demonstrated the power of an individual's self-fulfilling prophecies - if you envision yourself tripping as you walk across a stage, you will be more likely to stumble and fall. New evidence suggests that previous studies have underestimated not only the effect of our own negative prophecies, but also the power of others' false beliefs in promoting negative outcomes.

When two or more people have similar false beliefs about another person, it's possible this could influence the person's behavior. Researchers Stephanie Madon, Max Guyll, Richard Spoth, and Jennifer Willard, all at Iowa State University, examined this phenomenon to see how much influence those collective beliefs have in determining a positive or negative reality.

The researchers tested whether the false beliefs of mothers and fathers could predict the amount of drinking done by their adolescent children over the course of a year. Their study, "Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: The Synergistic Accumulative Effect of Parents' Beliefs on Children's Drinking Behavior," appeared in the December 2004 issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the American Psychological Society.

The study involved 115 parents and their seventh grade children. Parents filled out questionnaires that measured their beliefs about their children's alcohol use and the children also filled out a questionnaires at the start of the experiment, including items assessing their past alcohol use. Twelve months later, the children answered a questionnaire that ascertained their recent alcohol use. The results showed that parents' beliefs predicted their children's alcohol use beyond the risk factors - the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. This self-fulfilling effect was strongest when both parents overestimated their child's alcohol use - the synergistic accumulative effect.

However, when one or both parents underestimated their child's alcohol use, their child's predicted increase in alcohol use was similar, showing there was not a synergistic accumulation effect for positive beliefs. This pattern of showing synergistic accumulation for negative beliefs but not positive ones might reflect the manner in which people process negative and positive information. For example, research shows that negative information is more salient than positive information, perceived as more useful, and influences evaluations more. In addition, people also weigh costs more than rewards when making important decisions. Thus, the greater power of unfavorable versus favorable beliefs may reside in how people process negative versus positive information.

These results could be significant when applied to the context of stereotyped groups that frequently bear the brunt of negative, false beliefs. In their everyday lives, individuals from stereotyped groups more often confront unfavorable than favorable beliefs from multiple perceivers due to consensually held stereotypes. A favorable belief may not be able to counteract the harmful effect of an unfavorable belief when there is a preponderance of unfavorable beliefs competing with it. Over time, the negative self-fulfilling prophecy effects could become more powerful as the number of people with negative perceptions increases.

For more information, contact Madon at [email protected]. A full copy of the article is available at the APS Media Center at www.psychologicalscience.org/media/.

Psychological Science is ranked among the top 10 general psychology journals for impact by the Institute for Scientific Information. The American Psychological Society represents psychologists advocating science-based research in the public's interest.

From American Psychological Society http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2005/pr050103.cfm
 
Sorry, but I have to disagree....

Two Self-fulfilling Prophecies Are Stronger, and More Harmful, Than One: By BJS: Created 01/03/2005 - 14:10

"Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: The Synergistic Accumulative Effect of Parents' Beliefs on Children's Drinking Behavior," December 2004 issue, Psychological Science, American Psychological Society

When two or more people have similar false beliefs about another person, it's possible this could influence the person's behavior.
However illuminating the insights offered by the creative authors, it saddens me that the deterministic mindset of regarding individuals as machines of nature following certain mechanisms, the secret to one of which they are making claims to discovery, is still pervasive among American psychologists. Too little trust of course can make a person insecure, raising the chance of failure in a chain of cause and effect. There are many instances, however, when the hardships imposed on a person gave the motivation to react in a non-deterministic, and essentially creative, manner. The big question I would like to ask the authors is;

"To what degree is your 'pseudo-scientific' hypothesis self-fulfilling?"
Parents filled out questionnaires that measured their beliefs about their children's alcohol use and the children also filled out questionnaires at the start of the experiment, including items assessing their past alcohol use. Twelve months later, the children answered questionnaires that ascertained their recent alcohol use.
Wasn't there at least one study conducted in the 1960's that discovered the following? (in paraphrase)

"Test subjects in pseudo-scientific studies are often given certain clues, however subtle, as to what the scientist believe is true or hopes to prove true by the study. Test subjects often collaborate, because it is human nature to help friendly members of one's community (or one's meager-paying employer who happens to be the scientist) . An extreme example of sub-conscious cooperation would be the case of the reluctant collaborators of Nazi's Jewish extermination program. In such extreme cases, the qualifier 'friendly' has to be expanded to include 'non-hostile,' or even 'threatening.'".
The results showed that parents' beliefs predicted their children's alcohol use beyond the risk factors - the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. This self-fulfilling effect was strongest when both parents overestimated their child's alcohol use - the synergistic accumulative effect.
(bold characters by me)
What if the parents knew more than the scientists could ever imagine? There are parents who over/under-estimate certain personal qualities of their offspring. And there are parents who see them as they are. Does their "pseudo-scientific" viewpoint offer an objective standard to differentiate the two, or even a disclaimer that such a theoretical hole exists which they are unable to grasp? I just think the study should have covered at least three generations to make any objective qualifications of the responses given by the test subjects in their questionnaires. I'd also like to add that the less deluded parents would be the ones to help their children in a positive way, because of the simple fact that they didn't close their eyes to the reality of their unhappy, or unruly, children.
However, when one or both parents underestimated their child's alcohol use, their child's predicted increase in alcohol use was similar, showing there was not a synergistic accumulation effect for positive beliefs.
This is nothing new. Many insecure parents are in denial because they themselves are unable to cope with their own insecurity. In other words, they chose the easy way out: self-deception: wishful thinking: close-your-eyes-&-it-doesn't-exit. The New Testament already warned us of the blind leading the blind. Now the blind are leading our pseudo-scientists. Sorry, but I don't agree, because I have a hard time trusting the data. The only thing certain is the mathematical correlationship between the written responses to the questionnaires one year apart. We do not know to what degree they reflect reality.
This pattern of showing synergistic accumulation for negative beliefs but not positive ones might reflect the manner in which people process negative and positive information. For example, research shows that negative information is more salient than positive information, perceived as more useful, and influences evaluations more. In addition, people also weigh costs more than rewards when making important decisions. Thus, the greater power of unfavorable versus favorable beliefs may reside in how people process negative versus positive information.
This we know already. Pain or possible pain is often the strongest factor influencing our decision making. If only this was proven in a "scientific" study, we could have learned more about the human psyche. Still, I cannot see how this "discovery" supports the study's thesis. What am I missing here?
These results could be significant when applied to the context of stereotyped groups that frequently bear the brunt of negative, false beliefs. In their everyday lives, individuals from stereotyped groups more often confront unfavorable than favorable beliefs from multiple perceivers due to consensually held stereotypes. A favorable belief may not be able to counteract the harmful effect of an unfavorable belief when there is a preponderance of unfavorable beliefs competing with it. Over time, the negative self-fulfilling prophecy effects could become more powerful as the number of people with negative perceptions increases.
As many faults as I may have pointed out, the conclusion has a noble and admirable aim. Almost sounds like corrective politics. But is this true science, or just another fashionable rhetoric of the 2000's? I wonder how this line of reasearch relects the insights of Abram Maslow's hierarchy of need? Or does American psychology have still more to learn before it sees an intellectual need? I just think the level of scientific research expected by the general public is so much higher than what is offered here. Cheap science only wastes public money for no purpose. Well-meant, but wasted, is what I think.
 
Last edited:
In the end, people will always believe what they want to or are most comfortable with...truth notwithstanding....
 
Mourning the Pasing of the Jester...

den4 said:
In the end, people will always believe what they want to or are most comfortable with...truth notwithstanding....
Quite true, Den4.
If they meant irony, to wake us up from our self-delusion, I would have respected that greatly.

Maybe I lack a sense of humor...
Maybe I took them too seriously...
It's just that maybe a piece of comic theatre could have done the job better.
Why do we need shrinks to tell us the obvious in convoluted language?

I lost the ability to laugh like a kid these days. 😊
I miss great comedy. Where are they now?
 
Back
Top Bottom