<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Michael, <br>
Good question. The original Pygmalion Effect was the subject of a 1968
book (Pygmalion in the Classroom), by Rosenthal & Jacobson. As I
recall, Rosenthal was allowed by Jacobson to manipulate the
expectations of teachers in Jacobson's school (she was Principal).
Teachers were led, at the beginning of the year, to believe that
certain students were unusually gifted and should 'bloom' during that
year. By the end of the year they showed - if I recall correctly - a 4
or 5 point increase in IQ (on the WISC, I believe, which is a gold
standard of IQ tests). Replications showed consistent IQ gains, but
Marcel suggests very small - no practical effect in a .5 group gain. I
can't find that number in my quick APA literature search. (Marcel,
citation???) <br>
<br>
Here is a synopsis:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.teachers.net/FAQ/schoolhouse/bruno23.html">http://www.teachers.net/FAQ/schoolhouse/bruno23.html</a><br>
There are quite a few pages about the effect on the web.<br>
<br>
Subsequent research showed a consistent improvement when expectation is
manipulated, including apparently genuine differences between rats, 7th
graders, college students, and military recruits. Marcel seems to have
more of an expertise in this area, I am just going from my memory. The
effect has been pretty much taken over by business consultants who have
written a good deal on it. I don't hear of it in education any more.
(comments, Frank??? Karen???)<br>
<br>
Appreciative Inquiry has made a pretty big deal of the Pygmalion
effect, and as I review the literature they probably make more of it
than they should - typical for constructivists (grin, wink) since they
don't believe in Truth anyway. <br>
<br>
Some children, by the way, apparently are much more vulnerable to the
Pyg effect, being more field dependent (depending on social cues),
whereas the children more field independent were pretty much immune to
social expectations. The apparent active ingredients seem to have been
non-verbal expectancy, like the way the teacher would look towards the
supposedly gifted (randomly chosen) students when discussing difficult
material, asking questions, and so on. This apparently inspired the
students to try harder and master more material. <br>
<br>
Finally, the effect probably gets ignored because Rosenthal's results,
with kids, mice, college students, and so on, also shows that
Experimenter Bias is a huge effect. Related: Studies of
antidepressants funded by drug houses regularly show large effect
sizes; studies done independently show small to insignificant effect
size. MDs doing ratings regularly rate the drug patients as much more
improved than therapy patients; when patients rate themselves (using a
Beck, for example), the effect is reversed, therapy>drugs. So this
gets ignored because we don't like to think of ourselves as the source
of such high levels of Noise vs. Signal. <br>
Lynn Johnson<br>
Salt Lake City<br>
<br>
"We're all doctors here."<br>
-- Woody Allen<br>
<br>
<br>
Michael Christopher wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040730194947.26499.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, Pygmalion effect (effect of expectations)
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->is just 0.5 IQ points (based on serious studies, not
anecdotes).<<
--How were the studies done, exactly?
michael
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>