SFP (self-fulfilling prophecy)

Question 1

Define SFP

Answer 1

a false prediction of a situation that influences a person behaviour/attitude. which in turn causes the prediction to come true

e.g. thinking of an outcome and modelling behaviour/attitude to lead to that scenario but not necessarily true

Question 2

Give a step-to-step process of SFP and crime examples

Answer 2

Step 1: perceiver has EXPECTATIONS of a target
e.g. shoplifting, shop owner will be wary of roadmen/suspicious-looking people (wearing fully black/face hidden)

Step 2: PERCEIVERS BEHAVIOUR towards the target reflects their expectations
e.g. shop owner will closely watch, given snark remarks (hurry up, what do you want etc)

Step 3: TARGET’S BEHAVIOUR towards receiver reflects how the perceiver has treated them
e.g. roadmen can verbally hostile confrontation with the shop owner, spread rumours that the shop doesn’t respect its customer

Step 4: prophecy has been fulfilled
e.g. will show that hostility to other shops and the cycles further reinforce their self-concept (label)

Question 3

Give 5 research evidence

Answer 3

• Ageton and Elliot (1974) focused on the self-concept of a number of adolescent boys -> contact with police = NO.
  Those who were subsequently arrested tended to adopt delinquent self-descriptions
  self-concept of boys who were not labelled by the authorities remained the same.
• Fuller (1984): results study = group of black girls (London comprehensive school) -> girls = negative stereotypes linked with being black & female.
  felt that many people expected them to fail, but they tried to prove them wrong. devoted themselves to school –> ensure success.
  Negative labels = variety of effects –> unpredictable

Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) informed teachers about the academic potential of their students. Some are seen as ‘bloomers’ who would excel in education, others at the limit.
students randomly assigned to each group.
1-year duration,
teachers -> bloomers = more attention/opportunities to improve
Result: effects of teachers having favourites = hindered educational performance –> Bloomers IQ rose // Non-bloomers IQ fell

Meichenbaum (1969) study about female juvenile delinquents. 
6 were selected from a class of 14 
teachers told --> late developers + strong academic potential. 
Observations = teachers -> behave differently towards them + girls performed better than matched controls in exam

Jahoda (1954) reporting of Ashanti people (Africa) -> practice of naming boys according to the day on which they were born.
day of birth is = (determine) the boy’s temperament
Example: boys born Monday are thought to be polite // Wednesday are supposed to be aggressive.
Police records = born on Wednesday (22%) // Monday (6.9%) in crimes.
Jahoda concludes -> boys’ names influenced way of treatment by others = different patterns of behaviour.