See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232554885

Expectancy Confirmation Processes Arising in the Social Interaction

Sequence

Article  in  American Psychologist · October 1980

DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867

CITATIONS READS
720 3,933

2 authors, including:

Russell H Fazio
The Ohio State University
171 PUBLICATIONS   30,215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Russell H Fazio on 27 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Expectancy Confirmation Processes Arising in the
Social Interaction Sequence
JOHN M. DARLEY Princeton University
RUSSELL H. FAZIO Indiana University
ABSTRACT: Psychologists have begun to use Merton's
concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy to explain a wide
variety of social phenomena and problems. The
present article further develops the theory behind
this and related concepts. The core of our argument
is that self-fulfilling prophecy effects occur when any
one of many possible forces distort the processes
occurring in normal social interactions. To elucidate
this argument, we describe a model of simple social
interactions that involves (a) a perceiver's formation
of an expectancy about a target person, (b) his or her
behavior congruent with the expectancy, (c) the target's
interpretation of this behavior, (d) the target's
response, (e) the perceiver's interpretation of the
response, and (/) the target's interpretation of his or
her own response. We discuss the biasing factors that
may lead to self-fulfilling prophecy effects at each step
of this sequence. In addition, we suggest several other
forms of expectancy confirmation that may occur via
the social interaction process. Our presentation has
two major purposes: to increase the theoretical clarity
of the self-fulfilling prophecy and related effects and to
identify needs for future research on the topic.
The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy continues
to generate research (e.g., Crano & Mellon, 1978;
Snyder & Swann, 1978), theory (R. A. Jones,
1977), and controversy (Archibald, 1974; Wilkins,
1977). This activity is certainly a testimony to
the importance of the construct, which is central
to many of the practical implications of psycho-
logical knowledge for real-world settings (Rosenhan,
1973; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). Partly be-
cause of this enormous practical importance, the
majority of empirical investigations of the self-
fulfilling prophecy have involved its occurrence in
classroom settings. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)
contended that the induction of a teacher's expec-
tation of improvement in certain children's achieve-
ment performance caused such an improvement.
Despite the controversy regarding this initial re-
search (Elashoff & Snow, 1971; Jensen, 1969;
Thorndike, 1968), subsequent experimental investi-
Vol. 35, No. 10, 867-881
gations (e.g., Meichenbaum, Bowers, & Ross, 1969;
Zanna, Sheras, Cooper, & Shaw, 1975) have con-
firmed that teacher expectations affect student
achievement.
Several recent studies, aimed at documenting the
workings of the teacher-student expectancy con-
firmation in nonexperimental social interaction
settings, have provided some estimates of the
magnitude and generality of the effect. A series
of correlational studies showed that naturally
occurring teacher expectancies are related to stu-
dents' achievement (e.g., Palardy, 1969; Rist,
1970; Seaver, 1973; Sutherland & Goldschmid,
1974). For example, Seaver (1973) suggested that
teachers form expectations about a younger sibling
on the basis of the older sibling's performance. He
found a greater relationship between the achieve-
ment scores of two siblings taught by the same
teacher than between the achievement scores of
control siblings taught by different teachers. Such
correlational findings are always open to question
concerning causal direction. A recent cross-lagged
panel analysis suggests, however, that it is the
teacher expectations that affect student perform-
ance. Crano and Mellon (1978) found that
teacher attitudes affected children's achievement to
a greater degree than students' performance im-
pinged on the teachers' attitudes. This is
impressive testimony to the practical importance of
expectancy effects.
The expectancy confirmation effect has also been
investigated in contexts other than the classroom.
Some of the earliest research demonstrated expec-
The contribution of the two authors was equal; order of
authorship is alphabetical. The authors are indebted to
Nancy Cantor, Joel Cooper, Edward E. Jones, and Steven
J. Sherman for comments on earlier drafts of the article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to John M. Darley,
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton,
New Jersey 08544.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 • 867
, Copyright 1980 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0003-066X/80/3510-0867?00.75
 tancy confirmation within the experimental sit- It is useful to regard the sequence as containing
uation. Under certain conditions experimenters one more step: (6) After acting toward the per-
may inadvertently bias the behavior of subjects. ceiver, the target person interprets the meaning of
(See Rosen thai, 1976, for a summary of these his or her own action. Ordinarily, of course, the
research findings.) Furthermore, self-fulfilling interpretation will be that the action was the appro-
prophecies have been shown to operate so as to priate one and was "caused" by the perceiver's
confirm various social stereotypes. Expectancy action to which it was the response. However,
effects have been implicated in the creation of other possibilities do exist. From his or her action,
apparent sex differences in behavior (Zanna & Pack, the individual may infer something new about him-
1975), in the maintenance of racial stereotypes self or herself. As a result, the individual's self-
(Cooper & Fazio, 1979; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, concept may be modified.
1974), in the perseverance of trait inferences re- This interaction sequence is arbitrary in at least
garding physically attractive women (Snyder, two senses. First, the sequence can represent a
Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977), in the job performance cyclical process in that the perceiver's expectancy
of workers (King, 1971), and in the channeling of in Step 1 may have arisen from previous "passes"
general social interactions (S. C. Jones & Panitch, through the sequence, or it may actually mark the
1971; Snyder & Swann, 1978). beginning of the interaction. Second, although we
Despite the practical importance of expectancy have arbitrarily designated one of the individuals
effects and despite the voluminous research literature involved in the interaction as the perceiver and the
documenting such effects, relatively little attention other as the target, it should be clear that the
has been given to the process by which self-fulfilling process can be symmetric in nature. Just as the
prophecies occur. We *shall attempt to analyze perceiver has an impression of the target, the indi-
this underlying social interaction process by present- vidual we have designated as target is likely to have
ing the steps in a general social interaction sequence expectancies concerning the perceiver. In another
and by examining the research documentation for sense, of course, the identification of the perceiver
each of these steps.1 in the self-fulfilling prophecy sequence is often
nonarbitrary, and the interaction is nonsymmetric.
The perceiver is the participant who generally has
The General Social Interaction Sequence the power to impose his or her definition of the
As recognized by researchers of widely differing situation on, or affect the life course of, the other
orientations (e.g., signal detection theorists, Lindsay individual.
& Norman, 1977, and symbolic interaction theorists, Having presented the general interaction sequence
Blumer, 1969), perception is a constructive, inter- that organizes our analysis, we can now turn to the
pretative process. Such interpretation is partic- working definition of the term selj-julfilling proph-
ularly critical in the perception of other people. ecy and can examine our definition in the context
The' actions of another person do not automatically of the interaction sequence. The concept of the
convey meanings, but are given meanings by the self-fulfilling prophecy was first set forth by Robert
perceiver. Therefore, a generally accepted account Merton (1948, 1957):
of a social interaction sequence between two people Definitions of a situation (prophecies or predictions) be-
might be as follows: (1) Either because of past come an integral part of the situation and thus affect sub-
observations of the other or because of the cate- sequent developments. . . . The self-fulfilling prophecy is,
in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking
gories into which he or she has encoded the other, a new behavior which makes the originally false conception
a perceiver develops a set, of expectancies about a come true. The specious validity of the self-fulfilling
target person. (2) The perceiver then acts toward prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet
will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was
the target person in a way that is in accord with right from the very beginning. (Merton, 1957, p. 423)
his or her expectations of the target person. (3)
Next, the target interprets the meaning of the
1
perceiver's action. (4) Based on the interpretation, It is not the purpose of the present article to present
an exhaustive review of all of the studies relevant to the
the target responds to the perceiver's action, and processes we describe, instead we cite various studies that
(5) the perceiver interprets the target's action. At directly bear on the specifics of the suggested processes.
this point, the perceiver again acts toward the target , The literature on various aspects of the self-fulfilling
prophecy is vast. The reader who is concerned with
person and so can be regarded as reentering the "specific areas is referred to various literature reviews such
interaction sequence loop at Step 2. as Dusek (1975), Rosenthal (1976), and Wilkins (1977).

868 • OCTOBER 1980 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

Implicit in Merton's characterization is an image
of an interaction in which one individual imposes
an expectancy on a target individual in such a way
as to make the second individual behave in a fashion
which confirms that expectancy. Two related pos-
sibilities immediately suggest themselves: First,
the behavior of the target person is not actually
altered by the expectation of the perceiver and thus
does not "objectively" confirm the expectation. But
because of well-known perceptual distortion pro-
cesses, it is interpreted by the perceiver as con-
firming his or her expectation. Second, the
perceiver's expectation, communicated through his
or her action, can actually alter the behavior of
the target in such a way that observers judge, the
behavior to be in accordance with the definition
implicit in the perceiver's expectancy. (Compare
this with Rosenthal's, 1976, distinction between
noninteractional and interactional experimenter
expectancy effects.) The latter possibility seems
most consistent with Merton's characterization of
the concept, and it is the one we adopt in this
article. The self-fulfilling prophecy, then, refers to
the process by which the expectancies held by one
individual about another alter the behaviors of that
other in ways that observers would interpret as
confirming the perceiver's expectancy.
Within the general interaction sequence outlined
above, it is clear that Merton's definition and most
research on the self-fulfilling prophecy involve the
link between Step 1 and Steps 4 and 5. That is,
the perceiver's expectancy evokes a new response
from the target (Step 4), which fulfills the expecta-
tion. Step 5 represents the perceiver's "biased
proof" that his or her expectancy regarding the
target was correct. Clearly, several intermediary
steps must be assumed to take place, but research
on these linkages is relatively sparse. It is the
purpose of this article to indicate what psycho-
logical theory might suggest about these inter-
mediary linkages and to indicate what expectancy-
related phenomena other than self-fulfilling proph-
ecies might occur in the interaction sequence.
The Perceiver Forms an Expectancy
The first step in the interaction sequence is the
perceiver's formation of an expectancy regarding
the behavior of a target person. These expectancies
can be about the specific behaviors predicted to be
performed by the target person. However, attri-
butional theories (Heider,*1944, 1958; E. E. Jones
& Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967) suggest that the
expectancies are more likely to be about the inten-
tions and dispositions of the target person, from
which general classes of behavior are predicted.
Whatever the exact nature of the expectancy, it
can be inferred from any of several sources. For
each kind of inference, various possible sources of
bias are possible.
DIRECT OBSERVATION OF BEHAVIOR
First, the perceiver necessarily observes only a
sample of behaviors of the target person. It is
possible that this sample of behaviors was an un-
representative one in that the target person was
acting under some constraints of which the perceiver
was unaware. An unlucky undergraduate may be
suffering from an attack of flu arid therefore do
poorly on a test on which he or she would ordinarily
do well. An observer who is unaware of the illness
may form an expectation of future poor
performance.
Second, whether or not the sequence of behavior
observed is an unrepresentative one, the inferences
that the observer draws from it may be unwar-
ranted. The actor-observer effect postulated by
E. E. Jones and Nisbett (1971) has been confirmed
by other studies (see E. E. Jones, 197,6, for a review
of these findings). Apparently, even if an observer
is aware of the constraints limiting the freedom of
action of an individual, he or she is likely to under-
estimate the force of these constraints and still
make attributions to the target person (E, E. Jones,
1979; E. E. Jones & Harris, 1967; Ross, 1977;
Snyder & Jones, 1974).
The above discussion has assumed a perceiver
who is simply observing the behavior of a target
individual. But often the perceiver may be in-
volved in the sequence of actions from which he or
she draws inferences about the target person. The
perceiver may be involved because the outcomes
produced by the target are personally relevant (cf.
E. E. Jones & Davis's, 1965, concept of hedonic
relevance) or because he or she is a participant in
the sequence. Both kinds of involvement have been
shown to produce different evaluations of the target
person than would otherwise be made (Chaikin &
Cooper, 1973; E. E. Jones & DeCharms, 1957;
Miller, Norman, & Wright, 1978).
Attribution theorists have discussed the condi-
tions under which a specific behavior of a target
will be judged correspondent to the underlying
disposition of the actor and will lead to the expec-
tation of disposition-related behaviors in the future.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 • 869
Implicit personality theorists (see Schneider, 1973,
for a review) have pointed out the possibility of a
related but different process that can create expec-
tations for new classes of behavior to be exhibited
by the target person. Following ordinary attribu-
tion processes, a perceiver may infer a trait or
disposition of the target person. In the perceiver's
naive theory of personality, this trait will be con-
nected to other traits, and so the perceiver expects
the target to exhibit behaviors dispositionally
related to those inferred traits as well. Obviously
these expectations of behavior stemming from in-
ferred traits can be different depending on the
implicit personality theory of the perceiver. Fur-
thermore, depending on how appropriate the per-
ceiver's implicit personality theory is for the target
person, these inferences may lead to inaccurate
expectancies regarding the future behavior of the
target.
CONTINUING SEQUENCES
In the previous examples, direct observation of a
sample of a single individual's behavior led to
predictions about similar or inferentially related
future behaviors on the part of that individual.
But not all behavioral expectancies are derived from
direct observation of an individual target. Fre-
quently, initial expectancies about the behavior of
an individual are drawn from evidence about the
class of individuals to which that target individual
is assumed to belong (cf. E. E. Jones & McGillis's,
1976, related distinction between target and cate-
gory-based expectancies). A perceiver's knowledge
that a target individual belongs to some racial,
ethnic, or gender category may trigger inferences
about what actions he or she ought to display (see
Hamilton, 1979, for a review). Thus stereotypes
operate in a manner similar to the operation of
implicit theories of personality. Both constructs
involve the interconnection of various attributes.
In fact, stereotypes may be regarded, as R. A.
Jones (1977) has cogently argued, as regions of an
individual's implicit personality theory. Like im-
plicit personality theories, stereotypes can vary with
regard to their appropriateness and accuracy. How-
ever, a great deal of the thrust of stereotyping
research has been to demonstrate that these be-
havioral expectancies are overgeneralized and in-
accurate predictors of actual behavior of the target
individual. (For a review, see Brigham, 1971.)
One difference between implicit personality theo-
ries and stereotypes is in the cue that generates the
870 • OCTOBER 1980 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
inferential process. Generalization via an implicit
personality theory occurs subsequent to the attri-
bution of a particular trait to a target person.
Stereotypes, on the other hand, are generated by
the observation that an individual is a member of
a particular group or category.
Finally, expectations about others can be derived
from third parties. For instance, people's reputa-
tions may be known before their actual arrival and
may set up expectations about their behavior. In
experimental studies/ expectations are frequently
created in this fashion; for instance, in the well-
known Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) study,
expectations about specific children who would be
"late bloomers" were conveyed to the teachers by
the psychologist.
The Perceiver Acts
Once the opportunity for a perceiver-target inter-
action arises, the perceiver's expectancy regarding
the target (however that expectancy was formed)
influences his or her behavior toward the target.
By guiding the perceiver's actions, the expectancy
channels the course of the perceiver-target inter-
action. This channeling can occur via different
types of action on the part of the perceiver. It will
be usefulto distinguish between actions that termi-
nate the interaction sequence and those that permit
it to continue.
TERMINATED SEQUENCES
On the basis of his or her expectancy, the perceiver
may actively avoid the initiation of any interaction
with the target. Consistent with Newcomb's
(1947) autistic hostility hypothesis, the perceiver
may ignore any overtures on the part of the target
and, if socially forced into the interaction, may
seek to terminate it at the earliest possible moment.
For example, a bigot is unlikely to seek out inter-
actions with a black (DeFleur & Westie, 1958;
Warner & DeFleur, 1969). Such a case is most
apt to occur when the perceiver's expectancy con-
cerning the target's behavior is so negative or
ego threatening that he or she wishes to avoid
contact with the target. The end result of such
expectancy-guided avoidance behavior is the main-
tenance of the perceiver's impression of the target.
By refusing to begin or by quickly terminating the
interaction, the perceiver never allows the target
an opportunity to correct any misperceptions. The
perceiver's hostility has (become "autistic" in the
sense that it prevents him or her from being, respon-
sive to opportunities for interaction that might or a lesser percentage of interactions characterized
serve to provide additional information about the by negative affect (e.g., Meichenbaum et al., 1969),
target person. more positive nonverbal behaviors2 (e.g., smiling,
Of course, termination of the interaction by the direct eye gaze) from the teacher (e.g., Chaikin,
perceiver may strongly affect the target's life,if the Sigler, & Derlega, 1974), higher levels of positive
perceiver holds some power over the target. On reinforcement following correct responses, and
the basis of some quickly formed expectancy, an higher levels of negative reinforcement following
advisor may decide to dismiss a student or an incorrect responses (e.g., Lanzetta & Hannah,
employer may not hire a prospective employee. 1969). In a review of many such classroom studies,
Therefore, although the fact that a perceiver's Rosenthal (1974) has cited evidence that teachers
categorizations may lead to a false diagnosis of the provide children labeled as bright with a warmer
target is obvious enough, it is possible that its role climate, more differentiated performance feedback,
in the production of self-fulfilling prophecies is a greater amount of and more difficult material to
underestimated. In the real world, high-power learn, and more opportunities to respond. (See also
individuals often make treatment decisions on the Cooper, 1979, for a review.)
basis of extraordinarily little evidence because they The expectancy-action link has also been demon-
are under great time pressure. The psychiatrist, strated by numerous studies involving interactions
the teacher, and the police officer often need to other than teacher-pupil ones. Subjects have been
make rapid assessments of persons. On the basis of found to behave more competitively in a game
those assessments, they may assign the individual situation when led to expect that their partner dis-
to a specific treatment program. The interaction liked them (S. C. Jones & Panitch, 1971) or that
between the authority figure and the target has now their partner was generally a hostile person (Snyder
terminated, but the authority's influence on the life & Swann, 1978). Kelley (1950) found that par-
of the target may be decisive. ticipation in a class discussion varied as a function
of whether the students expected a guest instructor
CONTINUING SEQUENCES to be a warm or cold person. In the context of an
interracial job interview, Word et al. (1974) found
Even if the perceiver's expectations do not lead to that trained white and black confederates posing as
avoidance or premature termination of the inter- job applicants were treated differently by white
action, they may still affect its course. In such job interviewers. Relative to the white applicants,
cases the perceiver's expectation influences the man- black applicants received shorter amounts of inter-
ner in which he or she behaves toward the target, view time, greater physical distancing, and higher
thus coloring the nature of the ensuing interaction. rates of speech error (e.g., repetitions, stutters)
The link between perceiver expectancy and action from the white interviewers. These findings docu-
has been widely demonstrated. In an observational ment the effect of stereotypic assessments of a target
study of a kindergarten class, Rist (1970). found person on behaviors toward that person.
that the teacher divided the children into rigid At this point it again becomes obvious that the
tracks very early in the year. This division interaction process is symmetrical in nature. The
appeared to be largely based on socioeconomic status target, in effect, becomes a perceiver. Because
and appearance qualities that the teacher con- the target's response is influenced by the interpreta-
sidered to be indicative of academic promise. Not tion given to the perceiver's action, it is important
only did-the teacher physically separate the differ- to consider how the action is apt to be perceived.
ent tracks, but she spent a disproportionate amount First, the target is likely to have some perceptions
of time teaching the highest track and disciplining
the lowest track. Thus teaching behavior was
related to the teacher's expectations regarding the 2
Nonverbal behaviors may be of particular importance
academic ability of the children. in social interactions and in the mediation of self-fulfilling
Many experimental studies involving classroom prophecies. As Schneider, Hastorf, and Ellsworth (1979)
have pointed out, nonverbal behaviors tend to be unin-
or tutoring situations have demonstrated differential tentional in nature. As a result, the perceiver's attitude
teacher behavior as a function of expectancy. Rel- toward the target person is apt to have a profound influ-
ative to controls, students labeled as bright have ence on nonverbal behavior toward the target (cf.
Mehrabian, 1969), and such behavior is apt to be con-
been found to receive a greater percentage of sidered reflective of the perceiver's dispositions by the
teacher interactions characterized by positive affect target.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 • 871

of the perceiver that lead to expectations about the
personality and actions of the perceiver. (These
expectancies arise from the processes by which the
perceiver categorized the target person, which we
discussed earlier, and are subjected to the same
potential biases.) In addition the target person has
available the actions of the perceiver and will need
to interpret their meaning.
The Target Interprets the
Perceiver's Action
The perceiver has perceived and acted toward the
target, and now the target may interpret the mean-
ing of the perceiver's action. Attribution theory
gives a cognitive, decision-making account of a
person's interpretations of the acts of another.
Therefore an image arises of the perceiver (the
target individual in this case) carrying out a con-
scious analysis that leads to a complete and
explicitly formulated set of attributions about the
other. Several elements of this image are fre-
quently incorrect. First, we are frequently unaware
of the attributional processes we employ. Like
many other habitual processes, they are both very
rapid and automatic, and they need, not be very
logical or rational in character. Second, they need
not be complete; we frequently infer only one or
two conclusions about another from his or her
actions. At other times our interpretations are
minimal, consisting largely of, for instance, an
emotional discomfort provoked by the actions of the
other. It is important to remember that the inter-
pretations a person makes of another may be in-
complete and fragmentary, and some of the future
consequences 'that were discussed in. the previous
sections may not occur.
Still, as the symbolic interactionists remind us,
actions always require interpretations before people
can react to them, so some interpretation always
occurs. And sometimes the interpretations are suffi-
ciently detailed to generate future consequences. If
the target has interpreted the perceiver's behavior
as due to the dispositions of the perceiver, then the
impression of the perceiver is apt to influence the
target's behavior toward the perceiver in later en-
counters, possibly even in situations very different
from that involved in the original interaction. For
example, after a brief encounter with the perceiver
in a seminar situation, the target may conclude
that the perceiver is a warm person. Hence the
target may now be more likely to greet the perceiver
when encountered in other settings. One of the
872 • OCTOBER 1980 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
topics it will be important to address in future
research is the conditions that lead to drawing
complex attributions versus fragmentary and fleet-
ing nonconscious or emotional reactions.
Four possible categories of attribution may be
used by the target to account for the perceiver's
actions.
DISPOSITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE PERCEIVER
Most obviously, an attribution may be made
directly to the perceiver. For instance, Word et al.
(1974) found that subjects rated an interviewer
who behaved in a distant manner as less friendly
than one who behaved in a more immediate manner.
S. C. Jones and Pahitch (1971) found that male
targets eventually came to like male perceivers who
had behaved cooperatively with them and to dislike
perceivers who had bargained competitively with
them.3 This experiment is an interesting one in
that it illustrates several steps in the general inter-
action sequence. A perceiver is originally led to
believe that a target individual either likes or dis-
likes him or her. The perceiver then initiates co-
operative or competitive behavior. As a result of
the perceiver's behavior, the target in fact comes to
like or to dislike the perceiver.
Once the target comes to this kind of general-
ization about the perceiver, that expectation can
influence his or her behavior toward the perceiver
in a variety of other future situations. Further-
more, the disposition attributed to the perceiver
may be generalized so as to be considered character-
istic of anyone who falls within the same category
membership as the perceiver. For example, a
child's first experience with a teacher may lead to
generalizations about the ways in which all teachers
behave.
3
Interestingly, the effect did not occur with respect to
female dyads, despite evidence that the liking manipula-
tion was effective for females. S. C. Jones and Panitch
(1971) reported data showing that female perceivers were
less likely than male perceivers to translate their reported
liking or disliking into cooperative or competitive behavior
toward the target, and also that female targets were less
likely than male targets to interpret cooperative or
competitive behavior as stemming from the perceiver's lik-
ability or dislikability. Although the reason for the sex
difference is unclear, the data do demonstrate the necessity
of the mediating processes. Only when the manipulation
led to differential game behavior did the target, in fact,
come to like or dislike the perceiver.
ATTRIBUTIONS TO THE SITUATION
The target may make attributions to elements of the
situation rather than to dispositions of the other
actor. Such an attribution appears particularly
likely to occur when the target is attempting to
understand the nature of the situational forces. For
instance, a subject in the Schachter (1959) fear
and affiliation studies, on observing the fear reac-
tions of another subject, may conclude not that the
other subject is a fearful person but that the sit-
uation in which they both find themselves is gen-
erally a fear-provoking one. This kind of situation
attribution will affect the target's present and future
behavior in that setting, and if the specific setting
is perceived as representative of a more general class
of settings, then the target person develops expecta-
tions about all of those settings. A child whose
first classroom is a formal and strictly disciplined
one may conclude that this is the behavior required
in all classrooms and may have trouble responding
in less structured situations. As this example sug-
gests, setting generalizations and role generalizations
can be very similar. In one, all settings of a cer-
tain kind are seen as requiring certain behavior; in
the other, all people of a certain category are
expected to behave in a certain way.
THE TARGET'S SELF-ATTRIBUTIONS
The target can be aware that the perceiver's actions
toward him or her may be based on some character-
istic of himself or herself. The characteristic may
be a personal one, or it may be a function of cate-
gory membership. A person may be aware, for
instance, of appearing formal in initial contact
situations and may judge that the formal reaction
received from the perceiver was elicited by his or
her own formality. Or a black person may be
aware that some whites may initially exhibit distant
behavior because of his or her skin color. Of course,
a good deal of research on actor-observer differences
suggests that individuals too readily draw disposi-
tional attributions about other individuals. This
suggests that individuals are likely to minimize their
own role as causal agents in generating the actions
of other individuals. However, research (e.g.,
Arkin & Duval, 1975) has demonstrated that this
process, is by no means total or irreversible; people
are sometimes aware that they cause other people's
actions, or can be made to be so aware.
If the target regards something about himself or
herself or his or her category membership as a
cause of the perceiver's behavior, then this needs to
be dealt with in future interactions with the per-
ceiver. On one hand, the target may not accept the
validity of that conclusion. Therefore, the target
may attempt to counter-act and change the per-
ceiver's initial. impressions. Or as Mead (1934)
and Cooley (1900) have pointed out, the target
may come to accept the self mirrored in the
perceiver's actions.
COMPLEX ATTRIBUTIONS
More complex attributions about the meaning of
the perceiver's action are also possible. By and
large they involve attributing the cause of the per-
ceiver's action to interactions of the three deter-
minants already discussed. A Person X Situation
explanation could occur such that the target decides
that the perceiver responds to situations of one type
in a particular manner. For instance, the target
may conclude that the perceiver reacts to unstruc-
tured situations with anxiety. Alternatively, the
target may conclude that the perceiver's actions are
a result of an interaction between the target and the
situation. That is, the target, decides that he or
she, in the particular type of interaction setting,
caused the perceiver to act a certain way. A black.
personnel manager may be aware that many indi-
viduals may react with anxiety when they meet
him or her in an employment interview.
All of these interactional attributions for the
perceiver's behavior create expectancies about the
repetition of that behavior in at least some future
settings. Because they are interactional rather
than main effect expectancies, they apply to more
limited classes of situations. Instead of expecting
another individual to react to all situations with
anxiety, for instance, we might expect him or her
to react with anxiety to all situations in which he
or she is confronted with a black authority figure.
Insofar as the current scientific conceptualizations
of human personality are more consistent with this
personality-situation explanation of human action
(Mischel, 1968, 1973), it might be argued that
these interactionist generalizations are the more
sophisticated ones for people to draw. But
empirically, this remains to be seen. There is
strikingly little research on the target's interpreta-
tion of the perceiver's action in an interaction
setting.
The Target Responds
Up to this point, we have examined the perceiver's
formation of an expectancy, subsequent behavior
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 • 873
 toward the target person, and the target's interpre-
tation of that behavior. This interpretation is
relevant to the manner in which the target will
respond.
If the target believes that situational factors or
dispositional attributes of the perceiver were
responsible for the perceiver's action, the response
may be quite different than if the target had decided
that it was something about himself or herself that
evoked the perceiver's action. The target's response
is likely to be coordinated to that oi the perceiver if
situational forces or the perceiver's dispositions
have been identified as causal. Both the original
situational forces and the perceiver are still present.
In these cases the target is likely to reciprocate the
perceiver's action. Approach behavior from the
perceiver will lead to reciprocal approach behavior
from the target; avoidance behavior will produce
avoidance responses. If the perceiver has behaved
competitively, as in the S. C. Jones and Panitch
(1971) and Snyder and Swann (1978) studies
involving a game situation, then the target responds
competitively. If the perceiver behaves in a'
friendly, sociable manner, as did the male subjects
who were led to believe that they were conversing
with a physically, attractive female did'in a study
by Snyder et al. (1977), then the target responds
in a sociable manner. It is important to recognize
that in each of the above studies, the target's
reciprocation of the perceiver's behavior confirmed
the perceiver's expectancy. In the first two studies,
the target did act, as the perceiver expected, in
either'a hostile or a nonhostile manner. In the
Snyder et al. study, the ostensibly physically attrac-
tive female did objectively behave (as scored by
judges blind to experimental condition) in a more
sociable manner than the ostensibly unattractive
female—just as the male perceiver's stereotype of
"what is beautiful is good" led him to expect (cf,
Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972).
More subtle nonverbal behaviors are also apt to
be reciprocated. For example, Rosenfeld (1967)
found that subjects reciprocated with more smiles
and positive head nods when treated in that way by
the experimenter. Word et al. (1974) also found
reciprocation of nonverbal behavior. They trained
interviewers to behave in a manner that approx-
imated the behavior exhibited toward the black
or white applicants in their earlier experiment.
That is, the interviewer sat closer to the applicant,
made fewer speech errors, arid spent more time with
the applicant in an immediate condition than in a
nonimmediate condition. Subjects reciprocated
874 • OCTOBER 1980 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
interviewer behavior. Subjects facing the immedi-
ate interviewers took more proximate positions and
made fewer speech errors than did nonimmediate
subjects. Furthermore, raters blind to experimental
condition judged the nonimmediate subjects as less
calm and composed and less adequate for the job
than the immediate subjects.
In most studies of interpersonal expectancy
effect, the target's responses to the perceiver bear
some reciprocal relationship to the perceiver's
actions. On examination, this relationship proves
to be of two sorts: first, categorically similar
responses, for example, smiles to smiles or more
precise speech as a response to a formal interview
setting (both of the latter are thought to be
indexes of the underlying category of social dis-
tance) ; second, responses that are different in kind
from the initial actions that provoked them, for
example, flight responses from aggressive actions or
distancing responses from what are perceived as
sexual advances. As the last example indicates, it
is not simply the interpreted action of the perceiver
that determines the target's response, but the
perceiver's actions as they impact on 'the target's
goals and motives. Approach behavior will lead to
withdrawal, not approach, if the target does not
want to be approached.
One valid criticism of the self-confirming proph-
ecy literature is that this fact is frequently ignored,
leading to an unnecessarily static account of dyadic
interaction. In some areas of expectancy-confirma-
tion research, the mediating mechanisms are begin-
ning to be specified and researched. For instance,
Rosnow (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 19 75; Rosnow &
Arkin, 1973) and Finkelstein (1976) have pointed
out that experimenter expectancy effects require not
only the experimenter's signal of expectancies but
the subject's attention to and comprehension of
those signals. Further, the subject may be moti-
vated to go along with or do the opposite of the
experimenter's demands and, finally, may or may
not have the capability of doing what he or she is
motivated to do. Similar complex mediating models
will be needed in other areas of interpersonal inter-
action research.
Unfortunately, little research has been conducted
to examine variables that might determine whether
the target will accept or attempt to dispel the per-
ceiver's impression (cf. Gurwitz & Topol, 1978, for
one such attempt and Baumeister & Jones, 1978,
for another). However, two factors would appear
to be critical in determining the nature of that
response: (1) the importance of the perceiver to
the target and (2) the target's beliefs about the might respond if uncertain about the fit of the
validity of the perceiver's impression. If the per- perceiver's impression (cf. Festinger, 1954). Par-
ceiver is someone whose opinion is simply not im- ticularly if the perceiver is a significant other who
portant to the target, then the target is unlikely to has some expertise and familiarity with making
be concerned with attempting to dispel the impres- judgments of the sort in question, the target may
sion. But if the perceiver's impression is important accept the perceiver's impression and come to
to the target, then the target may attempt to dispel believe it. For example, after repeated communica-
the perceiver's impression if he or she does not tions from a professor that he or she is not suited
believe it to be self-descriptive. Farina, Allen, and for graduate school, a student may come to believe
Saul (1968) empirically examined this hypothesis that he or she in fact is not. If others have reacted
and found that subjects who believed that their to the student in the same manner, then the stu-
partner considered them stigmatized in some man- dent is all the more apt to accept that self-
ner (e.g., mentally ill) worked harder at a cooper- definition (cf. Cooley, 1900; Kelley, 1967; Mead,
ative task. Similarly, Lambert, Libman, and Poser 1934). In such cases, confirmatory behavior from
(1960) found that both Jewish and Christian sub- the target may occur (Miller, Brickman, & Bolen,
jects increased their pain tolerance after being told 1975).
that their groups were typically inferior in regard to
this attribute. The Perceiver Interprets the
The target, on the other hand, may find the Target's Response
perceiver's impression to be relatively accurate. In
The target's response is likely to have implications
such cases in which the perceiver's impression is
for the perceiver's image of the target. One pos-
congruent with the target's own self-image, the
sibility is that without confirming or disconfirming
target is likely to behave in a manner that main-
the original expectancy, the target's action may lead
tains the perceiver's assessment. For example,
the perceiver to arrive at a set of new expectancies
Baumeister, Cooper, and Skib (1979) found that a
regarding the target's behavior. On the other
female subject who was led to believe that she
hand, the target's action may have direct implica-
possessed, and who was believed by a perceiver to
tions specific to that original expectancy. In an
possess, a positive (but bogus) trait performed
objective sense, that is, as interpreted by people
very poorly on a subsequent anagram test if she was
who hold no initial expectancy, the target's re-
led to believe that such poor performance was con-
sponse may be congruent or incongruent with the
sistent with this positive trait and if her perform-
perceiver's expectancy and, therefore, may confirm
ance was to be known by the perceiver. Thus
or disconfirm the perceiver's expectancy.
given a favorable impression, the target sought to
maintain that impression, even if it meant doing
CONFIRMING BEHAVIORS
poorly on the task.
Further evidence consistent with this notion is We have already considered some evidence regard-
provided by some research on the effects of social ing "objective" confirmation of the perceiver's ex-
labeling. In an intriguing field experiment, Kraut pectancy. The Word et al. (1974) and Snyder et
(1973) also found evidence demonstrating effects al. (1977) studies are instances in which naive
of social labeling. Donors to a first door-to-door raters judged target behavior to be characterized
campaign were either labeled as charitable by the by the same qualities that the perceiver had ex-
campaign worker or not labeled at all, whereas non- pected. Many of the teacher expectancy studies
donors were either labeled as uncharitable or not (e.g., Meichenbaum et al., 1969) demonstrate that
labeled. The behavioral evidence on which the differential teacher behavior as a consequence of
label was based apparently led subjects to accept teacher expectancy produces expectancy confirma-
the label as veridical. Subjects labeled charitable tion on objective tests of achievement.
gave more, and subjects labeled uncharitable less, How might the perceiver interpret such objective
to a second charity than did their respective control confirmation? Rationally, the perceiver should
groups. Thus, a label congruent with the target's recognize his or her own role in producing the tar-
own past behavior increased the extent to which get's behavior and should attribute the target's
later donation behavior was consistent with earlier behavior to his or her own earlier action. How-
behavior. ever, a great deal of research suggests that this
It is also interesting to speculate how the target is not always the case. Observers appear to over-

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 • 875

 estimate the causal role of dispositional qualities
of an actor (E. E. Jones, 1976; E. E. Jones & Nis-
bett, 1971; Ross, 1977). Even when explicitly
made aware of some obvious situational pressures
operating on an actor, observers draw dispositional
inferences regarding the. actor (e.g., E. E. Jones,
1979; E, E. Jones & Harris, 19,67; Snyder & Jones,
1974). Basically, perceivers fail to correct ade-
quately for the constraints that a social role or
situation may impose on an actor (e.g., Ross,
Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977).
This fundamental attribution error, as Ross
(1977) has termed observers' tendency to over-
estimate the role of dispositional factors and to
underestimate the causal significance of situational
forces, has implications for the manner in which
our perceiver will view the target's response. The
perceiver is likely to underestimate the role of his
or her own earlier action (e.g., negative nonverbal
behavior or friendly conversational demeanor) in
determining the target's response. Instead, the
perceiver is apt to conclude that the target's be-
havior was due to, and is an accurate reflection of,
the target's disposition. The target is in fact
incompetent for the job, friendly and sociable, aloof
and hostile, or whatever in the eyes of the
perceiver.
DISCONFIRMING BEHAVIORS
What if the target's behavior is not in any objective
sense congruent with the perceiver's expectancy?
Will the perceiver consider his or her original
expectancy disconfirrhed and consequently modify
the assessment of the target person? Research is
necessary to identify under what conditions such
modification will occur. The available research
suggests, however, that such modification on the
basis of a single instance of disconfirmation is
rare. And it appears that change may be all the
rarer, given the behavioral commitment that the
perceiver may experience as a consequence of his
or her action (Kiesler^ 1971). Recent research by
Ross, Lepper, and Hubbard (1975) and Ross, Lep-
per, Strack, and Steinmetz (1977) documents the
perseverance of initial impressions. After drawing
inferences about some target person, observers
learned that the information on which they had
based those inferences was bogus. Despite this
discrediting of the information, the original impres-
sion was found to persevere to a significant degree.
Given that an initial impression perseveres
despite the discrediting of the original information,
876 • OCTOBER 1980 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
it appears that an initial impression will be all the
more likely to persevere in the face of new infor-
mation that is only inferentially inconsistent with
the original information. Thus the "perceiver may
not abandon the original assessment even-if the
target's subsequent actions inferentially discon-
firm that initial impression. How, then, might the
perceiver interpret this disconfirming behavior from
the target? A number of studies suggest the exist-
ence of an impression-maintenance 'attributional
bias, such that the perceiver attributes expectation-
consistent behavior to the dispositional qualities of
the target and expectation-inconsistent behavior to
situational forces. For example, Regan, Straus, and
Fazio (1974) found that a skilled performance
(or, in a second experiment, a charitable act) on
the part of a liked other was attributed to the dis-
positional characteristics of that other, whereas the
same behavior by a disliked other was attributed
to situational forces. Conversely, poor perform-
ance was attributed externally for liked others and
internally for disliked others. Similar patterns of
data have been found regarding the maintenance of
expectations concerning physically attractive and
unattractive children (Dion, 1972), racial stereo-
types (Duncan, 1976), sex role stereotypes (Deaux,
1976), and previous trait ascriptions (Bell, Wick-
lund, Manko, & Larkin, 1976; Hayden & Mischel,
1976).
Apparently, then, even if a target attempts to
dispel a misperception by working hard to perform
skillfully or by complying with a request to per-
form a charitable act, he or she may not be given
full credit by the perceiver for such action. Instead,
the perceiver will consider such behavior as unreflec-
tive of the target's disposition and as due to sit-
uational pressures. The end result, from the point
of view of the perceiver, is that the original im-
pression still appears to be accurate.
AMBIGUOUS BEHAVIORS
Of course, many behaviors by the target will not
be easily classifiable as confirming or disconfirming
of the perceiver's expectancy in any objective sense.
Many actions are ambiguous and open to varied
interpretation. A great deal of research suggests
that ambiguous behaviors tend to be perceived in
a biased manner. For example, Hastorf and Can-
tril (1954) found that Dartmouth and Princeton
students viewed infractions during a football game
between their two teams very differently. Duncan
(1976) found that an ambiguous shove was rated
as more violent by white subjects when a black
performed the act than when a white did. The
interpretation placed on such ambiguous behaviors
is usually consistent with the perceiver's initial
expectation.
Additional evidence for biased perception pro-
cesses is provided by an interesting series of experi-
ments by Zadny and Gerard (1974). The findings
suggest the operation of an information screening
process during the observation of an actor. Inten-
tions earlier ascribed to the actor apparently
simplify observation by limiting the actions that
are processed. Intent-consistent actions are better
recorded and, consequently, better remembered.
For example, after being told that an actor was
either a psychology, chemistry, or music major,
observers witnessed a skit involving the actor.
Elements in the skit appropriate to the actor's pur-
ported major were better recalled by all three ob-
server groups than inappropriate elements (see also
Bruner, 1957). The implication is that infor-
mational selectivity will lead our perceiver to
process and recall best those elements of the target's
ambiguous action that are congruent with his or
her expectancy. (See also Snyder & Frankel, 1976.)
As a, result of such biased perception processes, the
perceiver is likely to believe that his or her expec-
tancy has been confirmed.
The Target Perceives His or Her
Own Action
The target's response may have objectively con-
firmed the perceiver's expectancy. The perceiver
is likely to have interpreted that action, regardless
of its confirmatory or disconfirmatory nature, as
consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with his
or her impression of the target. But how will the
target interpret his or her own action?
Much of the data we have reviewed suggests that
the target's response was, in some sense, forced by
the perceiver's initial behavior. Furthermore, re-
search on the divergent perceptions of actors and
observers suggests that actors are typically more
attuned to the situational causes of behavior than
observers are. These findings would seem to sug-
gest that the target would attribute his or her
response to the situation. However, the actor-
observer difference is A relative one; actors tend
to attribute more causality to situational factors
than do observers. Yet actors, too, tend to under-
estimate the behavioral limitations that social or
situational roles place on them. An interesting
experiment by Ross et al. (1977) suggests that
actors who know they are assigned on an arbitrary
basis to a disadvantageous social role fail to make
adequate allowances for that arbitrary role assign-
ment when evaluating themselves relative to the
individual arbitrarily assigned to the advantageous
role.
Given this underestimation of the power of sit-
uational forces, a target person may consider his
or her behavior to be relatively self-revealing. A
conclusion that the behavior is self-revealing is
particularly apt to occur to the extent that the
target perceives himself or herself as having freely
chosen to perform the behavior. The target is
likely to infer attitudes from that action via either
a dissonance (Festinger^ 1957) or a self-perception
process (Bern, 1972). These attitudes inferred by
the target might be about (a) his or her beliefs
concerning the particular class of situations in
which the behavior occurred, (b) his or her beliefs
concerning the perceiver or the category of which
the perceiver is a member, or (c) his or her beliefs
concerning himself or herself.
On the basis of his or her behavior, the target
may have learned about his or her attitude toward
that particular situation. Such an attitude may
guide behavior in similar situations. In the Kraut
(1973) study described earlier, donors and non-
donors who were respectively labeled as charitable
and uncharitable apparently inferred an attitude
toward door-to-door charity campaigns. These
attitudes influenced their reactions in a later
similar situation. Along the same lines, research on
compliance via the foot-in-the-door technique sug-
gests that individuals who comply with an initial
request self-perceive an attitude toward the situa-
tion ("I am the type of person who cooperates with
surveyors or campaigners"), which leads them to
comply with later requests (Freedman & Fraser,
1966; Seligman, Bush, & Kirsch, 1976; Snyder &
Cunningham, 1975). These studies represent in-
stances in which individuals have inferred from
their behavior an attitude toward a particular class
of situations. In effect, they have learned and
internalized a mode of response (or, in Abelson's,
1976, terminology, a script) to a class of situations.
As a second possibility, behavioral inference may
lead the target person to form or polarize his or
her attitude toward the perceiver (e.g., Davis &
Jones, 1960). For instance, after interpreting a
perceiver's hostile behavior as due to ;the disposi-
tional qualities, of the perceiver, a target may be-
come all the more convinced that the perceiver is
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 • 877
 a hostile person on observing his or her own hostile
response to the perceiver. ("I wouldn't have re-
sponded in that way if he [she] were not such a
hostile person.") Such an attitude is apt to influ-
ence, future behaviors toward the perceiver and
may result in continuing confirmation of the per-
ceiver's expectancy of the target and of the target's
expectancy of the perceiver.
As a third alternative, the target might infer
from his or her behavioral response something about
himself or herself. By self-attributing the response,
the target may conclude that he or she is the kind
of person who typically behaves iii that manner, or
at least is the kind of person who behaves in that
manner in situations of that sort. Snyder and
Swann (1978) found that targets who were led
to believe that their hostile response to a perceiver
reflected a disposition acted in a hostile way toward
a new partner. This finding represents an exten-
sion of the traditional self-fulfilling prophecy—one
in which the target ascribes to himself or herself
the very qualities the perceiver expected. This
self-ascription, then, prompts the -target to behave
congruently with the perceiver's original expectancy,
even in interaction with different others or in differ-
ent situations.4
Clearly the cross-situational generality of such
self-ascriptions is in need of further investigation.
Nevertheless, some research does suggest that cross-
situational generality of a self-ascription can occur.
Comer and Laird (1975) found that subjects who
agreed to perform an Unpleasant task (in this case,
eating a worm) tended to draw one of three infer-
ences from their agreement: (1) Some subjects con-
cluded that eating a worm was not actually all that
unpleasant; (2) some subjects concluded that they
were brave and heroic individuals; and (3) some
subjects concluded that they deserved to suffer.
These latter two groups of subjects, then, attributed
their compliance to some aspect of themselves.
These self-ascriptions were found to affect later
behavior in a different situation. Subjects were
asked to choose between a task in which shocks
were to be administered to the subject and a
neutral task. A greater number of those subjects
who had modified their conceptions of themselves
(Groups 2 and 3 above) chose to shock themselves
than did subjects who changed their concep-
tion of the worm (Group 1). Thus self-ascriptions
inferred from behavior in one situation affected be-
havior in a new situation. Such general changes in
a target's self-concept can be the end result of a
878 • OCTOBER 1980 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
perceiver-target interaction that follows the steps
we have outlined.
Conclusion
By examining each of the steps in a general inter-
action sequence, we have noted a number of differ-
ent forms of expectancy maintenance and confir-
mation. The classic self-fulfilling prophecy repre-
sents only one such form and only one possible
outcome of an interaction sequence. Many related
outcomes may accrue, however, from the inter-
action. Let us now review and summarize this
variety of expectancy-maintaining and expectancy-
confirming phenomena. ,
1. On the basis of expectancy, the perceiver may
avoid or terminate action with the target. Ter-
mination of the sequence by a perceiver who holds
some power over the target poses a particularly
acute problem for the target because of the pro-
found implications it may have on the target's
life. Such termination permits the perceiver to
maintain his or her impression of the target and
effectively prohibits the target from changing that
impression.
2. Although the target person's response to the
perceiver's action is actually quite ambiguous, the
perceiver may interpret the ambiguous response in
a biased manner, concluding that the target's be-
havior actually confirmed the expectancy.
3. Despite the fact that the target's response
objectively disconfirms the perceiver's impression
of the target, the impression may persevere. The
perceiver may attribute the target's disconfirming
behavior to situational forces, resulting in expec-
tancy maintenance.
4. The target's response to the perceiver's expec-
tancy-guided behavior may objectively confirm the
perceiver's expectancy. That is, naive observers
with no expectancy regarding the target would
interpret the target's response in a manner congru-
ent with the perceiver's expectations. Such objec-
tive confirmation may occur (a) because the target
4
It should be noted, however, that the second inter-
action in the Snyder and Swann (1978) study occurred
in the same situation as did the target's original response.
Hence we do not know whether the target concluded that
he was generally a hostile person or (perhaps more likely)
that it was appropriate to behave in a hostile fashion in
the confines of competitive .laboratory games. To the
extent that the latter is true, the Snyder and Swann study
may actually represent an example of subjects' inferring
an attitude and learning a mode of response toward a
particular situation.
 responds in kind to behavior from the perceiver, or
(b) because the target accepts as accurate the
assessment implied by the perceiver's action and
continues to act in terms of that assessment.
5. In the ease of objective expectancy confirma-
tion from the target, the perceiver underestimates
his or her own role in producing that particular
response from the target and attributes the response
to the dispositional qualities of the target person.
Thus the perceiver believes that the target con-
firmed the expectancy.
6. The target's self-perception of his or her
behavioral response may lead the target to infer a
new attitude toward (a) the situation, which may
prompt similar confirming behaviors in later
similar situations; (b) the perceiver, which may
prompt expectancy-confirming behavior in later
interactions with the perceiver; or (c) himself or
herself, which may represent a modification of
self-concept and may influence behavior in a variety
of later situations. In each of these cases, and par-
ticularly in the last one, the target has in some way
been modified as a result of the interaction sequence.
The target has discovered something new about
himself or herself. He or she has formed new
attitudes, polarized former attitudes, or altered
some aspect of his or her self-image.
Each of the above interaction effects involves the
maintenance and/or confirmation of the perceiver's
original impression of the target person. The
fourth outcome in the list—target behavior that
objectively confirms the perceiver's expectancy—is
the interaction outcome that fulfills Merton's
(1948) definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As
a result of the perceiver's expectancy and sub-
sequent behavior toward the target, the target
person responds in a manner .that objectively con-
firms the expectancy. Generally speaking, such an
interaction outcome involves the target person's
reciprocation of approach or avoidance behaviors
on the part of the perceiver. Given that the per-
.ceiver's original expectancy involved some misper-
ception, the interaction has resulted, as Merton
noted, in a "reign of error."
The remaining potential outcomes of the inter-
action sequence either (a) fall short of the tradi-
tional meaning of the term self-fulfilling prophecy
in that maintenance or confirmation occurs only
in the eyes of the perceiver, or (b) go beyond that
traditional definition in that the target person has
undergone some longer term change. But even
those outcomes that fall short of Merton's definition
have important practical effects on both the per-
ceiver and the target. The first set of outcomes
(Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 5) involve perceptions on
the part of the perceiver that maintain or confirm
the assessment of the target person. If the per-
ceiver is in a position of power over the target, then
his or her actions can affect the life chances of the
target, causing over the long term some very real
changes in the target person that are finally con-
sistent with the originally erroneous perceptions of
the perceiver. The child assigned to a slow reading
group may have less opportunities to learn high-
level reading skills (Rist, 1970). Mental hospital
patients, the normality of their actions unnoticed
or distorted by the custodial staff, may continue to
be confined to the mental hospital (Rosenhan,
1973). A black person, denied a job because
responses to the unconscious distancing behavior
of the interviewer were perceived by that inter-
viewer as signaling hostility, may become hostile
after a series of such rebuffs. All of these examples,
and many more that could be adduced, indicate the
potential social importance of those processes that
occur to distort the general social interaction
sequence, yet fall short of fitting the definition of
the self-fulfilling prophecy.
The sixth'form of expectancy confirmation listed
earlier represents an extension of the idea of the
self-fulfilling prophecy to a process that many have
felt is the major source of the social importance of
the research. Not only has the behavior of the
target been modified by the perceiver's expectancy,
but the target's interpretation of that behavior may
lead to a change in the self-concept and future
behavior of the target. Thus the perceiver's expec-
tancy has exerted an influence that extends far
beyond the original interaction and can significantly
affect the life of the target person—perhaps for the
better, but as many who do this research fear, often
for the worse.
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. Script processing in attitude formation and
decision-making. In J. S. Carroll & J. N. Payne (Eds.),
Cognition and social behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,
1976.
Archibald, W. P. Alternative explanations for self-fulfilling
prophecy. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 74-84.
Arkin, R. M., & Duval, S. Focus of attention and causal
attributions of actors and observers. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 427^38.
Baumeister, R. F., Cooper, J., & Skib, B. A. Inferior per-
formance as a selective response to expectancy: Taking a
dive to make a point. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1979, 37, 424-432.
Baumeister, R. F., & Jones, E. E. When self-presentation
is constrained by the target's knowledge: Consistency
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 • 879
 and compensation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1978, 36, 608-618.
Bell, L. G., Wicklund, R. A., Manko, G., & Larkin, C.
When unexpected behavior is attributed to the environ-
ment. Journal of Research in Personality, 1976, 10, 316-
327. - .
Bern, D. J. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6).
New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Blumer, H. Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Brigham, J. C. Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin,
1971, 76, 15-38.
Bruner, J. S. On perceptual readiness. Psychological
Review, 1957, 64, 123-152.
Chaikin, A. L., & Cooper, J. Evaluation as a function of
. correspondence and hedonic relevance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 257-264.
Chaikin, A. L., Sigler, F., & Derlega, V. J. Nonverbal
mediators of teacher expectancy effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 144-149.
Comer, R., & Laird, J. D. Choosing to suffer as a con-
sequence of expecting to suffer: Why do people do it?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32,
92-101.
Copley, C. H. Human nature in the social order. New
York: Scribner's, 1900.
Cooper, H. Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher
expectation communication and performance influence.
Review of Educational Research, 1979, 49, 389-410.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. The formation and persistence
of attitudes that support intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The psychology of inter-
group relations. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1979.
Crano, W. D., & Mellon, P. M. Causal influence of teach-
ers' expectations on children's academic performance: A
cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1978, 70, 39-49.
Davis, K. E., & Jones, E. E. Changes in interpersonal per-
ception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1960, 61, 402-410.
Deaux, K. Sex: A perspective on the attribution process.
In J. H, Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New
directions in attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale,
N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976.
DeFleur, M. L., & Westie, F. R. Verbal attitudes and
overt act: An experiment on the salience of attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 1958, 23, 667-673.
Dion, K. K. Physical attractiveness and evaluation of
children's transgressions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 207-213.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. What is beautiful
is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1972, 24, 285-290.
Duncan, B. L. Differential social perception and attribution
of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereo-
typing of blacks. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1976, 34, 590-598.
Dusek, J. B. Do teachers bias children's learning? Review
of Educational Research, 1975, 45, 661-684.
Elashoff, J. D., & Snow, R. E. Pygmalion reconsidered.
Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1971.
Farina, A., Allen, J. G., & Saul, B. B. B. The role of the
stigmatized person in affecting social relationships.
Journal of Personality, 1968, 36, 169-182.
Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes.
Human Relations, 1954, 7, 114-140.
Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1957.
Finkelstein, J. C; Experimenter expectancy effects. Jour-
nal of Communication, 1976,26, 31-41.
880 • OCTOBER 1980 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. Compliance without
pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 195-202.
Gurwitz,~S. B., & Topol, B. .Determinants of confirming
and disconfirming responses to negative social labels.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1978, 14,
31-42.
Hamilton, D. A. Cognition-attributional analysis of stereo-
typing. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 12). New York: Academic Press,
1979.
Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. They sawl a game: A case
study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1954,40,129-134. ,
Hayden, T., & Mischel, W. Maintaining trait consistency
in the resolution of behavioral inconsistency: The wolf
in sheep's clothing? Journal of Personality, 1976, 44,
109-132.
Heider, F. Social perception and phenomenal -causality.
Psychological Review, 1944, 51, 358-374.
Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley, 1958,
Jensen, A. R. How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic
achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 1969, 39, 1-
123,
Jones, E. E. How do people perceive the causes of be-
havior? American Scientist, 1976/, 64, 300-305.
Jones, E. E. The rocky road from acts to dispositions.
American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 107-117.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. From acts to dispositions:
The attribution process in, person perception. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965.
Jones, E. E., & DeCharms, R. Changes in social percep-
tions as a function of the personal relevance of behavior.
Sociometry, 1957, 20, 75-85.
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. The attribution of attitudes.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1967, 3, 1-24.
Jones, E. E., & McGilh's, D. Correspondent inferences and
the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In J.
H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. 'F. Kidd (Eds.), New direc-
tions in attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Erlbaum, 1976.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and the observer:
Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Morris-
town, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1971.
Jones, R. A. Self-fulfilling prophecies: Social, psychological,
and physiological effects of expectancies. Hillsdale,' N.J.:
Erlbaum, 1977.
Jones, S. C., & Panitch, D. The self-fulfilling prophecy and
interpersonal attraction. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1971, 7, 356-366.
Kelley, H. H. The warm-cold variable in first impressions
of persons. Journal of Personality, 1950, 18, 431-439.
Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In
D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
(Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.
Kiesler, C. A. The psychology of commitment. New York:
Academic Press; 1971.
King, A. S. Self-fulfilling prophecies in training the hard
core: Supervisors' expectations and the underprivileged
workers' performance. Social 'Scientist Quarterly, 1971,
52, 369-378.
Kraut, R. E. Effects of social labeling on giving to charity.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9,
551-562.
Lambert, W. E., Libman, E., & Poser, E. G. The effect of
increased salience of a* membership group on pain toler-
ance. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28, 350-357.
Lanzetta, J. T., & Hannah, J. E. Reinforcing behavior of
 "naive" trainers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1969, 11, 245-252.
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. Human information
processing: An introduction to psychology. New York:
Academic Press, 1977.
Mead, G. H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1934.
Mehrabian, A. Significance of posture and position in the
communication of attitude and status relationships.
Psychological Bulktin, 1969, 71, 359-312.
Meichenbaum, D. H., Bowers, K. S., & Ross, R. R. A
behavioral analysis of teacher expectancy effect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 306-316.
Merton, R. K. The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch
Review, 1948, 8, 193-210.
Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. New
York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1957.
Miller, D. T., Norman, S. A., & Wright, E. Distortion in
person perception as a consequence of the need for
effective control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1978, 36, 598-607.
Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. Attribution versus
persuasion as means for modifying behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 430-441.
Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York:
Wiley, 1968.
Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning recon-
ceptualization of personality. Psychological Review,
1973, SO, 252-283.
Newcomb, T. M. Autistic hostility and social reality.
Human Relations, 1947, 1, 69-86.
Palardy, J. What teachers believe—What children achieve.
Elementary School Journal, 1969, 69, 370-374.
Regan, D.' T., Straus, E., & Fazio, R. Liking and the
attribution process. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1974, 10, 385-397.
Rist, R. C. Student social class and teacher expectations:
The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard
Educational Review, 1970, 40, 411-451.
Rosenfeld, H. M. Nonverbal reciprocation of approval:
An experimental analysis. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1967, 3, 102-111.
Rosenhan, D. L. On being sane in insane places. Science,
1973, 179, 250-258.
Rosenthal, R. On the social psychology of the self-fulfilling
prophecy: Further evidence for Pygmalion effects and
their mediating mechanisms. New York: MSS Modular
Publications, Module 53, 1974.
Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research.
New York: Irvington, 1976.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the classroom.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. The volunteer subject.
New York: Wiley, 1975.
Rosnow, R. L., & Arkin, L. S. The mediation of artifacts
in behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1973, 9, 181-201.
Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:
Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
10). New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. Social
roles, social control, and biases in social-perception
processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1977, 35, 485-494.
View publication stats
Ross, L., Lepper, M., & Hubbard, M. Perseverance in self-
perception and social perception: Biased attributional
processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 880-892.
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., Strack, F., & Steinmetz, J. Social
explanation and social expectation: Effects of real and
hypothetical explanations on subjective likelihood. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 817-
829.
Schachter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959.
Schneider, D. J. Implicit personality theory: A review.
Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79, 294^309.
Schneider, D. J., Hastorf, A. H., & Ellsworth, P. C. Person
perception. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
Seaver, W. B. Effects of naturally induced teacher expec-
tancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1973, 28, 333-342.
Seligman, C., Bush, M., & Kirsch, K. Relationship between
compliance in the foot-in-the-door paradigm and size of
first request. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 1976, 33, 517-520.
Snyder, M. L., & Cunningham, M. R. To comply or not to
comply: Testing the self-perception explanation of the
"foot-in-the-door" phenomenon. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 64-67.
Snyder, M. L., & Frankel, A. Observer bias: A stringent
test of behavior engulfing the field. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 857-864.
Snyder, M. L., & Jones, E. E. Attitude attribution when
behavior is constrained. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1974, 10, 585-600.
Snyder, M. L., & Swann, W. B. Behavioral confirmation
in social interaction: From social perception to social
reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
1978, 14, 148-162.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. Social percep-
tion and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling
nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 656-666.
Sutherland, A., & Goldschmid, M. Negative teacher expec-
tation and I.Q. change in children with superior intellec-
tual potential. Child Development, 1974, 45, 852-856.
Thorndike, R. L. Review of Pygmalion in the classroom.
American Educational Research, 1968, 5, 708-711.
Warner, L. G., & DeFleur, M. L. Attitude as an inter-
actional concept: Social constraint and social distance as
intervening variables between attitudes and action.
American Sociological Review, 1969, 34, 153-169.
Wilkins, W. Self-fulfilling prophecy: Is there a phe-
nomenon to explain? Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84,
55-56.
Word, C. 0., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. The nonverbal
mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial
interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
1974, 10, 109-120.
Zadny, J., & Gerard, H. B. Attributed intentions of infor-
mational selectivity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1974, 10, 34-52.
Zanna, M. P., & Pack, S. J. On the self-fulfilling nature of
apparent sex differences in behavior. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 583-591.
Zanna, M. P., Sheras, P., Cooper, J., & Shaw, C. Pyg-
malion and Galatea: The interactive effect of teacher and
student expectancies. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1975, 11, 279-287.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • OCTOBER 1980 '881