Problems with the pygmalion effect and some proposed solutions

By Susan White, Edwin A. Locke. 2000

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5cae45cd1b2520dcc9d75f220d3cbc7168fc7104

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Gender Studies

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Self-efficacy intervention, job attitudes, and turnover: A field experiment with employees in role transition (2008, background): “Since researchers have indicated that interventions need to be shown to be effective through non-deceptive means (Eden, 1990; White & Locke, 2000), the non-training intervention in the present experiment used factual information.”
The Future in Mind: Aspirations and Forward-Looking Behaviour in Rural Ethiopia (2014, background): “In addition, other work suggests that interventions like ours, which provide role models with whom the person can identify, are e↵ective at improving self-e cacy (Bandura, 1997; White and Locke, 2000), so it is possible that our intervention will a↵ect such core self-evaluations.”
The Relevance and Viability of Subconscious Goals in the Workplace (2010, background): “…a “deceived” leader and subordinates (Eden, 2003), there is no reason to use deception in light of the multitude of studies (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Eden & Sulimani, 2002; White & Locke, 2000) that show the effectiveness of transparently increasing a person’s self-efficacy for performing a task.”
Moderating Role of Follower Characteristics With Transformational Leadership and Follower Work Engagement (2009, background): “Specifically, the theory posits that leaders’ expectations for their followers’ performance can subconsciously affect both leader behavior and follower performance (White & Locke, 2000).”
Boundary Conditions of the Galatea Effect: A Field Experiment and Constructive Replication (2004, background): “Therefore, researchers have advised that those conducting future self-fulfilling prophecy research seek to understand these boundary conditions, their effects, and how they might be overcome (Eden et al., 2000; White & Locke, 2000).”
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. (2002, unknown): “…ensuring adequate training to increase mastery that provides success experiences, (b) by role modeling or ﬁ nding models with whom the person can identify, and (c) through persuasive communication that expresses con ﬁ dence that the person can attain the goal (Bandura, 1997; White & Locke, 2000).”
Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior : a Pygmalion mechanism. (2017, unknown): “Nevertheless, having leaders’ positive expectations may not be enough to induce a Pygmalion process because employees are active agents in accepting expectations from leaders or not (e.g., Johanson, 1999; Karakowsky et al., 2012; Sutton & Woodman, 1989; White & Locke, 2000).”
Pygmalion and Employee Learning: The Role of Leader Behaviors (2009, background): “None of the previous Pygmalion training experiments reported by Eden et al. (2000) included goal setting in the experimental training condition, which might explain the somewhat unsuccessful outcomes of these experiments (see White & Locke, 2000).”
The nascent entrepreneurship hub: goals, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and start-up outcomes (2012, background): “Subsequent empirical findings in goal setting and task motivation research have also found that self-efficacy operates as a moderator between goals and performance (Bass 1985; Bandura 1997; White and Locke 2000; Locke and Latham 2002).”
Measurement of Transformational Leadership and its Relationship with Team Cohesion and Performance Level (2009, background): “With this effect, follower expectations and subsequently performance can be raised as an unintentional consequence of the Pygmalion effect (ie, through subconscious high expectations of the followers by the leader) or as a result of deliberate high expectancy communicated by a leader to the follower”