Editing Pygmalion effect (section)

==Criticism of the Pygmalion effect==

The educational psychologist [[Robert L. Thorndike]] described the poor quality of the Pygmalion study. The problem with the study was that the instrument used to assess the children's IQ scores was seriously flawed.<ref name="Thorndike">Thorndike, R.L. (1968). Reviewed work: Pygmalion in the classroom by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson. ''American Educational Research Journal, 5''(4), 708–711.</ref> The average reasoning IQ score for the children in one regular class was in the mentally disabled range, a highly unlikely outcome in a regular class in a garden variety school. In the end, Thorndike concluded that the Pygmalion findings were worthless. Quoting a colleague, Thorndike wrote about the measurement problems of the study in this way: "When the clock strikes thirteen, doubt is cast not only on the last stroke but also all that have gone before" (p. 710). It is more likely that the rise in IQ scores from the mentally disabled range was the result of [[regression toward the mean]], not teacher expectations. Moreover, a [[meta-analysis]] conducted by [[Stephen Raudenbush|Raudenbush]]<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.85|title=Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments|year=1984|last1=Raudenbush|first1=Stephen W.|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=76|pages=85–97}}</ref> showed that when teachers had gotten to know their students for two weeks, the effect of a prior expectancy induction was reduced to virtually zero.

A 2005 [[meta-analysis]] of 35 years of research on teacher expectations found that, while self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom do occur, the effects are usually small and temporary. It is unknown whether self-fulfilling prophecies affect [[intelligence]] or have an otherwise harmful effect. The cause of the effect may be because teachers' expectations of students are accurate, and not because they are self-fulfilling.<ref name=":1" /> Rosenthal had originally claimed the treatment group's IQ gain over time was "24.8 IQ points in excess of the gain shown by the controls," and that these gains were persistent and widespread, but several studies since the 1980s have failed to replicate these results. Instead, they have found only a very [[Effect size|weak effect]], and only in a very small minority (5 to 10%) of students. The marginal performance gains have also been found to "reset" after a period of just weeks.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name="Thorndike" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Spitz |first=Herman H |date=1999-09-01 |title=Beleaguered Pygmalion: A History of the Controversy Over Claims that Teacher Expectancy Raises Intelligence |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289699000264 |journal=Intelligence |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=199–234 |doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00026-4 |issn=0160-2896|url-access=subscription }}</ref>