Talk:Pygmalion effect

message: I removed the following from the article:
:Translated into a wikipedian setting: Wikipedia users will behave because Wikipedia expects them to.
See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.  fabiform | talk 02:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right" - -Nassa Merheb In 2004.  Google it, it's from Henry Ford, you'll have millions of citations, not Nassa Merhed in 2004.  Darrellx (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect quote

message: it seems there are distinct separate sections to this article, but no flow between them.  Precisely why George Bernhard Shaw's play is referenced is unclear; additionally, to one who understands the reference, it becomes apparent that the article illogically flows from etymology --> definition --> term explanation.  There ought either be section headings denoting the shift or at least a better transition between the separate article parts.  Also, we should mention that this is Cooley's (and to some extent Mead's) term.  (references, Earl Babbie: "The Practice of Social Research" 10th Ed., page 235).  Jxn 07:07, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
Why does it say that the effect is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion, whereas the only example which clarifies the allusion is taken out of Bernard Shaw's work, with no direct connection between the example and the myth?
The statements above indicate their author has not read the original study by Rosenthal and Jacobson which describes the "connection" referenced in synpsis form in the Wikipedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.80.240.250 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: page flow

message: In Destry Rides Again the hero convinces the corrupt showgirl to stop helping the gang of murderers by expressing his expectation that she's "different", "better than that" - and then she lives up to his expectation. Uncle Ed 12:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction

message: ===Oak School study===
In a study by two psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968), published in their book Pygmalion in the Classroom, the experimenters told teachers that twenty percent of the children in a certain school showed unusual potential for intellectual growth. The names of 20 percent of the students were selected randomly, and revealed to the teachers. Eight months later, the chosen children showed significantly greater gains in IQ than the children who had not been showered with attention.
   This seems follow more or less what the book says, I believe pg 181, so shouldn't it be cited as a paraphrase? The wording  "The names of 20 percent of the students were selected randomly, and revealed to the teachers." needs to more clearly separate the word teachers more from the word random as it is completely necessary to establish that the teachers knew nothing of the randomness. 
 "than the children who had not been showered with attention."-I don't see any reference in the study that the children were consciously treated any different. "Showering attention" implies much more than just being told the child shows "unusual potential for intellectual growth" Thanks(Freetoheal (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text

message: While Rosenthal's study is famous, there is no mention in the main article of the strong critiques his methodology later was subject to.  In fact, the results of this entire study were called into serious question.  That is not to say that the Pygmalion effect is not a true effect, but questions about the study should be mentioned here for balance.e
:I added a section on criticism of the study. Iss246 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Pygmalion 

message: If there is any merge at all, this should be merged with "Self-fulfilling prophecy", as this is only one instance of that. Goldfritha 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge

message: This article completely omits the serious critiques of the paper. See Samuel S. Wineburg's "The Self-Fulfillment of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy" in Educational Researcher for a start. AaronSw 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pov problems

message: I can't find much specific information on Elliot's study except that it occurred. Can someone who's more familiar with it please elaborate? I think there are several things that need to be clarified, including the validity of the exercise (in a scientific manner), whether external variables were accounted for (including content of the tests), and so forth. The current section is quite vague. .V. [Talk|Email] 12:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elliot's Exercise 

message: This article still sucks, and all my suggestions and questions from 3 years ago have been ignored. Has there only been one study on this so-called effect in 40 years? Has no one tried to replicate the results? Why are we changing the subject in midstream to how students rate teachers? 
The question on the table is how much teacher expectation can affect student achievement. Science ought to be able to answer this question. If it has, then we should summarize the answer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not scientific

message: Many sources seem to indicate that the original Rosenthal-Jacobson study was in fact in 1966, not 1968. One such source is this published paper.  Should this be changed?  (This is my first contribution to a talk page.) Nabelekt (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson did their research in 1965, wrote it up in a 5-page paper in 1966 with Rosenthal as the first author, and expanded it to a 266-page book in 1968 with Jacobson as the first author, including a 26-page addendum by Rosenthal defending their research against the many attacks that had been made on their work during the preceding two years.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date of Rosenthal-Jacobson study? 

message: The article states that the effect is named after the Greek myth. Several online sources contradict this, saying the effect is named after the play that itself was named after the myth. 2601:140:947F:77D0:AE8:CFBB:BDFB:55FE (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Named after the 1913 play, not the Greek myth?