Cited by 853Social and Intergroup PsychologySocial Power and Status DynamicsAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence.

Darley, John M., Fazio, Russell H.·1980·American Psychologist

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…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.35.10.867

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These interpretations determine behavior, and these behaviors then affect the responses of the other party.

    “These interpretations determine behavior, and these behaviors then affect the responses of the other party”

    From Police-Community Relations in Cincinnati (2009) · cites this paper as Darley and Fazio, 1980

  • One conclusion of research is that individual behavior can be understood only as part of a reciprocal, dynamic process between participants.

    “One conclusion of this research is that individual behavior can be understood only as part of a reciprocal, dynamic process between the participants.”

    From Police-Community Relations in Cincinnati (2009) · cites this paper as Darley and Fazio, 1980

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 86 · Cited by 853

Authors
Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
1980-10
Volume
35
Issue
10
Pages
867-881
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2080888202
Cited by
853
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
FWCI
56.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
self-fulfilling prophecy, expectancy confirmation, social interaction, social perception, teacher expectations, Pygmalion effect, self-perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review