PRISON SERVICE

The most famous example of this is described inthe book Pygmalion in the Classroom 7 . Rosenthal andJacobson found that teacher expectancies of studentperformance were strongly predictive of studentperformance on standardized tests, and thatmanipulating these educator biases and beliefs couldlead to substantial improvements in student outcomes.Similar so-called ‘Pygmalion Effects’ or expectancylinkedoutcomes have been found in courtroom studies,business schools, nursing homes, and numerousdifferent workplaces 8 . Meta-analyses of studiesconducted both inside and outside the researchlaboratory suggest an average effect size or correlation(r) of over .30 in studies ofinterpersonal expectancy effects 9 .Are there dangers toinculcating children withincremental theory? Sure. It puts alot more pressure on individuals towork hard. Whereas the kid whofails a test in an entity culture cankick back with some satisfactionand say hey ‘It’s not my fault I wasborn this way,’ in an incrementalculture, there is always pressureon you to do better. And this putsa lot of pressure on kids. Ji writes:‘If a Chinese child scored 98 outof 100 on a test, the Chineseparent would likely respond, ‘Howcome you lost two points? Youneed to study harder and scorehigher next time.’’There’s another big risk here,that might be the more importantone: If you believe intelligence isdynamic, then not only can ‘stupid’ people get smarter,but smart people can presumably get ‘more stupider’ too.This is a little experiment my gifted friends and I tried outat university, by basically getting stoned and watchingbad TV all day, and I can testify to its legitimacy. For some,this dynamic nature of intelligence is an awfully scarythought to comtemplate. Still, I think this is a small priceto pay for the advantages that the research literature(again: the empirical research literature) tells us aboutbelief in incremental theory for equality, democracy,fairness. Remember, I am not necessarily arguing thatincremental theory is right (or wrong) empirically, butinstead that promoting the theory produces empiricallybetter results, normatively speaking.Two Views about CriminalityNow, why am I devoting so much attention toeducation research in a talk about throughcare?Obviously, I think a parallel dichotomy can be found inregard to criminal behaviour. Drawing on the work ofDavid Garland and others, I argue that there are twoprimary cultural scripts available in regards towrongdoing:The fact is,criminologists knowa great deal aboutearly childhood riskfactors — includinggenetic andprenatal risk factors— that substantiallyraise the possibilityof someone gettinginvolved in drugsand crime.Moral Essentialism (Entity theory, laydispositionalism, ‘Criminology of the Other’ 10 )The idea here is that criminal behaviour is dueto fixed, unalterabledispositions, traits, innercharacter. Criminalbehaviour is a symptom ofwho a person really is, deepdown, and always will be.Moral Redeemability(Incremental theory, laysituationalism, ‘Criminologyof the Self’)Here, criminal behaviour isseparated from thepermanent nature orcharacter of the person.Criminality is not ‘fixed’ in aperson, the individual canfundamentally change and‘make good’ for what theyhave done in the past.Again, remember, I’m notmaking an empirical argumentin favour of one of these two, very different models ofunderstanding criminality. Just like with intelligenceresearch, criminology has amassed considerableevidence on both sides of this coin. Indeed, one of thebest known theories of crime seeks to account forboth patterns in empirical data on crime in the lifecourse 11 . The fact is, criminologists know a great dealabout early childhood risk factors — including geneticand prenatal risk factors — that substantially raise thepossibility of someone getting involved in drugs andcrime. Further, we know there are these largely stablepersonality characteristics, like low self-control orsome of the characteristics associated with‘psychopathy’, that appear to be deeply implicated in7. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. (1992) Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Irvington.8. Rosenthal, R. (2002) ‘Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles’, American Psychologist, 57: 839-49.9. Kierein, N.M. and Gold, M.A. (2000) ‘Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 913-28.10. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Chicago: University of Chicago.11. Moffitt, T.E. (1993), ‘Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy’, PsychologicalReview, 100, 674-701.24Prison Service JournalIssue 192