Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 1983 by the

198:1, Vol 75, No. ;i, 327-346 American Psychological Association, Inc.

The Bases of Teacher Expectancies: A Meta-Analysis

Jerome B. Dusek and Gail Joseph
Syracuse University

A meta-analysis of research on the bases of teacher expectancies was reported.

A review of 77 pertinent studies using Stouffer's (1949) method of adding Zs
led to the following conclusions: Student attractiveness, conduct, cumulative
folder information, race and social class were related to teacher expectancies.
Student gender and the number of parents at home were student characteris-
tics not related to teacher expectancies; equivocal relations existed between
teacher expectancies and student sex role behavior, name stereotypes, and
teachers having previously taught a sibling. The findings are discussed in the
context of the importance of doing such research with intact classrooms.
Methodological difficulties and deficiencies in existing research are pointed
out. Questions in need of research and directions for future research are
noted.

It is now widely accepted that teachers
form expectancies about student academic
ability and social skills (cf. Braun, 1976;
Cooper, 1979a; Dusek, 1975). Evidence in-
dicates that teacher expectancies are corre-
lated with student achievement-test per-
formance (e.g., Dusek & O'Connell, 1973;
O'Connell, Dusek, & Wheeler, 1974) and
student-teacher interactions in the class-
room (cf. Brophy & Good, 1974). There can
be but little doubt that understanding
teacher expectancies is an important part of
comprehending the nature of teacher eval-
uation of students.
Although we now have well-developed
models of the communication of expectancy
effects, several aspects of the importance of
expectancy effects have not been researched
or reviewed to a sufficient extent. The
purpose of this article is to provide a review
of one of these areas, namely, the bases on
which teachers form expectancies for stu-
dents' performance. Existing discussions
are limited to portions of more general re-
views (e.g., Braun, 1976; Cooper, 1979a). As
a result, no critical evaluation of existing
research on the bases of teachers' expec-
tancies has been presented. Because exist-
ing reviews are not focused directly on the
bases of teacher expectancies, too few studies
have been included in them to portray ac-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jerome B.
Dusek, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York 13210.
327
curately the overall empirical findings in the
research area. As a result, theoretical bias
may have led reviewers to selectively cite
studies supportive of their views. Contrary
studies may have been overlooked. Hence,
false conclusions about the bases of expec-
tancies may have been drawn. This possi-
bility was reduced in the present review
through the use of meta-analytic review
procedures.
Glass (1976, 1977) has defined meta-
analysis as the combining of results of inde-
pendent experiments for the purpose of in-
tegrating their findings. A meta-analysis is
conducted on a group of studies having a
common conceptual hypothesis or opera-
tional definition of independent or depen-
dent variables. One result of a meta-anal-
ysis is a significance level that gives the
probability that a set of studies exhibiting
the reported results could have been gener-
ated if no real relationship existed. In ad-
dition, a meta-analysis allows the description
of the degree of overlap between experi-
mental conditions on a normal curve. As a
result, meta-analyses yield information
about the effect size for differences between
conditions.
Rosenthal (1978; cf. also Cooper &
Rosenthal, 1980) has discussed the relative
advantages and disadvantages of various
meta-analytic techniques. The counting
(Rosenthal, 1978) or voting method (John-
son, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon,
1981) is a simple categorization of findings
328 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH
into one of three categories: significantly
positive, significantly negative, or no dif-
ference (not statistically significant). This
approach is, in effect, a formalized model of
the typical literature review. Because this
method has serious flaws (cf. Rosenthal,
1978; Johnson et al., 1981), including low
power to detect relationships, the ignoring
of strength of effects (effect size), and the
failure to account for sample size (larger
samples result in a greater number of sig-
nificant effects than do smaller samples), it
was not employed in this review.
We used the method of adding zs, which
was developed by Stouffer (1949). All it
requires is an accurate one-tailed probability
level for the effect of interest. Pertinent p
levels are changed to z scores, added, and the
sum divided by the square root of the num-
ber of studies included (Rosenthal, 1978).
The resulting z score is referred back to the
table and the probability level calculated.
This probability level describes the likeli-
hood that the results of all studies were
generated by chance. One concern deals
with calculating the z score for studies in
which multiple dependent variables are an-
alyzed. One possibility is to calculate a 2 for
each dependent variable and weight these zs
such that the contribution of the study is
unity (Cooper, 1979c). An alternative and
less cumbersome procedure, which was em-
ployed in the present review, is to calculate
the median p value and use the associated z
score in the meta-analysis (Rosenthal &
Rubin, 1978).
The meta-analysis procedures allow for
additional important information. First,
estimates of effect size may be obtained. In
the present review, effect size is estimated by
Cohen's (1977) d statistic, which is a "scale
free" measure of the degree of departure of
the alternative hypothesis from the null
hypothesis. In the case of two means an
estimate of d is given by the following for-
mula: d = Zt/^Tf. Cohen (1977) has ar-
gued that d values of .2, .5, and .8 represent
small, medium, and large effect sizes, re-
spectively.
A second advantage of using meta-analysis
procedures is the ability to calculate a fail-
safe N, the number of studies totaling a null
hypothesis confirmation necessary to reverse
a conclusion that a relationship exists. In
effect, the question of relevance is, "How
many studies showing a summed z score
total of zero would be necessary to raise the
overall probability level to a nonsignificant
level?" Rosenthal (1979) has referred to this
as the "file drawer problem." The fail-safe
N is an estimate of the number of studies
showing null results and, therefore, not
published but sitting in file drawers. For the
p < .05 criterion, the fail-safe N is given by
the formula Nfs.or> = (Zsi + Zs-2 + • • • ZSn/
1.645)2 - (Ns), where Nis.or> is the number of
studies needed to increase the meta-analysis
p level above .05,1.645 is the z score for the
p < .05 significance level, 7Vs is the sum
number of the studies, and the Z scores come
from the existing studies. The fail-safe N
is reported when significant relationships
were found.
Finally, Cohen (1977) has described a
useful statistic, t/;), the percentage of dis-
tribution nonoverlap. The t/s statistic de-
notes the percentage of the group with the
smaller mean that is exceeded by 50% of the
group with the larger mean. The [7;) sta-
tistic, then, represents the percentage of the
smaller-meaned group that is exceeded by
the average person in the larger-meaned
group.
Scope of This Review
The focus of this review centers around
the identification of the types of information
teachers use in forming expectancies for
students' academic potential. Therefore, no
research bearing on the transmission of ex-
pectancies to students, the relation of ex-
pectancies to measures of achievement, or on
other aspects (e.g., classroom interaction) of
teacher expectancies will be reviewed in
detail. Only those studies bearing directly
on the major question are included. More-
over, whenever feasible and appropriate the
meta-analysis is supplemented by discus-
sions of research not directly translatable
into that format. Finally, some areas of re-
search include so few studies that to do a
meta-analysis would be inappropriate.
These areas are discussed in the more typical
literary style.
The general hypothesis tested was that
teachers would hold differential expec-
tancies for students differing on some char-
acteristic (e.g., social class, race, physical
attractiveness). The specific directional
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES 329

hypothesis is stated in each section of the hypothesized to be related to the formation

review. of teacher expectancies. This organization
is based on the factors to which teachers
Method have been presumed to attend when forming
Search Procedure expectancies for student performance (e.g.,
Braun, 1976; Cooper, 1979b).
The major sources for the search were Psychological
A/infracts, Dissertation Abstracts International, and Physical Attractiveness
ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center).
The initial search was intentionally broad in scope. The influence of physical attractiveness
Hence, we searched titles and abstracts for the key on human interactions has a long history of
words teacher expect . . ., teacher bias, teacher atti- investigation in social psychology (cf. Ber-
tudes, teacher bases, and teacher behavior. No at- scheid & Walster, 1974). The majority of
tempt was made to specify a specific basis because we
wished to obtain the largest number of studies possible studies have been concerned with attrac-
for inclusion in the review. The abstract of each re- tiveness to the opposite sex, attributions of
trieved study was read, and obviously irrelevant studies personality traits, and judgments of trans-
were eliminated. The full reports of all remaining gressions. Recent research on the impor-
studies were read, except for those in Dissertation Ab- tance of physical attractiveness as a deter-
stracts International, for which only the abstract was
available. Finally, the titles of references in published minant of teacher expectancies has led some
studies were used to further research for relevant (e.g., Braun, 1976) to conclude that teachers
studies. This procedure resulted in the identification have higher expectancies for more attractive
of the 77 studies reviewed below (see Appendix). children.
Criteria for Relevant Studies A total of 14 studies in which physical at-
tractiveness was related to a measure of
A study was considered for inclusion if it contained teacher expectancy were identified. In 11
a measure of teacher expectancies, a measure of some studies expectancies for academic perfor r
student characteristic that could be viewed as a poten-
tial basis for forming expectancies, and a test of the mance were obtained. In 13 studies expec-
relationship between the two measures. tancies for social/personality development
Teacher expectancy was broadly operationally de- were obtained. Given the substantial
fined in two ways. Academic expectations were de- number of studies classifiable in each do-
fined as teacher perceptions of performance, achieve- main the data were analyzed separately for
ment, ability, level of educational attainment, and the
like. Social/personality expectations were defined as the academic (Table la) and social/person-
teacher perceptions of general social development, peer ality (Table Ib) measures. One study
relations, relations with adults, and personality attri- (Tompkins & Boor, 1980) involved three
butions. Specific measures are listed in each section attractiveness levels (2 degrees of freedom).
of the review.
Because attractiveness in this study was not
Analysis significant for three of four academic mea-
sures and was significant for all five social
As noted above, the method of adding zs was em- attribute measures the study was included
ployed in the meta-analysis. This method results in a
p level gauging the probability that the run of studies in the meta-analysis. The data on direction
could have occurred by chance. When a result was of means presented in the article indicate the
stated as nonsignificant and no p level was given, a z estimates included in Table 1 are likely
score of 0 was assigned. In the case of multiple de- conservative.
pendent measures the median z score was calculated In general, the procedure employed in-
and used in the analyses.
In addition to the formal summary of the findings, volved providing teachers with information
effect size was calculated. Cohen's (1977) d value, de- (e.g., achievement test performance) about
scribed above, was used for this purpose. When a sig- a fictitious child and a picture of the child.
nificant z score was obtained the fail-safe N was cal- Half the teacher sample received pictures
culated. It should be pointed out that the fail-safe N
is an estimate of null-summing studies needed to result previously rated as attractive, and half re-
in a nonsignificant effect. It is possible, of course, that ceived pictures previously rated as unat-
a smaller number of studies exists with a z score value tractive. In all studies pictures of both male
opposite to that of the sum reported. and female students were employed. A va-
riety of measures of teacher expectancy were
Results obtained, including estimates of the child's
Results are organized into sections based future academic success, of parental concern
on student characteristics that have been about school, of the child's social relations
330 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH

Table 1: Physical Attractiveness greater expectancies for attractive students

in 7 studies. The statistical analysis was
Expectation
Author Year Subjects favored
significant, Z = 3.84, p = .000065. Effect
size could be obtained for 12 studies, the
A: Academic expectations average d value being .19. The average at-
1973 Teachers Attractive
tractive student was expected to have better
Clifford & Walster
Adams & LaVoie 1974 Teachers Attractive social relations and personality development
LaVoie & Adams 1974 Teachers No difference than 57% of the less attractive students.
Kehle et al. 1974 Teachers No difference The results of the meta-analysis lead to
Ross & Salvia 1975 Teachers Attractive the conclusion that facial attractiveness is a
Adams & Cohen 1976a Teachers Attractive
Roland 1977 Teachers No difference determinant of teacher expectancies for both
Salvia et al. 1977 Students Attractive academic performance and social/person-
Adams 1978 Teachers Attractive ality attributes. Unfortunately, it is unclear
DeMeis & Turner 1978 Teachers Attractive from the extant research and the procedures
Tompkins & Boor 1980 Students .No difference used how enduring this effect may be.
B: Social/personality expectations
Adams and LaVoie (1974) and LaVoie and
Adams (1974) argue that, at best, attrac-
Clifford & Walster 1973 Teachers Attractive tiveness may be important in the absence of
Adams & LaVoie 1974 Teachers No difference
LaVoie & Adams 1974 Teachers No difference
other more academically relevant informa-
Kehle et al. 1974 Teachers No difference tion (Cooper, 1979b; Kehle, Bramble, &
Rich 1975 Teachers Attractive Mason, 1974). They argue that as teachers
Ross & Salvia 1975 Teachers Attractive become more familiar with their students the
Adams & Cohen 1976b Teachers Attractive importance of attractiveness as a determi-
Roland ]977 Teachers No difference
Adams 1978 Teachers Attractive nant of expectancies declines. Unfortu-
DeMeis & Turner 1978 Teachers Attractive nately, no research with teachers and their
Marwit et al. 1978 Students No difference own students using procedures parallel to
Marwit et al. 1978 Teachers Unattractive those employed in the reviewed research has
Tompkins & Boor 1980 Students Attractive been done. The most pertinent study is
reported by Willis (1972; see also Willis &
with peers, of the child's IQ, and of the Brophy, 1974), who found that teachers'
child's interest in school. ratings of their students' physical attrac-
The results for the academic measures are tiveness correlated significantly with ex-
presented in Table la. Teachers were the pected achievement only during the initial
subjects in nine studies; college students part of the school year. The correlations for
were subjects in two studies. In four studies the midsemester and end-of-semester rat-
there was no significant effect; in the re- ings were not statistically significant.
maining seven studies the significant effect Moreover, other teacher ratings, such as
reflected an expectation of higher academic classroom attentiveness, self-confidence, and
performance from more attractive children. ability to work independently, showed larger
The statistical test was significant, Z = 5.43, and more enduring correlations with ex-
p = .0000001. The d value was .30. It pected achievement. As LaVoie and Adams
would take 109 studies summing to a null (1974) note, physical attractiveness may be
result to raise the probability to greater than important for initial expectancies, but other,
p < .05. The average attractive student was more academically pertinent information,
expected to perform better than about 61% gleaned after interacting with children for
of the less attractive students. some time, becomes more important for ex-
In 13 studies teacher expectancies for pectancy formation.
student social/personality characteristics
were assessed as a function of student at- Student Gender
tractiveness. Teachers were the subjects in The relationship between student gender
11 studies, student teachers in 1, and college and teacher expectancies has been of con-
students in 1. As may be seen in Table Ib, siderable interest, in part because of gender
there was a reversal in 1 study (expectancies differences in measures of learning (cf. Bank,
were higher for less attractive children), null Biddle, & Good, 1980; Palardy, 1969), in part
results in 5 studies, and results indicating because of the different types of interactions
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES

boys and girls have with teachers (cf. Brophy higher for females than males, and in 8 there
& Good, 1970, 1974), and in part because was no difference. The statistical analysis
some research (see Sex Role Behaviors resulted in a borderline significant effect, Z
below) has linked teacher expectancies to = 1.47, p = .071, of low strength (d = .07).
teacher sex role stereotyping. The general Approximately 53% of females were ex-
conception, which has some research support pected to perform better than the average
(cf. Bank et al, 1980; Brophy & Good, 1974; male. To be sure, the relationship is not a
Palardy, 1969), is that girls are favored very strong one, which may result from the
during the elementary school years. Hence, procedure of having subjects rate "students"
one may well expect that girls will have an with whom they are completely unfamiliar.
advantage over boys on measures of teacher Nonetheless, the suggestion of a favoritism
expectancies. toward girls, perhaps because they are more
A total of 20 studies were identified in conforming in their classroom behavior
which student gender was related to a mea- (Brophy & Good, 1974; Bank et al., 1980), is
sure of teacher expectancy. In 16 studies, present.
the dependent measure was an expectancy Some support for these suggestions comes
for student academic performance—for ex- from Willis's (1972) study. Willis reported
ample, grade on an essay, work habits, ex- that teachers' achievement rankings of their
pected future grades, or expected achieve- own students were correlated positively and
ment test performance. In 12 studies ex- significantly with ability to get along well
pectancies for student social relations or with others, with being obedient and having
personality development—for example, peer good self-control, with being helpful to other
relations or popularity, attitudes, relations children, with being neat and careful, and
with adults, or adaptability—were assessed.
Given the numbers of studies, it was decided Table 2: Gender
to analyze teacher expectancies in the two Expectation
domains separately. Author Year Subjects favored
Teacher expectancies for academic per-
formance were assessed in the 16 studies A: Academic expectations
listed in Table 2a. Teachers were the Bergan & Smith 1966 Students Females
subjects in 12 studies, and students were Clifford & Walster 1973 Teachers Males
subjects in 4. For the reasons noted above, Seavcr 1973 Teachers Males
the data were coded such that a positive z Adams & LaVoie 1974 Teachers No difference
Kehle et al. 1974 Teachers Females
score was associated with an expectancy for LaVoie & Adams 1974 Teachers No difference
greater performance from females. As may Ross & Salvia 1975 Teachers No difference
be seen in Table 2a, there were two studies Adams & Cohen 1976a Teachers Females
in which expectancies were higher for male Mertens 1976 Students No difference
Roland 1977 Teachers No difference
than female students, 4 in which they were Adams 1978 Teachers No difference
higher for female than male students, and 10 Har-Tal & Saxe 1979 Teachers No difference
in which there was no difference. The Bernard 1979 Teachers No difference
overall mean Z was .80 (p = .21), which re- Porter 1979 Students Females
flects the small size of the effect (d = .20) and Purgess 1979 Teachers No difference
Wilkerson 1980 Students No difference
the low U\\ value of 51.2. This analysis leads
to the conclusion that student gender is not B: Social/personality expectations
a basis of teacher expectancies for general Bergan & Smith 1966 Students No difference
academic performance. Clifford & Walster 1973 Teachers Females
A somewhat different conclusion arises Adams & LaVoie 1974 Teachers No difference
from the analysis of the 12 studies in which Herson 1974 Teachers No difference
student gender was related to teacher ex- Kehle ct al. 1974 Teachers Females
Adams & LaVoie 1974 Teachers No difference
pectancies for social/personality develop- Rich 1 97,5 Teachers No difference
ment (Table 2b). In 11 of the studies the Adams & Cohen 1 976h Teachers No difference
subjects were teachers; students were Helton & Oakland 1977 Teachers Males
subjects in the remaining study. As may be Roland 1977 Teachers No difference
Adams 1978 Teachers Females
seen, in 1 study expectancies were higher for Bernard 1979 Teachers No difference
males than females, in 3 expectancies were
332 JEHOMK B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH

with having many friends. The picture one Table 3: Cumulative Folder Information
gets is that the student who is easy to man-
age and who follows the classroom rules is in Expectation
the more favorable position. In the ele- Author Year Subjects favored
mentary school this is more likely to be the Mason 1973 Teachers Positive
female than the male (Brophy & Good, 1974; Kehle et al. 1974 Teachers No difference
Bank et al., 1980). Hence, it is not surpris- Mason & Larimore 1974 Teachers Positive
ing that social/personality expectancies favor Foster et al. 1975 Teachers Positive
girls. It is likely that the results would have Yoshida & Meyers 1975 Teachers No difference
Adams & Cohen 1976a Teachers No difference
been even stronger had the teachers rated Adams & Cohen 19761) Teachers No difference
their own students. Mertens 1976 Students Positive
Cooper & Lowe" 1977 Students No difference
Cumulative Folder Information 1977 Teachers Positive
The research reviewed in this section is a Helton & Oakland 1977 Teachers Positive
Wiley & Eskilson 1978 Teachers Positive
direct extension of Rosenthal and Jacobson's Cooper & Burger1' 1980 Students No difference
(1968) original study of teacher bias effects. Foster et al. 1980 Teachers Positive
Although research (cf. Claiborn, 1969;
Dusek, 1975; Dusek & O'Connell, 1973; " Cooper and Lowe report two studies, each done with
separate samples. They are treated separately here.
Fleming & Anttonen, 1971) leads to the '' Cooper and Burger report three studies, each done
conclusion that induced biases likely do not with a separate sample. Only the third is pertinent and
relate to childrens' performance, teachers' reported here.
own self-generated expectancies, as reflected
in teacher rankings for achievement, for ex- In the research reviewed in this section
ample, do (cf. Brophy & Good, 1974; Dusek, (see Table 3), then, the investigators pro-
1975). The purpose of the research reviewed vided subjects with written descriptions,
in this section was to examine the effects of either positive or negative, of a fictitious
information in student folders vis-a-vis student, including information about stu-
teacher expectancies. dent behavior, estimates of academic
Although the procedural aspects of the achievement, grades, or IQ, in some studies
.research make for some difficulty in group- information about psychological character-
ing and discussing relevant studies, the re- istics, in some studies family background
searchers have in common an interest in as- information, and in some research a diag-
sessing the influence of prior informa- nostic label (e.g., learning disabled, EMR).
tion—of both objective and subjective In only two studies (Adams & Cohen, 1976a,
types—on the teacher's estimates of chil- 1976b) were aspects of these reports sepa-
dren's academic potential. This is an rated, namely, information on home/family
especially pertinent area of research because and academic information. Because it was
of the varieties of information about stu- not possible to determine the specific as-
dents to which teachers are exposed even pect^) of the cumulative folder information
before they have had any personal contact to which the subjects attended, no attempt
with a given student. It is entirely possible was made to form subcategories of the re-
that teachers form expectancies on the basis trieved studies. Given the nature and va-
of these types of formal and informal infor- riety of cumulative folder information
mation and that they then behave in a way available to in-classroom teachers, this does
so as to fulfill their own prophecy, or that of not seem a serious limitation. When
another teacher, for the child's performance. teachers read a cumulative folder, they no
This may be especially the case for infor- doubt read not one but a variety of types of
mation contained in student records. One information about a student.
need only look at Willis's (1972) data to de- A total of 24 pertinent studies were iden-
termine how this may happen. Much of the tified. Teachers were subjects in 18, and
data Willis reports as positively related to undergraduate and graduate students were
teacher expectancies is of the sort found in subjects in 6. Fourteen of the studies pro-
student folders—for example, attentiveness, vided sufficient information to be coded into
obedience, industriousness, work habits, and the meta-analysis. In the remaining 10
the like. studies 3 or more contrast groups were em-
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES
ployed, multiple contrasts or path analyses
were used to analyze the data, or effects were
not readily put into meta-analytic terms.
Hence, these studies were not coded into the
meta-analysis. As will become apparent,
were it possible to include these analyses in
the meta-analysis, the results would have
been even stronger.
The meta-analysis resulted in a significant
Z (6.22, p = .00000001), reflecting a strong
relationship (d = .852) between cumulative
folder information and teacher expectancies.
The f/;i value of 71.5 indicates that over 70%
of the more favorably described students
were expected to perform better than the
average less favorably described student.
The fail-safe N was 186.
The results of the meta-analysis are
strengthened by the findings of the eight
studies that could not be included in the
meta-analysis. Herson (1974) reported that
including a label (e.g., marginally retarded)
with a behavioral description resulted in
stronger expectancy effects than the be-
havioral description alone.
Rich (1975) provided 144 female elemen-
tary school teachers with record card infor-
mation about the personal and academic
development of a child. The teachers then
rated the likelihood the child committed a
transgression, the student's personality, and
the severity of punishment should the child
be found guilty of the transgression. The
teachers' judgments were related to the in-
formation in the expected way.
Foster and Ysseldyke (1976) and Reschly
and Lamprecht (1979) have presented fur-
ther evidence about the importance of be-
havioral descriptions and labels for forming
teacher expectancies. In these two studies
teachers completed a teacher referral form
for a normal or deviant (e.g., LD) child.
They all then viewed a videotape of a normal
child performing a variety of school-like
tasks. The teachers then made predictions
about the child's academic future and skills
and the child's personality. In both studies
it was reported that deviancy labels resulted
in negative expectancies, although Reschly
and Lamprecht (1979) reported there was
some narrowing of label group differences as
viewing time of the videotape increased.
Porter (1979) provided 25 teachers with a
student profile containing information about
student motivation, IQ, family background,
and school behavior. Expectancies for ac-
ademic and social behavior were obtained.
The results indicated that the relationship
of information about the student to teacher
expectancy depended on the area of expec-
tancy. Information about student ability
was a strong predictor of academic expec-
tancy. Information regarding student per-
sonality was the strongest predictor of
teacher expectancies for student social be-
havior. Although the sample is small, the
data are suggestive of a more specific rela-
tionship than that investigated in this line of
research in general.
Algozzine (1980) and Algozzine and Stoller
(1980) have also presented data leading to a
caveat in this area of research. In their re-
search, teachers were presented with both
labels (LD or ED) and statements of com-
petence (high or low) for a fictitious student.
After being told about the student, the
teachers made estimates of academic per-
formance. In both studies, statements of
competence were related significantly to
expected academic achievement, but the
label was not. Again, then, it appears that
research aimed at disentangling the aspects
of cumulative folder information most im-
portant to the forming of expectancies may
be fruitful.
An important question about the nature
of information teachers may receive about
students concerns perceptions of the accu-
racy of the information and its sources.
Shavelson, Cad well, and Izu (1977) provide
some evidence on the degree to which
teachers consider the reliability of the in-
formation on which they may form expec-
tancies for student achievement. The
subjects were 164 graduate students (119 of
whom were teachers) who were provided
with either reliable (parent interview) or
unreliable (peer interview) information on
a child's family background and study hab-
its. The information was either positive
(e.g., studies 2 hours per night) or negative
(e.g., watches TV 2 hours per night). The
subjects estimated the probability that the
student would obtain mostly A's and B's.
The results, for both the teachers and the
teachers-in-training, were clear. The esti-
mates of grades reflected the reliability of
the information. Reliable positive or neg-
ative information led to probability esti-
mates that were, respectively, higher or
334 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH
lower; this was not as strongly the case with
the less reliable information.
Using the exact same procedures and, it
appears, the exact same subject sample,
Borko and Shavelson (1978) investigated
teachers' attributions for student achieve-
ment. Subjects were given positive, nega-
tive, or both types of information about a
hypothetical fifth-grade student's achieve-
ment behaviors and abilities. Information
was from reliable or unreliable sources, as
described above. The dependent variables
were teachers' attributions of the importance
of luck, task difficulty, ability, and time
studying in the fictitious child's attainment
of mostly A's and B's on the final report
card.
The most pertinent findings involved the
reliability of the information. Attributions
to ability were greater when information was
reliable. Attributions to effort were unre-
lated to reliability of the information; any
evidence indicating the student had tried led
the teacher to rate effort as an important
determinant of student success. Reliability
did not affect attributions to luck or task
difficulty. In general, the results are sup-
portive of the contention that teachers' at-
tributions are influenced by the perceived
reliability of the information they receive.
Cooper (1979b) extended our knowledge
of teacher concern with reliability of infor-
mation and, in addition, investigated the
question of the perseverence of the influence
of record-card information in the face of
student performance. The subjects were
college students in education classes. The
subjects' rankings of the sources of infor-
mation resulted in the following order (in
descending views of accuracy): standard-
ized test scores, what previous teachers say,
family background, and physical charac-
teristics. Initial expectancies for perfor-
mance on a spelling test were higher when
the information was based on standardized
tests than when it was based on what previ-
ous teachers said about the student. Infor-
mation about performance on a spelling test
was then given and expectancies again as-
sessed. The second expectancy estimate
was influenced by both the previous estimate
and by the performance information. As
quality of performance increased, expec-
tancies for future performance increased.
The results of this study are important
because they demonstrate that teachers may
view various sorts of information as being
more or less reliable. The most objectively
reliable information presented to the
subjects in this study, namely, standardized
test scores, was the one type of information
that led to differences in expected perfor-
mance. The results are also important be-
cause they demonstrate that the student's
performance is related directly to teacher's
estimates of future performance. In toto,
the findings suggest that there is a complex
interaction between type of information,
perceived reliability of the source of infor-
mation, and child performance characteris-
tics that relate to teacher estimates of per-
formance.
Several conclusions are warranted on the
basis of the information reviewed in this
section. First, it is clear that cumulative
folder information, whether test scores or
more general personal information, is a basis
for the formation of and change in teacher
expectancies. Second, it is equally evident
that not all sources of information, or types
of information, are seen as equally reliable.
Teachers, it appears, are selective in the in-
formation to which they attend when form-
ing expectancies. This finding may be at the
heart of explaining why attempts to induce
teacher expectancies—for example, by pro-
viding false test scores—have generally
failed. Teachers may view the researcher's
estimates of student potential as being of low
reliability. As a result, they may disregard
them. In turn, teachers' own expectancies
may relate strongly to student performance
because they feel their expectancies, based
on daily interactions with the student, are
more veridical.
Some support for this hypothesis comes
from Willis's (1972) study. Teachers'
judgments of attentiveness, class participa-
tion, working independently, trying hard,
reading ability, and being creative all were
substantially and positively correlated with
teachers' ratings of achievement. As noted
below, the issue of external validity is an
important one that pervades this entire
area.
Social Class and Race
That social class and race stereotypes may
be influential in teacher expectancies was
suggested by Clark (1963) and more recently
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES
dramatically illustrated by Rist (1970,1973),
who reported that the expectations of the
child's initial teacher, in this case the kin-
dergarten teacher, resulted in the child re-
maining in the same expectancy group in
Grades 1 and 2. Rist (1970) suggested that
in part this was a result of the type of teacher
attention these children received. For ex-
ample, children in the low expectancy group
often were placed in disadvantageous phys-
ical positions in the classroom (e.g., with
their backs toward the teacher) and were
given few positive interactions with the
teacher. Most of these children came from
very poor families, and most were from the
lower social and economic levels. Rist went
on to suggest, as did Clark (1963), that
teacher expectancies may be influenced by
the child's home background and social class
standing and that these expectancies cause
the teacher to interact with lower- and
middle-class students differently.
This latter argument is. bolstered by the
findings of a study conducted by Friedman
(1976). Twelve first- and 12 third-grade
classrooms, half at each grade level being
composed of lower- and half being composed
of middle-class students, were observed over
an 8-month period. Clear patterns of dif-
ferences in reinforcement emerged. In
general, middle-class students received more
reinforcement than lower-class students.
Further analyses revealed that the middle-
class students received more nonverbal re-
inforcement than the lower-class students,
with no social class difference for verbal re-
inforcements. For the most part the at-
tending dimension accounted for the dif-
ferences observed. Attending reflected
statements or gestures indicative of assis-
tance, awareness, or attention to the child's
behavior. In effect, teachers paid more at-
tention to middle- than lower-class stu-
dents.
Weinstein and Middlestadt (1979) dem-
onstrated that students perceived the types
of reinforcement and interactions teachers
use as being different for low and high
achievers. Students perceived teacher
treatment of high achievers as reflecting high
expectations, a greater academic demand,
and special privileges. The students per-
ceived low achievers as receiving greater
teacher concern. Weinstein and Middle-
stadt (1979) point out that the perceptions
335
of the students regarding teachers' differ-
ential treatment of high- and low-achievers
may reflect teachers' use of reinforcement
strategies that act to fulfill prophecies about
student academic achievement. Indeed,
some research (e.g., Cooper, 1977) indicates
that teacher reinforcement procedures relate
not only to student achievement and learn-
ing but to students' beliefs concerning ef-
fort-outcome covariation (e.g., Dweck &
Reppucci, 1973). Hence, the reinforcement
patterns described here for low expectancy
students may cause them to become less
motivated to perform well because the
feedback they receive may be less contingent
on their performance and may result in their
fulfilling the teachers' expectations.
Taken together, the studies reviewed
above support the contention of Clark (1963)
and Rist (1970) that teachers expect differ-
ent levels of performance from low- and
middle-class students and treat them in a
way that results in the teacher's expectation
being realized. In turn, the data suggest
that social class, and perhaps race, are po-
tential bases for teacher expectations. Be-
cause the two constructs often are considered
jointly in the literature, they are dealt with
in a single section here.
Social class. A total of 20 studies in
which social class was examined as a basis of
teacher expectancies were identified.
Teachers were subjects in 15, students in 4,
and psychologists in one (see Table 4). In 10
studies there were no differences in expec-
tancies for middle- and lower-class students.
In eight studies expectancies favored mid-
dle-class students. Seventeen studies were
included in the meta-analysis. The results
of three studies could not be readily classi-
fied. Archer (1981) reported significant
relationships for the total sample of 28
teachers but not for analyses done separately
by classroom. Mazer (1971) included mul-
tiple social-class groups. -Wong (1980) re-
ported significant effects for 852 elementary
school teachers but not for 311 secondary
school teachers.
The meta-analysis resulted in a significant
effect, Z = 5.29, p = .0000003. The effect
was of moderate magnitude (d = .47). Ap-
proximately 64% of the middle-class children
were expected to perform better than the
average lower-class student. The fail-safe
N was 155.
336 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH

Table 4: Social Class between Asian and white students. In three

studies (Prieto & Zucker, 1980; Zucker, 1979;
Expectation
Zucker & Prieto, 1978) white students were
Author Year Subjects favored
expected to outperform Mexican students.
Bergan & Smith 1966 Students Middle Only the 24 studies involving comparisons
Lenkowsky & 1968 Students Middle between black and white students were in-
Blackman cluded in the meta-analysis.
Miller el al. 1968 Teachers Middle Of the 24 retrieved studies included in the
Miller 1971! Teachers Middle
Jensen & Rosenfeld 1974 Teachers No difference
meta-analysis 11 resulted in teacher expec-
Pugh J974 Teachers No difference tancies favoring white students, and 13 re-
Cooper et al. 1975 Students No difference sulted in no expectancy effect. In one study
Harvey & Slatin 1975 Teachers No difference (Marwit, Marwit, & Walker, 1978), the
Rotter 1975 Teachers No difference subjects were both teachers and students; in
Adams & Cohen 1976a Teachers Middle
Adams & Cohen 1976b Teachers Middle 17, the subjects were teachers; and in 6, the
Amato 1976 Teachers No difference subjects were students.
Wiley & Eskilson 1978 Teachers No difference The meta-analysis produced a significant
Bennett 1979 Teachers Middle result, Z = 4.90, p = .0000024. The d value
Hendren & Routh 1979 Psychol. No difference
Parker 1979 Teachers No difference
for the 20 studies for which d could be com-
Taylor 1979 Students No difference puted was only .11. Approximately 54% of
the white students were expected to out-
perform the average black student. The
Clearly, social class is a basis of teacher fail-safe N was 168. The results of these
expectancies. Considering the findings of studies indicate that race is a significant
Mazer (1971), who reported positive results factor in the formation of teacher expec-
in a study employing multiple socioeconomic tancies. Black students and Mexican stu-
status (SES) groupings, Archer's (1980) dents are expected to perform less well than
analyses for the total sample, which are white students.
comparable to analyses done in other re- Table 5: Race
search, and Wong's (1980) data for elemen-
tary school teachers, the sample most com- Expectation
parable to other research, strengthens this Author Year Subjects favored
conclusion.
The results of Archer (1980) and Wong Lenkowsky & 1968 Students White
(1980), however, suggest some interesting Blackman
Deitz & Purkey 1969 Teachers White
potential limits to the conclusion that SES Mazer 1971 Teachers No difference
is a basis of teacher expec tancies. Although Miller 1973 Teachers White
SES may be a basis when analyses are done Carlile 1974 Teachers No difference
for the total sample, it may not be when Kehle et al. 1974 Teachers No difference
Pugh 1974 Teachers White
analyses are done within classroom. For the Cooper et al. 1975 Students No difference
individual teacher, then, social class may not Finn et al. 1975 Teachers No difference
be as important a basis for expectancies as Harvey & Slatin 1975 Teachers White
it may appear to be. Moreover, Wong's Rotter 1975 Teachers No difference
Williams 1976 Teachers White
(1980) findings suggest that if SES is a basis Adams 1978 Teachers White
of teacher expectancies, it may be so only for DeMeis & Turner 1978 Teachers White
elementary school teachers. Marwit et al. 1978 Tch/stu No difference
Race. A total of 29 studies in which Paulson 1978 Students White
teacher expectancies were assessed as a Simpson et al. 1978 Students No difference
Wiley & Eskilson 1978 Teachers No difference
function of race of child were retrieved. In Bennett 1979 Teachers No difference
24 studies the comparisons were for black Porter 1979 Students White
versus white students (see Table 5). In one Smith 1979 Teachers No difference
study (Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974) the com- Taylor 1979 Students No difference
parison (not significant) was for white, black, Wilkerson 1980 Teachers No difference
Darlega et al. 1981 Teachers White
and Chicano students. In one study (Wong,
1980) the comparison (not significant) was Note. Tch/stu = teachers and students.
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES
Other Possible Bases
There are several other potential bases of
teacher expectancies for which data are too
limited for a meta-analysis. These studies
are reviewed briefly below.
Student conduct. An obvious potential
basis of teacher expectancies is the student's
conduct in the school environment. Stu-
dents who follow rules, use their time wisely,
and in general behave well are likely to im-
press the teacher more positively than stu-
dents who do not behave as well.
Some evidence supports this contention.
Willis (1972; see also Willis & Brophy, 1974)
reported a number of positive correlations
between aspects of classroom conduct and
teacher expectancies. Expectations were
higher for students who were more attentive,
more obedient, possessed good self-control,
were helpful, and were careful.
The experimental work of Adams and
LaVoie (1974) and LaVoie and Adams (1974)
lends further support to consideration of
student conduct as an important basis of
teacher expectancies. These researchers
reported that teachers who read descriptions
of students who exhibited good conduct
rated them higher than teachers who read
descriptions of poor-conduct students.
Distinguishing measures included peer re-
lationships, attitude toward school, IQ, work
habits, and other measures related to stu-
dent conduct.
Finally, Purgess (1979) had 511 elemen-
tary school teachers read a fictitious student
folder that in part described either an
adaptive or disruptive student. Then the
teachers rated the hypothetical child's
probable future academic success, present
academic achievement, and likelihood of
retention. On all measures the description
of student conduct was a significant effect.
Those described as disruptive were expected
to be less academically successful in the
present and future and were more likely to
be expected to be retained.
LaVoie and Adams (1974) suggest the in-
fluence of conduct rests on classroom man-
agement issues. Specifically, they argue
that problem children make classroom
management difficult. Hence, these chil-
dren not only are viewed as having lower
levels of aspiration but also are seen as hav-
337
ing less ability than good-conduct students.
As a result, poor-conduct students may be
subject to a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Other
research (e.g., Cooper, Hinkel, & Good, 1980;
Good, Cooper, & Blakey, 1980) lends support
to this contention. The research results,
then, support the conclusion that student
conduct is a basis of teacher expectancies,
and they clearly are consistent with a class-
room-management explanation for the re-
lationship.
Sex Role Behaviors
Bernard (1979) has suggested that student
sex role behaviors may be related to teacher
expectancies. His rationale is that sex role
behaviors represent not only complex be-
havioral predispositions but also a coding
scheme for expected behaviors (cf. Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1974, for a detailed discussion of
pertinent issues). After reading a descrip-
tion of a fictitious male or female student
who was described as behaving in either a
typically masculine or typically feminine
way, 120 male and 120 female teachers rated
the student on a number of traits, including
intelligence, warmth, masculinity, hard
work, independence, logic, concern for oth-
ers, and difficulty in the chosen course of
study (physics or English), and read and
rated an essay (about physics or English)
purportedly written by the student.
Student descriptions were significantly
influenced by sex role descriptions. Stu-
dents with masculine descriptions were rated
higher than those with feminine sex role
descriptions on estimates of intelligence,
masculinity, independence, and logic.
Students with feminine sex role descriptions
were rated as warmer, more concerned with
others, and more likely to encounter diffi-
culty in subsequent study. Physics was
judged to be the least appropriate course of
study for those with feminine 'sex role de-
scriptions; similarly, students with feminine
sex role descriptions were judged to have the
greatest amount of difficulty in subsequent
study in physics.
Sex role descriptions also influenced the
ratings of the essays purportedly written by
the students. Students with masculine sex
role characteristics were rated higher in
ability to express a point of view, in having
338 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH
understood the question, in overall writing
ability, in knowledge and use of grammatical
rules, and in overall quality of answer on the
English essay.
Several studies lend credence to Bernard's
(1979) theorizing and findings. Phillips
(1980) reported that early childhood and
elementary school teachers held different sex
role stereotypes for male and female stu-
dents. Boys were viewed as more aggressive
and as more interested in science and math.
Girls were rated as more emotional and as
more interested in art and literature. Benz,
Pfeiffer, & Newman (1981) took this line of
research a step further. Seventy teachers in
Grades 1-12 rated a student described as
either a male, female, high achieving male or
female, or low achieving male or female on a
revised version of the Bern Sex-Role Inven-
tory. The students rated were then classi-
fied as either masculine, feminine, androg-
ynous, or undifferentiated in the usual
manner (cf. Bern, 1977). Neither sex of
student, sex of teacher, nor grade taught was
related to sex role classification. However,
the teachers were more likely to expect high
achieving students, regardless of gender, to
be masculine or androgynous, and low
achieving students, regardless of gender, to
be feminine or undifferentiated. A repli-
cation of the study with 119 graduate and
undergraduate students produced essen-
tially the same results.
Although the results of these studies are
intriguing, they obviously must be inter-
preted with a high degree of caution.
Teachers' expectancies may in part be
formed from their own sex role stereotypes
or from student behaviors of a sex role na-
ture, especially given the general stereotypes
of our society, but the artificiality of the re-
search and the fact that teachers rated un-
known students leave the validity of the re-
sults questionable.
Previously Taught Siblings
Seaver (1973) investigated the possibility
that a teacher's experience with a sibling
might act as information from which a
teacher could form an expectancy for stu-
dent performance. He noted that the
teacher might have a tendency to expect
younger siblings to be more like older sib-
lings than they actually are. Poor students
should lead their teachers to expect poor
performance from younger siblings; bright
students should lead teachers to expect ex-
cellent performance from their younger
siblings.
The 79 pairs of siblings who completed
first grade in the same school were classified
according to whether the older sibling had
been a high or low achiever in Grade 1 and
whether or not the younger sibling had the
same first-grade teacher as the older sibling.
The dependent variables were Stanford
Achievement Test scores and two teacher-
determined grade point averages, from the
winter and spring of Grade 1.
A significant interaction involving older
sibling's performance and the younger sib-
ling having the same or a different teacher
occurred for the Word Meaning, Paragraph
Meaning, and Arithmetic subtests of the
Stanford Achievement Tests. When the
older sibling had performed at a high level,
the younger siblings scored higher if they
had the same rather than a different teacher:
When the older sibling had performed at a
low level the reverse was the case. With one
exception (Word Study Skills) the direction
of the differences on all the measures was
consistent with the teacher expectancy ef-
fect.
Heines (1976) used a very similar design
in an attempt to replicate Seaver's (1973)
study. Heines identified 30 seventh graders
who had the same English teacher as an
older sibling. The remaining 73 students in
the classroom were control subjects—none
had an older sibling taught by the teacher.
Classroom observations, achievement test
scores, and teacher assigned grades were
measured. Although there were several
teacher behavior differences favoring high
expectancy students, there were no signifi-
cant interactions involving older siblings'
performance and the experimental/control
group.
Another replication of Seaver's study was
attempted by Rivers (1980). The experi-
mental group was composed of second
graders whose teacher had taught an older
sibling. The remaining children were in the
control group. Course marks and stan-
dardized achievement test scores were the
dependent variables. Although there was
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES
some support for the teacher expectancy
hypothesis, particularly for course marks on
verbal material, restricted variance in the
dependent measures attenuated the find-
ings.
Richey (1981a, 1981b) carried these in-
vestigational strategies a step further by
asking elementary school teachers for their
academic, social, and behavioral expecta-
tions for the siblings of previously taught LD
and non-LD children. The teachers' ex-
pectancies were higher for the sibs of non-LD
children. Sibs of LD children were expected
to perform less well academically and so-
cially and were expected to need more sup-
port services.
The findings of these studies are not only
interesting in their own right—particularly
because of the novel approach used—but
also provide some evidence of teacher ex-
pectancy effects. The results of the Seaver
(1973) and Rivers (1980) studies indicate
that in the early elementary school years an
older sibling's performance may create ex-
pectancies for a younger sibling's perfor-
mance. This was true for both positive and
negative expectancies. The quasi-experi-
mental naturalistic approach employed al-
lowed this type of finding, the investigation
of which likely would require unethical
procedures if an experimental-manipulative
approach were used.
Name Stereotypes
Harari and McDavid (1973) suggest that
teachers' expectancies may be associated
with implicit stereotyped perceptions of
names. More specifically, they hypothesize
that teachers may make more favorable
judgments of work samples linked with
common or frequent names and less favor-
able judgments of work samples linked with
unusual names. Further, they argue this
effect should be more pronounced for expe-
rienced teachers because they have had a
longer time to evaluate name stereotypes.
To test these hypotheses, Harari and
McDavid (1973) had 80 teachers and 80
college students read and score essays iden-
tified by a first name that was either desir-
able (David, Michael, Karen, Lisa) or un-
desirable (Elmer, Hubert, Bertha, Adelle),
as judged by students and teachers. For
339
teachers, the effect of name was significant
for both boys and girls. Essays attributed
to David and Lisa were scored significantly
higher than essays associated with unpopu-
lar names. Similar trends were observed for
essays associated with the names Michael
and Karen, but the effects were not statis-
tically significant, Analysis of the data from
the college sample revealed no significant
effects. Although somewhat indirectly, the
data suggest that the student's name may
have some bearing on subjective evaluations
of teachers and, therefore, may be a source
of expectancy.
More direct evidence of the importance of
first-name stereotypes on student achieve-
ment comes from research reported by
Garwood (1976), who was interested specif-
ically in testing the hypothesis that sixth
graders with names rated as desirable by
teachers would score higher on self-concept
and achievement tests than sixth graders
with names rated as undesirable. The
subjects were 79 elementary school teachers.
(None of the teachers was currently teaching
any of the students involved in the research.)
At the start of the school year the students
completed the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
and the Children's Self-Concept of
Achievement Test. Three months earlier
the students had taken the Iowa Test of
Basic Skills. The names of the students
were put into a frequency distribution, and
any name that appeared three or more times
was put into a group of names that was sub-
sequently rated by the sample of teachers.
Through this procedure a group of students
with desirable and undesirable names was
identified.
The results of relevance to this review in-
dicated that the group of students possessing
desirable first names scored significantly
better on aspects of self-concept and on the
Iowa Achievement Tests. Garwood suggests
that teachers' stereotypes of first names in-
fluence their interactions with students and,
thereby, the student's self-concept and
achievement.
Tompkins and Boor (1980) had 141 junior,
senior, and graduate students rate a ficti-
tious student, who had either a popular,
neutral, or unpopular first name, on a series
of four academic and five social attributes.
Ratings were done after reading a fictitious
340 JEROMK B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH
cumulative record folder containing a grade
report, a picture, and other information
about the student. On only one social
measure, estimated SES level, was there a
nonsignificant trend toward a name effect,
and it was opposite of that expected—un-
popular names were associated with higher
SES estimates. Name popularity was not
related to any of the academic measures.
F'or neither the social nor academic measures
were there significant interactions involving
name popularity. These results, then, rep-
licate those of Harari and McDavid's college
sample.
The results of these three studies are in-
triguing. It appears that for teachers name
stereotypes may be a factor in expectancy
formation. For college students this is not
the case. Although the results for specific
names may vary as a function of regional
preferences for names, "desirable" names,
whatever they may be, may carry a positive
bias with them. Should this prove to be the
case in research with greater external valid-
ity, it may prove one of the most surprising
and interesting findings in the literature.
One-Parent Versus Two-Parent Home
With the increasing divorce rate of the
past decade or so some researchers have be-
come interested in the effects on the child of
being reared in a single-parent home (cf.
Biller, 1970; Lamb, 1976). Santrock (1975)
extended this research into the realm of
moral development and reported that
teachers viewed father-absent boys as less
advanced in moral development than fa-
ther-present boys. This finding has led to
the study of the possibility that teachers may
have different, and more negative, attitudes
toward children from one-parent families.
Santrock and Tracy (1978) had 30 un-
dergraduate and graduate students complete
a series of ratings of a male child after view-
ing a 20-minute videotape of the child in-
teracting with peers. Half the subjects were
told the child was from a father-absent home
and half were told the child was from an in-
tact family. Individual comparisons on 16
personality and academic traits revealed that
9 favored the child from the intact family.
The number of significant effects was re-
duced to 3 when comparisons controlled for
the overall alpha level. As the authors point
out, these data are best considered only
suggestive because of the small n. We would
add that the restriction of the study to a
male, and the use of some (unspecified
number of) nonteachers also restricts the
generality of the findings.
Levine (1981) investigated teacher atti-
tudes toward children from one-parent and
two-parent families. The 100 teachers rated
13 psychosocial attributes and 7 academic
attributes for the degree each would be more
likely exhibited by a child from a one- or
two-parent family. Analyses revealed the
teachers expected the children from one-
parent homes to have lower academic
achievement and especially more psycho-
social problems than children from intact
families.
The results of these two studies clearly are
suggestive but not definitive. Teachers may
have different attitudes toward children
from different family situations, and this
may be a source for forming expectancies.
Apparently, the disruptiveness of di-
vorce—or death of a parent—may cause
some academic difficulties and social prob-
lems that are seen by teachers. Teachers
may generalize the problems of some chil-
dren to all children, thereby developing an
attitude that is translated into an expectancy
about how divorce affects the child's school
performance.
Conclusions
The purpose of a review such as this one,
of course, is to provide an objective summary
of our knowledge of a field of research.
Through such reviews it is hoped that mis-
conceptions will be corrected and solid
knowledge bases will be established. In
addition, critical reviews help identify
shortcomings in the existing literature,
which aids interpretation and theory
building.
Misconceptions /Shortcomings
In previous reviews, a variety of types of
information were claimed to be bases of ex-
pectancies in a nearly offhand way. The
research reviewed above, and the procedures
employed in the review, allow a more objec-
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES 341

Table 6 The significant physical attractiveness

Summary of Bases of Teacher Expectancies effect is perhaps most readily explained as
Related due to the procedures employed in the con-
Attractiveness (academic and social/personality) duct of the research. Having subjects give
Student classroom conduct expectancy information for a student based
Cumulative folder information only on a picture and no interaction may
Race
Social class result in an artificial finding. Willis (1972)
reported that for teachers and their own
Not related students there was a positive effect between
Gender (academic and social/personality) attractiveness and expectancies early in the
One-parent family situation school year but not later. In the research
Questionable reviewed above we may be seeing an initial
Older sibling's previous performance (with same reaction equivalent to that reported by
teacher) Willis. As Adams and LaVoie (1974) and
Sex role behavior LaVoie and Adams (1974) note, physical
Name stereotypes
attractiveness may be important initially but
not later, when other more academically
tive assessment of the types of information pertinent information becomes available.
to which teachers attend when forming ex- As noted above, teachers use available in-
pectancies for student academic perfor- formation, for example, attractiveness, ad-
mance, social relations, and personality de- justing expectancies as more, or more valid,
velopment. The conclusions drawn from information becomes available. Given more
the literature review are summarized in pertinent information, less valid bases, for
Table 6. As may be seen, five student example, attractiveness, become less im-
characteristics were related significantly to portant in shaping expectancies.
teacher expectancies, two were not, and the Two types of information, student gender
data were equivocal for three. and number of parents in the home, were not
Of the five bases related to teacher ex- related to teacher expectancies. The failure
pectancies, two, cumulative folder infor- of student gender to relate to expectancies
mation and student conduct, provide ob- was unexpected given the gender differences
jective, academically relevant information in student teacher interactions (cf. Bank,
that may be useful in program planning for Biddle, & Good, 1980; Brophy & Good,
students and may help the teacher better 1974). Apparently, differential behaviors
understand individual student's needs. to male and female students in the classroom
Moreover, these types of information are do not reflect to a significant degree differ-
perceived as highly reliable (Cooper, 1979b). ential expectancies for student academic or
These results are consistent with other social development. The failure of living in
studies (cf. Brophy & Good, 1974) relating a one-parent family to relate to teacher ex-
teacher-student interactions to student pectancies is not entirely unexpected. Al-
classroom behavior and characteristics. though the trauma of divorce or death of a
Two of the remaining three positively parent may disrupt the child's classroom
identified bases, SES and race, likely reflect performance, teachers may be able to alle-
stereotypic (perhaps prejudicial) expec- viate some of the difficulties by careful at-
tancies for social behaviors. In the absence tention to the student and by understanding.
of more academically relevant information Moreover, such disruption of the student's
teachers may rely on this type of knowledge, performance may be viewed as temporary,
imperfect though it may be, about students unlike other bases of expectancies. Hence,
when forming initial impressions and ex- its transiency may lead to it being a weak
pectations. Until research is done with overall predictor of teacher expectancy.
teachers interacting with their own students Three potential bases of expectancies,
it will not be possible to determine if teachers namely, previously taught siblings, sex role
react to stereotypic or actual behavioral behavior, and name stereotypes, were at best
differences among students of differing SES weakly associated with teacher expectancies.
or ethnic backgrounds. Further research is necessary before it can be
342 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH
determined if these types of information are
predictive of teacher expectancy effects.
The findings of the meta-analysis help
clarify and correct earlier impressions. In
part, this is a result of the meta-analytic
procedures, which take some of the subjec-
tivity out of the literature summary. In
part, this results from the omission of studies
not dealing with teaching-learning situa-
tions. Hence, research from social psy-
chology and experimental psychology, which
is cited in other reviews as demonstrating
bases of teacher expectancies, was excluded
from the meta-analysis. Historically, re-
viewers have not done this, resulting in re-
views overstating the case for some bases. In
the future care should be taken to judge
carefully the studies included in reviews to
ensure that veridical conclusions are
drawn.
Although a number of criticisms may be
leveled against some of the research pre-
sented above, the most critical statement lies
in the artificial nature of most of the designs
employed. Although teachers were subjects
in many studies, they were asked to make
judgments about students with whom they
had no direct contact. Research in which
teachers made judgments about their own
students resulted in stronger findings and,
at times, findings different from similar re-
search in which teachers made judgments
about unfamiliar students. Teachers do not
form expectancies in the void of other in-
formation. Daily interactions with students
help shape and even change expectancies, an
issue addressed most directly by Willis
(1972). Clearly, this must temper findings
because of issues related to external validity
of the results.
Implications for Future Research
Consideration of the findings reviewed in
this article leads to a number of suggestions
for future research. First, and most im-
portant, is the necessity of conducting re-
search with classroom teachers and their own
students. The findings reported above,
when compared with research cited by others
(e.g., Braun, 1976; Cooper, 1979a), support
the contention that a more veridical picture
of the bases of teacher expectancies will be
gained by studying intact classrooms. A
number of examples make it clear that data
collected from nonteachers do not neces-
sarily lead to the same set of conclusions as
data collected from classroom teachers.
Although research in allied fields, such as
social psychology, may provide pertinent
leads to research with classroom teachers,
one must carefully evaluate the translation
of such research to the classroom situa-
tion.
One reason for the disparity of the find-
ings may rest in the artificiality of the pro-
cedures used in the majority of the studies.
One must seriously question the degree to
which even teacher ratings in such experi-
ments are valid indices of how teachers form
expectancies about the students in their
class.
It also appears that the context of teacher
expectancies is an important consideration.
Some research leads to the conclusion that
teachers' expectancies are not unitary, that
is, that teacher expectancies may have dif-
ferent bases depending upon the area of ex-
pectancy, for example, academic versus so-
cial behavior. A prime example of this dif-
ferential may be found in the literature re-
lating student gender to teacher expec-
tancies. Future research should be directed
at examining the importance of these dif-
ferential effects of student characteristics for
teacher expectancies.
Third, the majority of research has been
directed at a single potential influence on
teacher expectancies. Although there is
some research on multiple/interactive in-
fluences, much more research needs to be
done.
Fourth, existing research is largely cross-
sectional in design. When this research is
done in classrooms little attention is paid to
the experience the teacher has had with the
class, that is, time of the year (Palardy,
1969). Since experience with the students
no doubt will lead to expectancies with dif-
ferent bases than the expectancies after but
little interaction with the class, longitudinal
research, such as that done by Willis (1972),
is called for. Longitudinal studies will allow
for estimates of the importance of class
contact time and will allow measurement of
changes in expectancies and their bases.
This is an area of research that is completely
neglected. We know virtually nothing about
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES 343

whether, how, or why teachers change ex- degree of accuracy. Given the importance
pectancies for students' performance. of the concerns, this is not an issue to be
Of course, the real crux of the concerns taken lightly.
expressed above is the lack of research with
teachers and their own students. By con- References
ducting research with intact classrooms (i.e.,
teachers and their own students) a more Bank, B., Biddle, B., & Good, T. Sex roles, classroom
instruction, and reading achievement. Journal of
ecologically valid understanding of the bases Educational Psychology, 1980, 72,119-132.
of teacher expectancies will be obtained. Bern, S. On the utility of alternative procedures for
Research such as that conducted by Willis assessing psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45,
(1972), Cooper and Lowe (1977), Friedman 196-205.
(1976), Palardy (1969), Salvia, Algozzine, Benz, C., Pfeiffer, I., & Newman, I. Sex role expecta-
and Sheare (1977), and Seaver (1973) dem- tions of classroom teachers, Grades 1-12. American
onstrate the benefit of ecologically valid re- Educational Research Journal, 1981, 78, 289-302.
search. Berscheid, B., & Walster, E. Physical attractiveness.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
An important question is the degree to social psychology (Vol. 7). New York: Academic
which expectations are formed on the basis Press, 1974.
of information that is steeped in what occurs Biller, H. Father absence and the personality devel-
in the real world. For example, Clifford and opment of the male child. Developmental Psy-
chology, 1970, 2,181-201.
Walster (1973) found that teachers expected Braun, C. Teacher expectation: Sociopsychological
attractive children to have better relations dynamics. Review of Educational Research, 1976,
than unattractive children with peers. This 46, 185-213.
may in fact be the case, indicating the ex- Brophy, J., & Good, T. Teachers' communication of
pectancy is not a bias (cf. Dusek, 1975). differential expectations for children's classroom
performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of
However, it would seem to be difficult to Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 365-374.
justify teachers' expecting better or poorer Brophy, J., & Good, T. Teacher-student relationships:
academic performance because of the stu- causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rine-
dent's name. This expectation may be a hart & Winston, 1974.
biasing influence, causing some children to Claiborn, W. Expectancy effects in the classroom: A
failure to replicate. Journal of Educational Psy-
obtain a poor education. Expectations may chology, 1969,60, 377-383.
be based on reasonable and appropriate in- Clark, K. Educational stimulation of racially disad-
formation and may lead to teacher behaviors vantaged children. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), Education
that will benefit the student. Or, expec- in depressed areas. New York: Bureau of Publi-
cations, Teachers College, Columbia University,
tancies may be founded on inappropriate or 1963.
extraneous information, leading to a biased Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
(positive or negative) education (Dusek, sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
1975). Research should be done to clarify Cooper, H. Controlling personal rewards: Professional
teachers' differential use of feedback and the effects
this issue. of feedback on the student's motivation to perform.
Finally, although broad-based under- Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69,
pinnings of expectancies have been investi- 419-427.
gated, a number of specific potential bases Cooper, H. Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher
of teachers' expectancies have not yet been expectation communication and performance influ-
ences. Review of Educational Research, 1979, 49,
investigated, for example, academic and 389-410. (a)
nonacademic behavior in the classroom, Cooper, H. Some effects of preperformance informa-
verbal and written reports by previous tion on academic expectations. Journal of Educa-,
teachers and the principal, and meetings tional Psychology, 1979, 71, 375-380. (b)
with parents. In addition, most of the re- Cooper, H. Statistically combining independent
studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in con-
search reported above has been for a single formity research. Journal of Personality and Social
grade level. The bases of expectancies may Psychology, 1979, 37,131-146. (c)
well be different for different grade levels. Cooper, H., & Lowe, C. Task information and attri-
These, and other, questions must be an- butions for academic performance by professional
teachers and roleplayers. Journal of Personality,
swered in a satisfactory manner before 1977, 45,469-483.
statements about the bases of teacher ex- Cooper, H., & Rosenthal, R. Statistical versus tradi-
pectancies may be made with any significant tional procedures for summarizing research findings.
344 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH
Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 87, 442-449.
Cooper, H., Hinkel, G., & Good, T. Teachers' beliefs
about interaction control and their observed behav-
ioral correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1980,72,345-354.
Dusek, J. Do teachers bias children's learning? Re-
view of Educational Research, 1975, 45, 661-684.
Dusek, J., & O'Connell, E. Teacher expectancy effects
on the achievement test performance of elementary
school children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1973, 65, 371-377.
Dweck, C., & Reppucci, D. Learned helplessness and
reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25,
109-116.
Fleming, E., & Anttonen, R. Teacher expectancy as
related to the academic and personal growth of pri-
mary-age children. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 1971, 36 (Serial
No. 145).
Friedman, P. Comparisons of teacher reinforcement
schedules for students with different social class
backgrounds. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1976, 68, 286-292.
Glass, G. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis re-
search. Educational Researcher, 1976, 8, 79-82.
Glass, G. Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of
research. In L. Schulman (Ed.), Review of research
in education. Itasca, 111.: Peacock, 1977.
Good, T., Cooper, H., & Blakey, S. Classroom inter-
action as a function of teacher expectations, student
sex, and time of year. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 1980, 72, 378-385.
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., &
Skon, L. Effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures on achievement: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 89,
47-62.
Lamb, M. The role of the father in child development.
New York: Wiley, 1976.
Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1974.
O'Connell, E., Dusek, J., & Wheeler, R. A follow-up
study of teacher expectancy effects. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 325-328.
Rist, R. Student social class and teacher expectations:
The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education.
Harvard Educational Review, 1970, 40, 411-451.
Rist, R. The urban school: A factory for failure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1973.
Rosenthal, R. Combining results of independent
studies. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85,
185-193.
Rosenthal, R. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance
for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86,
638-641.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the
classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intel-
lectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1968.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. Interpersonal expectancy
effects: The first 345 studies. The Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 1978, 3, 377-415.
Stouffer, S. The American soldier: Volume!. Ad-
justment during army life. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1949.
Weinstein, R., & Middlestadt, S. Student perceptions
of teacher interactions with male high and low
achievers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979,
77,421-431.
Willis, S. Formation of teachers' expectations of
students' academic performance. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, the University of Texas at
Austin, 1972.
Willis, S., & Brophy, J. Origins of teachers' attitudes
toward young children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1974, 66, 520-529.
Appendix
References in Meta-Analysis
Adams, G. Racial membership and physical attrac-
tiveness effects on preschool teachers' expectations.
Child Study Journal, 1978,8, 29-41.
Adams, G., & Cohen, A. An examination of cumulative
folder information used by teachers in making dif-
ferential judgments of children's abilities.' The Al-
berta Journal of Educational Research, 1976, 22,
216-225. (a)
Adams, G., & Cohen, A. Characteristics of children and
teacher expectancy: An extension to the child's so-
cial and family life. Journal of Educational Re-
search, 1976, 70, 87-90. (b)
Adams, G., & LaVoie, J. The effect of student's sex,
conduct, and facial attractiveness on teacher expec-
tancy. Education, 1974, 95, 76-83.
Algozzine, B. Classroom decision making as a function
of diagnostic labels and perceived competence. Re-
sources in Education, 1981,16, ED 197518.
Algozzine, B., & Stoller, L. Effects of labels and com-
petence on teachers' attributions for a student.
Resources in Education, 1981,16, ED 203588.
Amato, J. Effect of pupil's social class upon teachers'
expectations and behavior. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1976, 37,186-187-A.
Archer, P. The influence of pupil's social class on
teachers ratings of reading attainment. Resources
in Education, 1981,16, ED 195973.
Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. Teachers' information pro-
cessing: effect of information about pupils on
teachers' expectations and affect. Psychological
Reports, 1979, 44, 599-602.
Bennett, C. The effects of student characteristics and
task performance on teacher expectations and attri-
butions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979,
40(2-E), 979-980.
Bernard, M. Does sex role behavior influence the way
teachers evaluate students? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1979, 71, 553-562.
Bergan, J., & Smith, J. Effects of socio-economic status
and sex on prospective teachers' judgments. Mental
Retardation, 1966, 4,13-15.
Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. Teachers' sensitivity to the
reliability of information in making causal attribu-
tions in an achievement situation. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 1978, 70, 271-279.
Carlile, L. Teacher expectations of language delay in
black and white head start children. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1975, 35, 2455-A.
Clifford, M. & Walster, E. The effect of physical at-
 TEACHER EXPECTANCIES 345

tractiveness on teacher expectation. Sociology of diatric Psychology, 1979, 4, 353-361.

Education, 1973,46, 248-258. Herson, P. Biasing effects of diagnostic labels and sex
Cooper, H. Some effects of preperformance informa- of pupil on teachers' views of pupils' mental health.
tion on academic expectations. Journal of Educa- Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66,
tional Psychology, 1979, 71, 375-380. (b) Ill-Ill.
Cooper, H., & Burger, J. How teachers explain stu- Jensen, M., & Rosenfeld, L. Influence of mode of pre-
dents' academic performance: A categorization of sentation, ethnicity and social class on teachers'
free response academic attributions. American evaluations of students. Journal of Educational
Educational Research Journal, 1980,17, 95-109. Psychology, 1974, 66, 540-547.
Cooper, H., & Lowe, C. Task information and attri- Kehle, T., Bramble, W., & Mason, E. Teachers' ex-
butions for academic performance by professional pectations: Ratings of student performance as bi-
teachers and roleplayers. Journal of Personality, ased by student characteristics. The Journal of
1977, 45, 469-483. Experimental Education, 1974, 43, 54-60.
Cooper, H., Baron, R. & Lowe, C. The importance of LaVoie, J., & Adams, G. Teacher expectancy and its
race and social class information in the formation of relation to physical and interpersonal characteristics
expectancies about academic performance. Journal of the child. The Alberta Journal of Educational
of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 312-319. Research, 1974, 20, 122-132.
Cooper, H., Hinkel, G., & Good, T. Teachers' beliefs Lenkowsky, R., & Blackman, L. The effect of teachers'
about interaction control and their observed behav- knowledge of race and social class on their judgments
ioral correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, of children's academic competence and social ac-
1980, 72, 345-354. ceptability. Mental Retardation, 1968, 6(6),
Darlega, V., Wang, P., & Colson, W. Racial bias in 15-17.
expectancies and performance attributions. Un- Levine, E. Teachers' academic and psycho-social ex-
published manuscript, Old Dominion University, pectations for children from single-parent families.
1981. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1981, 41,
DeMeis, D. & Turner, R. Effects of students' race, 5033-A.
physical attractiveness, and dialect on teachers' Marwit, K., Marwit, S., & Walker, E. Effects of student
evaluations. Contemporary Educational Psychol- race and physical attractiveness on teachers' judg-
ogy, 1978, 3, 77-86. ments of transgressions. Journal of Educational
Deitz, S., & Purkey, W. Teacher expectation of per- Psychology, 1978, 70, 911-915.
formance based on race of student. Psychological Mason, E. Teachers' observations and expectations of
Reports, 1969,24,694. boys and girls as influenced by biased psychological
Finn, J., Gaier, E., Peng, S., & Banks, R. Teacher ex- reports and knowledge of the effects of bias. Journal
pectations and pupil achievement. Urban Educa- of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 238-243.
tion, 1975,10, 175-197. Mason, E., & Larimore, D. Effects of biased psycho-
Poster, G., & Ysseldyke, J. Expectancy and halo effects logical reports on two types of teachers' ratings.
as a result of artificially induced teacher bias. Con- Journal of School Psychology, 1974, 72, 46-50.
temporary Educational Psychology, 1976, 1, Mazer, G. Effects of social class stereotyping on teacher
37-45. expectation. Psychology in the Schools, 1971, 8,
Poster, G., Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. Classroom 373-378.
teacher and teacher-in-training susceptibility to Mertens, D. Expectations of teachers-in-training: The
stereotypical bias. Personal and Guidance Journal, influence of a student's sex and a behavioral vs. de-
1980, 27-30. scriptive approach in a biased psychological report.
Foster, G., Ysseldyke, J., & Reese, J. I wouldn't have Journal of School Psychology, 1976,14, 222-229.
seen it if I hadn't believed it. Exceptional Children, Miller, H. Race vs. class in teachers' expectations.
1975,47,469-473. Psychological Reports, 1973,32,105-106.
Garwood, S. First-name stereotypes as a factor in Miller, C., McLaughlin, J., & Chansky, N. Socioeco-
self-concept and school achievement. Journal of nomic class and teacher bias. Psychological Reports,
Educational Psychology, 1976,68, 482-487. 1968, 23, 806.
Harari, H., & McDavid, J. Name stereotypes and Palardy, J. What teachers believe—What children
teachers' expectations. Journal of Educational achieve. Elementary School Journal, 1969, 69,
Psychology, 1973, 65, 222-225. 370-374.
Harvey, D., & Slatin, G. The relationship between Parker, R. Teacher expectancy behavior: The impact
child's socio-economic status and teacher expecta- of several salient student characteristics upon ex-
tions: A test of middle-class bias hypothesis. Social pectations and causal attributions. Dissertation
Forces, 1975, 54, 140-159. Abstracts International, 1980,40, 4497-A.
Heines, B. Pygmalion's sisters and brothers: The Paulson, R. Expectancy of classroom performance:
influence of sibling-related teacher expectancies on The effects of students' dialect, students' ethnicity
classroom behaviors and student achievement. and an introduction to sociolinguistics on teacher
Unpublished manuscript, Lake Erie College, 1982. candidates' perceptions. Dissertation Abstracts
Helton, G., & Oakland, T. Teachers' attitudinal re- International, 1978, 38, 2200-A.
sponses to differing characteristics of elementary Phillips, R. Teachers' reported expectations of chil-
school students. Journal of Educational Psychol- dren's sex-roles and evaluations of sexist teaching.
ogy, 1977, 69, 261-265. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980, 41,
Hendren, T., & Routh, D. Social class bias in psy- 995-996-A.
chologists' evaluations of children. Journal of Pe- Porter, P. Teacher expectancy: The effect of race, sex,
346 JEROME B. DUSEK AND GAIL JOSEPH
direction of writing performance and trials on the
grading of essays. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 1979, 37,1251-A.
Prieto, A., & Zucker, S. The effects of race on teachers'
perceptions of education placement of behaviorally
disordered children. Resources in Education, 1980,
15, ED188427.
Pugh, L. Teacher attitudes and expectations associ-
ated with race and social class. Paper presented at
the Annual Meetings of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, 111., April 15-19,
1974.
Purgess, P. Teacher expectancy for academic success
in relation to label, sex, and pupil behavior. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 1979, 39,
2003-2004 A.
Reschly, D., & Lamprecht, M. Expectancy effects of
labels: Fact or artifact? Exceptional Children,
1979,45,55-58.
Rich, J. Effects of children's physical attractiveness
on teachers' evaluations. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1975, 67, 599-609.
Richey, L. Teachers' expectations for the siblings of
learning disabled and non-learning-disabled stu-
dents: A pilot study. Resources in Education, 1981,
16, ED 197516. (a)
Richey L. Teachers' attitudes and expectations for
siblings of learning disabled children. Resources in
Education, 1981,16, ED 203613. (b)
Rivers, J. Older siblings as bases of teacher expecta-
tions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980,
40, 4253-A.
Roland, C. Students' facial attractiveness as a factor
in teacher and counselor expectations. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1977, 37.
Ross, M., & Salvia, J. Attractiveness as a biasing factor
in teacher judgments. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 1975, 80, 96-98.
Rotter, N. The influence of race and other variables on
teachers' ratings of pupils. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1975, 35, 7134A.
Salvia, J., Algozzine, R., & Sheare, J. Attractiveness
and school achievement. Journal of School Psy-
chology, 1977,15, 60-67.
Santrock, J. Father absence, perceived maternal be-
havior and moral development in boys. Child De-
velopment, 1975,46, 753-757.
Santrock, J., & Tracy, R. Effects of children's family
structure status on the development of stereotypes
by teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1978, 70, 754-757.
Seaver, W. Effects of naturally induced teacher ex-
pectancies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1973, 28, 333-342.
Shavelson, R., Cadwell, J., & Izu, T. Teachers' sensi-
tivity to the reliability of information in making
pedagogical decisions. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 1977,14, 83-97.
Simpson, M., Smith, J., & Means, G. An assessment
of differential expectations of performance based on
race of student. Resources in Education, 1978,13,
ED 153144.
Smith, J. Ascribed and achieved student characteris-
tics in teacher expectancy: Relationship of socio-
economic status to academic achievement, academic
self-concept, and vocational aspirations. Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 1979,40,959-960.
Taylor, M. Race, sex and the expression of self-ful-
filling prophecies in a laboratory teaching situation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,
37,897-912.
Tompkins, R., & Boor, M. Effects of students' physical
attractiveness and name popularity on student
teachers' perceptions of social and academic attrib-
utes. Journal of Psychology, 1980,106, 37-42.
Wiley, M., & Eskilson, A. Why did you learn in school
today? Teachers' perceptions of causality. So-
ciology of Education, 1978,51, 261-269.
Wilkerson, M. The effects of sex and ethnicity upon
teachers' expectations of students. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1980, 41, 637-A.
Williams, T. Teacher prophecies and the inheritance
of inequality. Sociology of Education, 1976, 49,
223-236.
Wong, M. Model students? Teachers' perceptions
and expectations of their Asian and white students.
Sociology of Education, 1980, 53, 236-246.
Yoshida, R., & Meyers, C. Effects of labeling as edu-
cable mentally retarded on teachers' expectancies for
change in student's performance. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 1975, 67, 521-527.
Zucker, S. Racial determinants of teachers' perceptions
of placement of the educable mentally retarded.
Resources in Education, 1979,14, ED 171051.
Zucker, S., & Prieto, A. Teacher bias in special class
placement. Resources in Education, 1978, 13, ED
153389.
Received August 6,1982
Revision received October 8,1982 •