Organizations use training programs

Organizations use training programs, at great financial costs, to
provide employees with new information and skills necessary to
perform their jobs (Quin˜ones, 1997; Towler & Dipboye, 2001).
Consequently, organizational psychologists have considered features
that characterize effective training programs, such as the
design of the training, the transfer environment, and characteristics
of the trainee (for a review, see Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
However, there is a dearth of research examining how trainer
characteristics might influence these antecedent factors and ultimately
influence trainee task performance (Towler & Dipboye,
2001). In particular, a trainer’s negative stereotypes and expectations
of diverse trainees within training sessions may influence
training effectiveness. The purported goal of a training program is
to provide all employees with the knowledge and skills necessary
to perform a task (Quin˜ones, 1997). Nevertheless, rather than
“leveling the playing field” for all employees through training, if
trainer stereotypes result in lower quality training, organizations
may be unknowingly withholding skills and resources from stigmatized
employees that are necessary to accomplish tasks effectively.
Thus, the present study draws from extensive research on
the self-fulfilling prophecy to address a deficiency in the existing
training literature on the consequences of negative expectations of
diverse trainees.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
The self-fulfilling prophecy is a phenomenon by which an individual’s
expectations can lead to behaviors that cause the expectation
to come true, thus objectively confirming the perceiver’s
original expectations (e.g., Jussim, 1986; Rosenthal & Jacobson,
1992). This process has been studied in a number of contexts,
including classrooms, social interactions, and organizations, and is
generally considered to have three parts (for reviews, see Darley &
Fazio, 1980; Jussim, 1986; Miller & Turnbull, 1986; Neuberg,
1996; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978). In the first part of this process,
expectations are formed and either maintained or changed depending
on confirmatory biases, the flexibility or rigidity of the expectations,
and the strength of the disconfirming evidence (Jussim,
1986). In the second part, the target receives differential treatment
based on the expectations. For example, when teachers have high
expectations of their students, they tend to create warmer social
environments and direct more attention, emotional support, encouragement,
or awards toward these students (e.g., Harris &
Rosenthal, 1985; Rosenthal, 1973). Furthermore, there is evidence
that when instructors or leaders have high expectations of their
students, they actually teach more, ask harder questions, and allot