Affordances are properties of an environment that encourage particular behaviors. Affordances range from simple objects (e.g., glass of water) to complex social cues (e.g., come-hither look). They invite action (drink me! come over here!) but the invitation may be turned down or not even noticed. No surprise there: people enter situations with certain inclinations, desires, and expectations, which sensitizes them to some affordances and not others. Not everyone acts on a help-wanted sign, unguarded purse, or unfriendly comment. And those inclined to act may not behave the same way to the same affordance. A glass of water is generally for drinking but sometimes it’s for throwing in anger. An unguarded purse may be an invitation to grab some cash or turn it in to the lost-and-found office.
How we respond to affordances sets up what comes next: new situations, each with its own affordances. And so on, along a life trajectory given shape by the consequences of our actions, which are, in part, responses to affordances.
But life trajectories aren’t just a product of how we respond to affordances. Other people exert their own (partly) independent influence on our psyches and behavior, the effect of which may nudge us towards some futures and away from others. For example, being the repeated target of negative stereotypes can lower one’s sense of potential, and low expectations of success may increase the tendency to avoid challenge and go with the path of least resistance.
Stereotypes don’t have to become self-fulfilling prophecies, though. Counter-messages and positive experiences - especially experiences of competence and mastery - may lead to choices, circumstances, and affordances that set up a much different life story.
—
References:
Madon, S., Jussim, L., Guyll, M., Nofziger, H., Salib, E. R., Willard, J., & Scherr, K. C. (2018). The accumulation of stereotype-based self-fulfilling prophecies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(5), 825–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000142
Michael, J. Establishing Operations. Behavior Analyst 16, 191–206 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392623