How labels like smart, stupid or crazy affect behaviour
A literature review of at least four double-spaced pages reviewing and summarising relevant theory and research on how labels such as smart, stupid or crazy affect people's mental processes and behaviour, defending a particular position in a thesis stated in the opening paragraph, written in your own academic voice with critical engagement, at least three scholarly sources and a concluding paragraph that reaffirms the thesis, in APA format.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 13, 2026
A review that argues
The brief calls this a literature review and then requires a thesis you defend, which are two different genres, and the tension between them is the assignment. A pure review surveys what is known; a thesis-driven paper argues for a position. What is being asked for is the second built from the first, so the reading has to serve an argument rather than fill pages. That means deciding what you think before you write, not after. Do the reading first, then form a defensible claim, then organise the sources around it. A useful test: your thesis should be something a well-informed reader could disagree with. Labels affect people is not a thesis because nobody disputes it. A claim that the mechanism is primarily internalisation of the label into self-concept rather than altered treatment by others is a thesis, and the literature can be marshalled for and against it.
The topic has more than one theoretical tradition and a review that only knows one will look thin. Labelling theory, from sociology, holds that deviance is produced by the societal reaction rather than the act, and that a label becomes a master status organising how a person is seen and eventually how they see themselves. Stereotype threat, from social psychology, shows that awareness of a negative stereotype about one's group can measurably impair performance in the moment, which is a different mechanism operating on a much shorter timescale. Expectancy effects show that other people's expectations change their behaviour towards a person and thereby the person's outcomes. Self-fulfilling prophecy names the loop that closes. Implicit theories of ability distinguish believing intelligence is fixed from believing it is malleable, which changes how a person responds to being called smart. Each explains a different part of the phenomenon.
Critical engagement is explicitly required and this is where a good paper separates itself. Some of the best-known work in this area has a complicated evidentiary record: the classroom expectancy studies drew methodological criticism from the outset, several stereotype threat findings have produced small or null effects in large replications, and the growth mindset literature has seen its effect sizes shrink substantially in preregistered work. Saying this is not debunking, and you should not swing to dismissal either; it is what reviewing a literature honestly looks like. Note where evidence is strong, where it is contested, and what the better-powered studies found, then let your thesis account for the mixed picture rather than pretending it away. A marker who knows the field will notice immediately whether you know this. Reporting a mixed picture accurately is itself evidence of the critical engagement the brief demands. Say so plainly where it applies.
The three labels the prompt offers are not equivalent and treating them as one category wastes the best material available. Smart is a positive label with documented costs: praise for ability rather than effort is associated with avoiding challenge and with fragility after failure, which is a genuinely counterintuitive finding and easy to evidence. Stupid operates through both internalisation and reduced opportunity, and its effects run through educational tracking and expectancy in ways that are structural rather than only psychological. Crazy is different again because it attaches to a stigmatised category with concrete consequences for employment, housing and how a person's own account of their experience is received. Comparing the three, rather than listing them, gives the paper an analytic spine and makes the thesis easier to defend. Say which of the three you think does the most damage and defend the ranking, since that is an arguable claim.
On execution, three scholarly sources is a floor and a paper of four pages arguing a contested claim will need more; use empirical studies and reviews rather than textbooks and popular articles. Your own academic voice is required, which means the paper should read as your argument with the literature cited in support, not as a chain of summaries. Watch the mechanism language carefully and do not slide between correlation and causation, since much of this literature is experimental and some of it is not. Open with the thesis in the introduction as the brief directs, keep at least four double-spaced pages, close with a conclusion that reaffirms the thesis, and use APA throughout for both citations and formatting. Check that every claim in the conclusion appeared earlier with a citation behind it, since a conclusion is not the place to introduce evidence. Cite as you go rather than at the end.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Form a thesis a well-informed reader could dispute.
- 02Distinguish labelling theory, stereotype threat, expectancy effects and implicit theories of ability.
- 03Engage critically with contested findings and replication evidence.
- 04Compare positive and negative labels rather than listing them.
- 05Keep correlational and experimental evidence apart.
- 06Write in your own voice with the literature in support.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument. Crazy impact people’s mental processes and behaviors ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours. Crazy impact people’s mental processes and behaviors
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A literature review of relevant theory and research.
- 02An introductory paragraph containing a succinct thesis statement.
- 03A defence of that position using the reviewed literature.
- 04At least three scholarly sources.
- 05A concluding paragraph reaffirming the thesis.
- 06At least four double-spaced pages, in APA format.
Theory, evidence, comparison
Introduction and thesis
The claim you will defend, stated succinctly and arguably.
Labelling theory
Societal reaction, master status, and the route to self-concept.
Stereotype threat and expectancy
Short-timescale performance effects and the behaviour of others.
Implicit theories of ability
How fixed and malleable beliefs change the response to being labelled.
How strong is the evidence
Replication findings, effect sizes and where the literature is contested.
Smart as a costly label
Ability praise, challenge avoidance and fragility after failure.
Stupid and structural effect
Internalisation alongside tracking and reduced opportunity.
Crazy and stigma
Consequences for employment, housing and testimonial credibility.
Conclusion
The thesis reaffirmed in light of what the evidence supports.
Empirical work over textbooks
Recommended databases
- PsycINFO
- PubMed
- Google Scholar for replication and meta-analytic work
- Your library's sociology databases for labelling theory
Search sequence
- 1.Read across at least two traditions before choosing a thesis.
- 2.For each key finding, search for a meta-analysis or preregistered replication.
- 3.Search separately for research on praise for ability, which is the positive label case.
- 4.Look for work on stigma consequences beyond the psychological, such as employment outcomes.
- 5.Check whether each study is experimental or correlational and note it as you read.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Cultural Competence in the Care of LGBTQ Patients
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
A documented case of how a stigmatised label changes the treatment a person receives, which is the structural half of the mechanism.
- 02
Overcoming Stigma and Bias in Obesity Management
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Evidence on how a stigmatising label alters both behaviour towards a person and their own engagement, with measurable outcomes.
- 03
Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
A developmental account of identity formation, useful for arguing when in life a label is most likely to be internalised.
- 04
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity
American Psychological Association · 2025
Professional guidance on how classification language itself carries consequences, and a route into the peer-reviewed literature.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Writing a survey with no defended position.
- Choosing a thesis nobody would dispute.
- Knowing only one theoretical tradition.
- Citing well-known findings without acknowledging replication problems.
- Swinging to dismissal instead of reporting a mixed evidence base.
- Treating smart, stupid and crazy as interchangeable labels.
- Chaining source summaries instead of writing in your own voice.
- Sliding between correlation and causation.
Submission checklist
- The thesis appears in the opening paragraph and is genuinely arguable.
- At least two theoretical traditions are covered.
- The mechanism proposed by each is distinguished.
- Contested findings are reported as contested, with replication evidence.
- The strength of the evidence is stated where it is strong.
- Smart, stupid and crazy are compared rather than listed.
- The costs of positive labelling are addressed.
- Structural effects are distinguished from psychological ones.
- Correlational and experimental claims are kept apart.
- At least three scholarly sources, preferring empirical work.
- The conclusion reaffirms the thesis.
- At least four double-spaced pages, APA format throughout.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.