The paper aims to present a review of the study conducted by Brummelman, Thomaes, Orobio de Castro, Overbeek, and Bushman (2014) which studies the effects of exaggerated praise on youngsters, of both high self-worth and low self-esteem. The paper starts off by describing the parenting and teaching styles of the modern world, which encourage the use of ‘overly positive’ and ‘inflated praise’ (Brummelman et al., 2014) to children, in an attempt to increase their morale and please them. Brummelman et al. (2014) argue that in most cases, adults tend to give or show magnified acclaim to children who have truncated self-image, in an attempt to raise their confidence. However, they argue that evidence shows that such high praise, given to children with low self-opinion to boost their self-confidence, may backfire, and when given to children with high self-esteem, increases their self-esteem even further (Brummelman et al., 2014).
Brummelman et al. (2014) argue that most adults feel that the problem of low self-confidence, especially in a younger age group is a significant issue, which can be improved with praise so that children feel good about themselves. As such, with children with self-esteem issues, adults tend to go overboard with the praise, often substituting ‘you're doing well' with ‘you're doing incredibly well.' However, the effects of such praise are not quite what adults assume. Different forms of praise have different effects on children. For example, ability praise, which praises the child's inborn talents such as smartness or courage, has adverse effects that effort praise, which praises the effort the child puts in a challenge, because when a child is told he or she is very smart, he or she will most likely avoid difficulties in the future, for fear of failure, and is said that he or she is actually not so smart. Even mastery praise is counterproductive, as it decreases intrinsic motivation by teaching children that the main aim is to outperform others. Praise, therefore, sets standards of performance for children, and a standard set too high may discourage performance. Similarly, Brummelman et al. (2014) claim that excessive praise may also have diverse effects on children with different self-regard. Inflated praise conveys the underlying meaning of having to adhere to excellent standards in the future for children, and the fear of adhering to excellent standards may make children avoid challenges altogether in the future.
On the other hand, children who have higher self-esteem react differently as compare to those with lower self-confidence, because Brummelman et al. (2014) argue that children with higher self-esteem indulge in self-endorsing behavior, while those with low self-esteem indulge are self-guarding behavior. As such, self-promoting children respond well to challenges and high standards because they believe they can achieve such standards, and they want to show off their abilities. Self-protecting children, on the other hand, are afraid of failure, and because they are not confident in their abilities to achieve a specific standard, they will avoid the challenge altogether. This is not to say that inflated praise doesn't please children with self-esteem issues, but it acts to set a standard for the future which they are scared to fail. The main argument by Brummelman et al. (2014) is therefore that inflated praise leads children who have low self-esteem to avoid challenges, and thus result in their failure to take on new learning experiences.
To prove the validity of their argument, Brummelman et al. (2014) tested different hypotheses. One hypothesis established whether there is a higher possibility of adults giving excessive praise to children with little self-confidence than it is for them to give inflated praise to children with high self-esteem. Another tested the effects of exaggerated praise on the adventure seeking behavior for youngsters with high self-regard and those with little self-regard. Brummelman et al. (2014) in their paper conducted three studies, the first two directed at the first hypothesis, with the difference being that Study 1, which was conducted in the settings of the laboratory and Study 2, which was conducted in outside settings. Study 3 was based on testing the second hypothesis.
The sample set for the study consisted if children with late childhood. Brummelman et al. (2014) outline two leading causes for the selection of the sample group: the first that late childhood is the time that children can form or express self-esteem, and second that children at the age of late childhood tend to internalize performance feedback more so than children at younger ages. In Study 1 therefore, the participants were 712 adults, 95% of which were women, of ages 18 to 65, selected through online advertisements. Each participant was given a description of 6 children, 3 of which had characteristics of excessive self-esteem and the rest of the 3 with those of low esteem and was then asked to note down all the compliments they would give to each hypothetical child. Results show that 25% of the compliments were given to those with was high confidence, and a significant part of the praise was given to the hypothetical children lacking in confidence. The study, therefore, concluded that adults tend giving high praise to those with lower confidence, and with the vice versa with a higher level of inflation.
Study 2 intended to see whether the results of Study 1 could be replicated in a natural setting outside the laboratory. The participants were therefore 114 parents, and the settings were in their homes. Children of years 7 to 11 were studied. The study first independently evaluated the self-esteem of children, and then individually examined how parents tend to praise them during 12 math exercises administered by the parents and recorded by the researchers. The results of the study also showed that 25% of the praise given by the adults was inflated, that kids with low self-image were the primary targets of such praise, and additionally, that kids with low self-image tended to answer incorrectly.
Study 3 had 240 children as participants, aged 8 to 12. These children were first rated based on self-esteem using the Global Self Worth subscale, and then each child was told to draw a painting which would be judged by a famous, hypothetical painter. When each child was done, the hypothetical painter sends messages at random to each child based on three formats: the first was that of inflated praise, the second was that of normal praise, and the third of no praise. After receiving these random notes, children were again given a task of drawing another painting from a set of given paintings, and were told that one was hard to draw, but offered the opportunity of learning, while the other was easy to draw, but did not offer any learning. The results show that inflated praise given to high-esteem children increased challenge seeking behavior while that aimed at children with lower self-esteem increased challenge avoidance.
The results of all three studies seem to prove the argument by Brummelman et al. (2014) that inflated praise is beneficial for high-esteemed children, as it increases their challenge seeking behavior and aids in their ability to learn, just because they are self-secure enough to believe in their ability to succeed. For children with a low self-image, who are characteristic of self-protection characteristics, fear failure and are not confident in their abilities to succeed, inflated praise results in challenge avoidance and therefore lower opportunities to learn.
The paper is very well written, and the arguments of the article very well-articulated. Brummelman et al. (2014) present a thorough literature review on their topic, highlighting the fact that their study is the first in their particular field. Moreover, even in their research methodology, they have been careful to ask for, and mention, that the research conducted had the explicit consent of both the adult participants and the parents of the children who participated. Additionally, no names were mention, which showed that Brummelman et al. (2014) took careful considerations to make sure their study was ethically conducted. Brummelman et al. (2014) also use primary empirical research to support their arguments, which gives the research the validity and reliability it needs. Furthermore, they made sure that the effects of variables at play between laboratory and natural setting were controlled for in their Study 1 and Study 2.
They also highlight some of the limitations of their study, including the fact that the meaning attached to language and the measurement of praise as inflated or normal may be subjective, based on the cultures and backgrounds of all the participants in the study (Brummelman et al., 2014). Additionally, the study only assumes and does not show that high self-confidence means self-endorsing behavior while low self-confidence means self-guarding behavior. Moreover, the limitations of the study only allow for the one-time effect of inflated praise to be studied, leaving room for research on the long-term results of constant exaggerated praise on children with both excessive and low confidence. The research has massive implications for the field of teaching and parenting styles and theories, which affect child behavior and aid in learning and development. Overall, the paper was very well written, with evidence to support each argument and articulated ideas and flow of the argument.
Reference
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., " Bushman, B. J. (2014). “That’s not just beautiful—that’s incredibly beautiful!” The adverse impact of inflated praise on children with low self-esteem. Psychological science, 25(3), 728-735.
