An article from New York Magazine outlines the results of surveys performed by Carol Dweck, a psychologist studying the effects of praise on students.
It’s somewhat a response to the 85% of American parents who think it’s important to tell their kids that they’re smart.
Children were given tests and then praised either for their effort or their intelligence.
Dweck had suspected that praise could backfire, but even she was surprised by the magnitude of the effect. “Emphasizing effort gives a child a variable that they can control,” she explains. “They come to see themselves as in control of their success. Emphasizing natural intelligence takes it out of the child’s control, and it provides no good recipe for responding to a failure.”
How fundamental could this behavior be? For instance, in the workplace, does something as simple as referring to effort contributed instead of smarts improve results?
How Not to Talk to Your Kids – [NYmag] Via - [Waxy.org]
Hi Craig,
Interesting post. I’ve read some of Dweck’s work. The problem with it is the failure to differnentiate between genuine praise and flattery.
Besides, why does she move around so much?
Professor, Department of Psychology, Stanford University (2004-present)
Professor, Department of Psychology, Columbia University (1989-2004)
Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois (1985-1989)
Professor, Laboratory of Human Development, Harvard University (1981-1985)
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois (1972-1977)
National Science Foundation Fellow, Yale University (1967-1971)
Craig,
As a coach I can agree with this theory. In my coaching career I was trying to reinforce kids good effort by praising their natural ability and usually after receiving the praise the child would then become arrogant towards his team mates and lazier overall, but when I praised through emphasizing the effort that they took to achieve their goals, the response was more internal and humble and reinforced hard work.
As a person who greatly fears failure, and so avoids risky endeavors that may pay off in the end, I must agree with the article. By embracing an assessment that they are “smart”, the risk-averse children in the study equate their performance with what they are. The children who see their performance as the result of hard work do not have personal identity at stake if they fail, and so can take greater risks.
I have done well with natural abilities, but am greatly risk-averse. I became extremely depressed and anxious during my two attempts to earn a PhD, partly because I could not face the evaluation of my work that would come at the end. I read the material on this site partly to learn new ways to handle my life and not be hemmed in by anxiety. The results of the study provide me with valuable perspective on my own attitudes.
Good question, Reg. A little more on Dweck’s work here:
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.html