Encouragement versus praise: Effects on children’s behaviour, motivation and development,
Author: Natalie R. Garmson, Edith Cowan University, 3rd Year BA Psychology (major: SocSci)
Praise and encouragement are both methods of positive
feedback adults give to children; however adults give praise to children in
different ways, which have the potential to both support and undermine children’s
behaviour and development. Whilst encouragement is considered fundamental for
children’s learning, growth and development, praise, on the other hand is
complex because there are different types of praise, whose effectiveness varies
according to the context in which it was given, the quality of its use and the
interpretation of the child (Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 2000; Henderlong &
Lepper, 2002; Larrivee, 2002; Watts & Pietrzak, 2000).
This essay will discuss the effectiveness of encouragement
and praise, the differences and the consequences of both as well as the underlying
theories. The effects on children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,
self-esteem and performance are explored in detail as are the effects of
teacher praise and encouragement in the classroom. The language of how to encourage children
efficiently will be highlighted and the use of encouragement in scaffolding
will be discussed. It will be argued that encouragement is superior to praise because
of the greater positive outcomes on children’s behaviour and development and subsequent
positive long term consequences.
Encouragement is a method of positive feedback that focuses
on effort, improvement and what the child is doing rather than the outcome (Burnett,
2002; Larrivee, 2002; Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 2000; McCormack, 2000). Encouragement
underpins the child rearing approach based on Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs
(McCormack, 2000) which is deeply rooted in individual psychology. Dinkmeyer
and Dreikurs (2000) highlighted the Adlerian principle emphasizing that children’s
behaviour has purpose, meaning and is goal oriented, and it is through their
behaviour that children learn to express goals, attitudes and expectations. Other
Adlerian principles stated by Pryor and Tollerud (1999) and White, Flynt and
Draper (1997) include that children interact with the social environment
through experimentation, develop positive adult-child relationships and are in
control of their choices, with the wrong choice leading to inappropriate
behaviour. Encouragement is the logical consequence which follows children’s inappropriate
behaviour. Encouragement assists children’s motivation to change their
misbehaviour which is often the result of discouragement (Pryor & Tollerud,
1999). Adler believed that although children are active participants of their
development, their development is shaped by hereditary and environmental
forces; for example, the social environment is important because it is where
children learn skills such as co-operation (De Robertis, 2011).
Encouragement focuses on children’s assets and strengths, promotes
self-confidence and self-esteem, fosters internal motivation, teaches
self-improvement and is focused on future behaviour (McCormack, 2000). It also
teaches children about responsibility, self-evaluation, perseverance,
acceptance of mistakes and failures and an appreciation of success (Larrivee,
2002). To foster a child’s worthiness and provide encouragement, adults can use
effective communication skills such as active listening, respect the child for
who they are, show confidence in their abilities, provide opportunities for
success, focus on the strengths of the child, show and say “I love you”, spend
quality time with your child and help your child to accept and overcome
mistakes and failures (Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 2000; McCormack, 2000; Watts
& Pietrzak, 2000). Parents and teachers can help develop children’s mastery
of skills and competence by the use of scaffolding. The technique of
scaffolding is used frequently within the zone of proximal development
(Edwards, 2002). Adults use scaffolding by asking questions to assist children
with their development and understanding of the task, creating an environment
optimal for learning and competency (Neitzel & Stright, 2003).
The study by Neitzel and Stright (2003) provides evidence to
support Edwards (2002), concluding that there was a positive association
between mothers who use scaffolding and children’s subsequent academic
competence. Encouragement was also found to reduce disruptive classroom
behaviour. Similar results have been found by Yelland and Masters’ (2007)
review of the use of scaffolding in learning and teaching processes. Teachers assisted
students with problem solving by including mental strategies to help students
develop a greater understanding of the task. Scaffolding by teachers in the classroom
to solve tasks, including the use of encouragement, was more likely to produce
students with a good understanding of mental strategies than without
scaffolding (Yelland & Masters, 2007). In addition, parental encouragement
resulting from a reaction to students’ grades was positively associated with
intrinsic motivation and a higher academic performance. Children who received
encouragement preferred to attempt challenging tasks and were interested in
learning and problem solving (Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). Therefore,
encouragement for children is an important method of feedback that assists with
improvement of cognitive skill in the classroom; however, another method used
by adults to give positive feedback is praise.
Praise, in contrast to encouragement, is a method of positive
judgement that focuses on the outcomes, performances or attributes of the child
(Kanouse, Gumpert & Canavan-Gumpert, 1981, p. 98 as cited in Henderlong
& Lepper, 2002) as well as the child’s worth and approval-seeking behaviour
(Burnett, 2002). Theories that are associated with praise include attribution
theory and self-perception theory (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). The
attribution theory is the process by which individuals explain the causes of their
behaviour or accomplishments subsequently guiding their behaviour. Children base
their motivational behaviour on factors such as lack of effort or lack of
ability. The self-perception theory hypothesizes that our internal states are managed
by our own behaviour together with environmental influences such as praise. For
example, external influences such as rewards for children result in children
being extrinsically motivated whereas the absences of external influences are
more likely to result in children participating in a task because it is
personally rewarding, therefore are intrinsically or internally motivated
(Henderlong & Lepper, 2002).
Praise focuses on the outcome, that is, it is given after the
task is completed and is usually an expression of approval, for example, “That’s
great” or “Good job”. Praise is associated with external motivation, by
offering rewards, and competitiveness, with children more likely to compare
performances with each other than themselves, consequently reducing
co-operation between children (McCormack, 2000). Praise has negative consequences,
such as the capacity to discourage children from completing tasks, focuses on
the expectation that children rely on praise, is more likely to be associated
with conformity and has the ability to affect self-esteem and self-discipline.
Praise is more likely to foster children’s fear of failure and disapproval from
adults of children, with children often seeking other’s evaluations for their
accomplishments (Larrivee, 2002). Thorkildsen, Nolen and Fournier (1994)
interviewed seven to twelve year olds about the fairness of different methods
for influencing motivation to learn, using encouragement, rewards or effort
based strategies. They found that most children agreed praise for good performance
is unfair because it caused competition and fear of failure amongst those
children who did not perform as good. Praise was viewed as short term only, not
assisting with self-improvement.
Praise can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the
child’s background, personality and culture (Larrivee, 2002). Praise also
varies depending on what the adult focuses on.
For instance, ability or person praise is based on children’s ability
such as intelligence, for example, “You’re so clever” or “You must be smart at
maths”. Effort or process praise is based on children’s effort such as hard
work “I see you put in a lot of hard work to get that result”. Dweck (2007) reports
that praising intelligence can have a short term positive effect however this
type of praise is more likely to be detrimental in the long term. In
comparison, praise for effort, perseverance, strategies or improvement has
potential to promote motivation, for example “That seemed like a hard
assignment, but I liked the way you stuck with it and finished it” or “I like
how you worked out different ways to solve the math problem” (Dweck, 2007).
Kamins and Dweck
(1999) examined the implications of person praise versus process praise on
self-worth and coping mechanisms. They
found that person praise, based on children’s behaviour or performance was more
likely to foster learned helplessness than compared to process praise, based on
children’s effort or strategy. Process praise was found to improve children’s
mastery oriented response after a setback or failure, whereas person praise
focused on fixed traits such as intelligence or personality which is
performance based (Kamins & Dweck, 1999). Similarly, Burnett (2001) (as
cited in Burnett, 2002) investigated primary school students’ preferences for
praise in the classroom and found that almost all students preferred praise for
effort over praise for ability, with private praise favoured over public
praise, mainly due to feelings of embarrassment but also being made a target
and put in the spotlight in front of other students.
Mueller and Dweck (1998) investigated how different types of
praise negatively affect student’s motivation and performance in fifth grade at
school, which further supports studies by Kamins and Dweck (1999) and Burnett
(2002). Following success on a task, those students praised for intelligence or
ability were performance oriented whereas those students praised for their
effort or hard work were mastery oriented, focussing on strategies to enhance
their learning. Students believed that intelligence was a fixed trait, measured
by their performance level, whereas effort and hard work had the ability to
change, depending on their motivation and knowledge of the subject. The
findings concluded that praise for intelligence had more adverse consequences on
student’s achievement and motivation in comparison to praise for effort
(Mueller & Dweck, 1998). In addition, this is explained by Dweck (2007) on
the difference between fixed mindset versus growth mindset.
Dweck (2007) explains that praise is associated with how
students think about their intelligence, that is, whether they have a fixed
mindset or a growth mindset. Those students with a fixed approach believe their
intelligence is fixed and unable to change, whereas students with a growth
mindset believe that intelligence is something that can change with effort and
learning. Individuals who possess a growth mindset are more likely to attempt
tasks that are challenging and will persevere in order to complete it, while
individuals who reduce their effort in order to avoid setbacks or possess a
fear of failure and avoid challenging tasks demonstrate a fixed mindset. Other
research on ability praise, effort praise and intrinsic motivation (Koestner,
Zuckerman & Koestner, 1987, as cited in Henderlong & Lepper, 2002) support
Dweck’s (2007) analysis of mindset. The findings indicated that ability praise
led to an increase in engagement on tasks than did effort praise, however, when
students were required to persevere on a task, or experienced setback or
failure, they were more likely to give up.
At what age then does praise start to affect children’s
learning, development and motivational behaviour? A study by Gunderson,
Gripshover, Romero, Dweck, Goldin-Meadow and Levine (2013) investigated the use
of different types of praise on one to three year olds in the home environment
and the impact this had on motivation five years later. They found that variations
in parental praise, particularly process praise, predicted children’s
motivational behaviour at ages seven and eight years and that parental praise
can influence children’s development from as early as toddlerhood. Furthermore,
according to Brummelman, Thomaes, de Castro, Overbeek and Bushman (2014), children
who have low self-esteem are more likely to avoid challenging tasks because
they have learnt that certain types of praise, such as inflated praise,
produces higher expectations of themselves for future performances. Children
with low self-esteem are more likely to believe they lack the ability to
attempt challenging tasks and consequently fear failing on tasks. Inflated
praise uses additional words to give a very positive evaluation, for example,
“You drew an incredibly beautiful drawing” or “You kicked the soccer ball
extremely well” and is more likely to be used by parent’s wanting to increase
children’s self-esteem. Compared to non-inflated praise, inflated praise was
found to be more detrimental to children’s learning, as well as more likely to
be damaging during mid to late childhood when children become more realistic
about their feedback as they compare performances with their peers.
Given that children’s motivational behaviour can be affected
as early as the toddler years, what effects do influences on children’s behaviour,
such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, have within the classroom, and can
praise be an effective motivational strategy?
Firstly, for praise to be effective, it must be authentic and
spontaneous, and must be a genuine reaction to children’s achievements
(Brummelman, Thomaes, de Castro, Overbeek & Bushman, 2014; Larrivee, 2002).
Larrivee (2002) found that younger children, for example, in primary school,
are more likely to be extrinsically motivated, whereas older children, for
example, in secondary school, tend to be intrinsically motivated. Teachers can
encourage students to be intrinsically motivated through self-evaluation of
their own achievements and performances using their personal standards and
values.
Barker and Graham’s (1987) study compared praise with neutral
feedback to children aged four to twelve years following the successful
completion of a task. Compared to neutral feedback, those children who were
praised were higher in effort (Barker & Graham, 1987) suggesting that
praise which is associated with children’s internal drive such as persistence
and effort can have a positive effect on children’s behaviour and learning and
thus have the potential to be an effective motivational strategy. However, praise
also has the potential to undermine intrinsic motivation by adversely affecting
children’s performance and confidence to task risks. Teachers or parents who
give children praise by offering rewards or incentives for good behaviour or
successfully completing tasks are more likely to decrease children’s engagement
in a task, therefore reducing children’s intrinsically motivated behaviour
(Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). It is important to note as well that the type
of praise given and its influence on children’s motivation may vary depending
on the children’s cultural background. Most studies on praise use Western
countries where children are primarily from individualistic cultural
backgrounds, whereas in collectivist cultures such as Asian countries,
achievement outcomes focus more on children’s effort than ability. Praise for
effort it is more effective in collectivist cultures than compared to
individualistic cultures, however praise is used less often in Asian cultures.
Collectivist cultures place importance on both efforts involved and outcome of
the task, thus children in Asian cultures are more likely to be internally
motivated. For these reasons, teachers should be mindful of the fact that
different cultures use praise for children’s motivation in various ways and for
different reasons (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002).
Further effects of teacher’s praise in the classroom as noted
by Larrivee (2002) include the negative effects that praise may have on
students. These include the potential for students to increase learned
helplessness, a negative effect on learning ability, discourages creativity;
students may also demand or depend on praise especially if it is given
inappropriately, students fear of living up to expectations, discourages
democratic values and discourages freedom of expression. Therefore, our society
values democracy and a democratic classroom is one that supports
self-evaluation, self-reflection and fosters acceptance and respect, thus
supporting Adlerian principles which emphasise the uniqueness of the
individual, the importance of the self and that children’s development forms
the foundation of interactions within the social environment (DeRobertis,
2011).
In conclusion, encouragement focuses on the child as an
individual, his or her creativity and development which occurs within the
social environment. Encouragement focuses on the child’s development as opposed
praise which is focused on the outcome of the task or behaviour. Encouragement
allows risk taking, stimulates intrinsic motivation, provides
self-determination and fosters competence through mastery-oriented behaviour,
whereas praise can be harmful for children’s behaviour, learning and
development particularly if it is inauthentic. Praise can influence children’s
motivational behaviour depending on whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic,
whereas encouragement is primarily intrinsic. Encouragement supports children’s
self-esteem compared to praise which can be detrimental to self-esteem.
Inflated praise and person praise produce greater negative long term
consequences than any other form of praise as well as compared to encouragement.
Finally, encouragement can be likened to the foundations of a house;
encouragement provides nurture and support enabling the child’s self-esteem, motivation,
learning and development to thrive. Encouragement is therefore essential for a
child’s wellbeing, mental health and healthy development. Praise can be likened
to the roof over the house. There are many types or models, depending on the
type of house that exists will therefore influence the outcome. The incorrect
roof type can weaken the house and its foundations, much like the type of
praise and the context in which it is given.
References
Barker,
G. P., & Graham, S. (1987). Developmental study of praise and blame as
attributional cues. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79(1), 66-66.
Brummelman,
E., Thomaes, S., de Castro, B. O., Overbeek, G., Bushman, B. J. (2014). “Thats
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. doi:10.1177/0956797613514251
Burnett, P. C. (2002).
Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom
environment. Educational Psychology, 22(1),
5-16. doi: 10.1080/01443410120101215
DeRobertis,
E. M. (2011). Deriving a third force approach to child development from the
works of Alfred Adler. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 51(4), 492-515. doi:
10.1177/0022167810386960
Dinkmeyer,
D., & Dreikurs, R. (2000). Encouraging
Children to Learn. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dweck,
C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34-39.
Edwards,
M. E. (2002). Attachment, mastery, and interdependence: A model of parenting
processes. Family Process, 41(3),
389-404.
Ginsburg,
G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’s
intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64(5), 1461-1474.
Gunderson,
E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow. S., &
Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3- year olds predicts children’s
motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child
Development, 84(5), 1526-1541. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12064
Henderlong,
J. & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic
motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 128(5), 774-795. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.774
Kamins,
M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism:
Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835-847.
Larrivee,
B. (2002). The potential perils of praise in a democratic interactive
classroom. Action in Teacher Education,
23(4), 77-88. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2002.10463091
McCormack,
P. M. (2000). Encouragement versus praise. Today’s
Catholic Teacher, 33(6), 74-75. Retrieved from http://www.parentteachersupport.org/documents/6-Encouragement.pdf
Mueller,
C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine
children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.
Neitzel,
C., & Stright, A. D. (2003). Mothers’ scaffolding of children’s problem
solving: Establishing a foundation of academic self-regulatory competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1),
147-159. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.1.147
Pryor,
D. B., & Tollerud, T. R. (1999). Applications of Adlerian principles in
school settings. Professional School
Counselling, 2(4), 299-304.
Thorkildsen,
T. A., Nolen, S. B., & Fournier, J. (1994). What is fair? Children’s
critiques of practices that influence motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 475-486.
Watts,
R. E., & Pietrzak, D. (2000). Adlerian “Encouragement” and the therapeutic
process of solution-focused brief therapy. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 78, 442-447.
White,
J., Flynt, M., & Draper, K. Kinder Therapy: Teachers as therapeutic agents.
International Journal of Play Therapy, 6(2),
33-49.
Yelland,
N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers& Education, 48, 362-382. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010