8 ms·

The most famous study confirming this is the one where they give two groups of kids relatively easy math problems. The first group they tell "wow, you must be r

The most famous study confirming this is the one where they give two groups of kids relatively easy math problems. The first group they tell "wow, you must be really smart to complete all those!", the second group they tell "wow, you must have worked really hard to complete all those!". They then give them another set of problems far above their skill level. The second group of kids, the 'hard-workers', work much longer at the problems before giving up on them. And when both groups are given another set of relatively easy problems, the first group's performance takes a nosedive.

andreyf 17y ago
And when both groups are given another set of relatively easy problems, the first group's performance takes a nosedive. The other part (working longer on hard problems) is important, but this is probably not so bad - there's rarely a point in doing math problems below your skill level.
- btilly 17y ago
  Um, I think you missed the point. After encountering a challenge the group that was initially praised for brains saw their performance drop on problems that should have been within their skill level. The group that was initially praised for effort saw their performance improve after that same challenge. The moral is simple. When you praise children, you motivate them to seek more praise. If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances. But if it is within their control, such as effort, they apply energy in a useful direction. If you're a parent, which would you prefer to do?
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Well, taking it out of the abstract, these kids were probably given math problems that were boring by the time you got to the second set. There's only so much 254+739=? you can do before you get bored. At that point, they weren't testing motivation, they were testing patience.
    - roundsquare 17y ago
      That doesn't explain why the other group of kids did well. Presumably they should have been just as bored.
      - bd 17y ago
        They were praised for being "hard workers" meaning they could expect social approval for chugging through boring tasks. The first group already got their social approval for being smart. Once labeled "smart", they already "knew" they were smart. But ones that were labeled "hard workers" needed to keep up "hard work" to retain the (desired positive) label. Just compare: "I'm still smart, even if I performed bad on boring task." vs. "I'm still hard worker, even if I didn't put much effort into boring task."
    - btilly 17y ago
      Unfortunately if you go back to the actual research, kids who were complimented for being smart when given the choice preferred to be given easy problems for homework, and the ones who were told they were hard working preferred to be given difficult problems. I take that as evidence from the students that boredom wasn't the cause of their results.
  - ars 17y ago
    No the moral is if you lie to children, you can expect them to change their behavior based on your lie. If you praise a child who is actually smart, for being smart, then things will work a lot better. I understand the goal of this study was to see if increasing self esteem can help. But don't extrapolate that to also assuming that praising a child for things that really are praise worthy (including being smart) is bad. The result of the study should be: don't lie in your praise.
    - MartinCron 17y ago
      It's not about lying in your praise, it's about setting the expectation that smart people don't have to work hard at things. This is actually a serious problem among gifted children. They are told they are smart for most of their lives while the work is very easy. Once work gets difficult for them, they start to think "this is different, it's HARD. Crap, maybe I'm not smart after all". The linked NY Magazine article covers this concept nicely.
      - sfnhltb 17y ago
        I think the problem is largely standardized teaching - you set a syllabus that works for the median pupil, and depending on the deviation in ability most students might be in the range that it is ok. But at least a minority will be bored as they pick up the concept first time, and then have to wait while everyone else is walked through a number of iterations to ensure it sinks in. Meanwhile another minority is out of their depth, and can never keep up no matter how hard they try, and eventually they give up and/or become troublemakers (which can happen at the other end of the spectrum as well). I remember the only time in school (5-16) I actually enjoyed it - instead of learning from the board, we had a year where the maths lessons were all taught from little booklets each with 10-20 pages, with a number of different subjects - about a third of the books were "core/basic" that everyone had to do by the end of the year, the rest you could move onto if you could pass the mini tests you could ask for once you had read it. Everyone got to go at their own pace, the teacher just handed out and marked tests and answered questions as needed or helped out those most in need to get the basics covered.
  - axod 17y ago
    A bit of both probably. Balance. >> "If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances." I'm not sure kids really understand or believe the above. The more you learn, the smarter/cleverer you become. So praising them by saying they're really smart/clever, is praising them for learning. Personally I'm more inclined to say "Wow you're very clever to get that right" and gets a better response from my kids, than saying "Wow you worked really hard".
    - astine 17y ago
      When I was growing up I understood the difference. I was told that because I was 'smart' more was expected of me. I don't think I ever quite lived up to those expectations; the bar was somehow always just above the level where I was. But I do think that I ended achieving more than I would have otherwise been inclined.
      - ahlatimer 17y ago
        I think it's important to always have that bar one notch above where you are. Complacent isn't something I'd ever want to be described as.
btilly 17y ago
You can find more on that study at http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/ http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/. But I have a fundamental disagreement with the simplistic message of complimenting effort rather than brains. And that disagreement is that you're training kids to work hard, but not necessarily well. In my childhood the messages we got pushed us to always look for the trick. As an adult I really value the mental habit of always looking for the shortcut that makes things easy. Another interesting variant I find myself using with my son is to compliment him for showing smarts, but follow it up with a theory that brains need practice to continue working. Thus "smart" becomes a compliment for what he does, and not what he is. For instance I'll say something like, "How did you get so smart? You must have been really using that brain! Just look at what you've learned!"
- hxa7241 17y ago
  The principle is to commend something that is improveable and controllable. That can be refined by adding information: encouraging the best/most-effective activities.
- Bluem00 17y ago
  You might be interested in the book "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn. It goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to substitute for it. From the description on his site <http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm> http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm>, it "[draws] from hundreds of studies, [and] demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives." The biggest revelation for me was that 'other incentives' includes both praise and punishment.
  - mrbgty 17y ago
    After reading his stuff, it's pretty frustrating to realize how much society depends on this bogus punishment/reward system.
  - dualogy 17y ago
    "It goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to substitute for it." What, then? ;) "Rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin -- and the coin doesn't buy very much. What is needed, Kohn explains, is an alternative to both ways of controlling people. The final chapters offer a practical set of strategies for parents, teachers, and managers that move beyond the use of carrots or sticks." Has anyone read those final chapters and could tell us whether there are any actionable alternatives in there at all?
cojadate 17y ago
What would be really is interesting is the same study but with the first group being told they're hard-working and the second group not being given any praise at all. That would help test how far the "praise/incentives diminish performance" theory really goes.

andreyf 17y ago

And when both groups are given another set of relatively easy problems, the first group's performance takes a nosedive. The other part (working longer on hard problems) is important, but this is probably not so bad - there's rarely a point in doing math problems below your skill level.

btilly 17y ago
Um, I think you missed the point. After encountering a challenge the group that was initially praised for brains saw their performance drop on problems that should have been within their skill level. The group that was initially praised for effort saw their performance improve after that same challenge. The moral is simple. When you praise children, you motivate them to seek more praise. If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances. But if it is within their control, such as effort, they apply energy in a useful direction. If you're a parent, which would you prefer to do?
- andreyf 17y ago
  Well, taking it out of the abstract, these kids were probably given math problems that were boring by the time you got to the second set. There's only so much 254+739=? you can do before you get bored. At that point, they weren't testing motivation, they were testing patience.
  - roundsquare 17y ago
    That doesn't explain why the other group of kids did well. Presumably they should have been just as bored.
    - bd 17y ago
      They were praised for being "hard workers" meaning they could expect social approval for chugging through boring tasks. The first group already got their social approval for being smart. Once labeled "smart", they already "knew" they were smart. But ones that were labeled "hard workers" needed to keep up "hard work" to retain the (desired positive) label. Just compare: "I'm still smart, even if I performed bad on boring task." vs. "I'm still hard worker, even if I didn't put much effort into boring task."
  - btilly 17y ago
    Unfortunately if you go back to the actual research, kids who were complimented for being smart when given the choice preferred to be given easy problems for homework, and the ones who were told they were hard working preferred to be given difficult problems. I take that as evidence from the students that boredom wasn't the cause of their results.
- ars 17y ago
  No the moral is if you lie to children, you can expect them to change their behavior based on your lie. If you praise a child who is actually smart, for being smart, then things will work a lot better. I understand the goal of this study was to see if increasing self esteem can help. But don't extrapolate that to also assuming that praising a child for things that really are praise worthy (including being smart) is bad. The result of the study should be: don't lie in your praise.
  - MartinCron 17y ago
    It's not about lying in your praise, it's about setting the expectation that smart people don't have to work hard at things. This is actually a serious problem among gifted children. They are told they are smart for most of their lives while the work is very easy. Once work gets difficult for them, they start to think "this is different, it's HARD. Crap, maybe I'm not smart after all". The linked NY Magazine article covers this concept nicely.
    - sfnhltb 17y ago
      I think the problem is largely standardized teaching - you set a syllabus that works for the median pupil, and depending on the deviation in ability most students might be in the range that it is ok. But at least a minority will be bored as they pick up the concept first time, and then have to wait while everyone else is walked through a number of iterations to ensure it sinks in. Meanwhile another minority is out of their depth, and can never keep up no matter how hard they try, and eventually they give up and/or become troublemakers (which can happen at the other end of the spectrum as well). I remember the only time in school (5-16) I actually enjoyed it - instead of learning from the board, we had a year where the maths lessons were all taught from little booklets each with 10-20 pages, with a number of different subjects - about a third of the books were "core/basic" that everyone had to do by the end of the year, the rest you could move onto if you could pass the mini tests you could ask for once you had read it. Everyone got to go at their own pace, the teacher just handed out and marked tests and answered questions as needed or helped out those most in need to get the basics covered.
- axod 17y ago
  A bit of both probably. Balance. >> "If your praise is about something that is out of their control, such as innate intelligence, you discourage them from trying to take control of their circumstances." I'm not sure kids really understand or believe the above. The more you learn, the smarter/cleverer you become. So praising them by saying they're really smart/clever, is praising them for learning. Personally I'm more inclined to say "Wow you're very clever to get that right" and gets a better response from my kids, than saying "Wow you worked really hard".
  - astine 17y ago
    When I was growing up I understood the difference. I was told that because I was 'smart' more was expected of me. I don't think I ever quite lived up to those expectations; the bar was somehow always just above the level where I was. But I do think that I ended achieving more than I would have otherwise been inclined.
    - ahlatimer 17y ago
      I think it's important to always have that bar one notch above where you are. Complacent isn't something I'd ever want to be described as.

btilly 17y ago

You can find more on that study at http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/ http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/. But I have a fundamental disagreement with the simplistic message of complimenting effort rather than brains. And that disagreement is that you're training kids to work hard, but not necessarily well. In my childhood the messages we got pushed us to always look for the trick. As an adult I really value the mental habit of always looking for the shortcut that makes things easy. Another interesting variant I find myself using with my son is to compliment him for showing smarts, but follow it up with a theory that brains need practice to continue working. Thus "smart" becomes a compliment for what he does, and not what he is. For instance I'll say something like, "How did you get so smart? You must have been really using that brain! Just look at what you've learned!"

hxa7241 17y ago
The principle is to commend something that is improveable and controllable. That can be refined by adding information: encouraging the best/most-effective activities.
Bluem00 17y ago
You might be interested in the book "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn. It goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to substitute for it. From the description on his site <http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm> http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm>, it "[draws] from hundreds of studies, [and] demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives." The biggest revelation for me was that 'other incentives' includes both praise and punishment.
- mrbgty 17y ago
  After reading his stuff, it's pretty frustrating to realize how much society depends on this bogus punishment/reward system.
- dualogy 17y ago
  "It goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to substitute for it." What, then? ;) "Rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin -- and the coin doesn't buy very much. What is needed, Kohn explains, is an alternative to both ways of controlling people. The final chapters offer a practical set of strategies for parents, teachers, and managers that move beyond the use of carrots or sticks." Has anyone read those final chapters and could tell us whether there are any actionable alternatives in there at all?

cojadate 17y ago

What would be really is interesting is the same study but with the first group being told they're hard-working and the second group not being given any praise at all. That would help test how far the "praise/incentives diminish performance" theory really goes.