Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on children’s and university students’ responses to subsequent failures.

Skipper, Y. and Douglas, K.M. (2012) Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on children’s and university students’ responses to subsequent failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (2). pp. 327-339. ISSN 0007-0998. (Full text available)

PDF
Download (126kB) Preview
[img]
Preview
Official URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02028.x

Abstract

Background: According to Dweck and colleagues (e.g., Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1986), praise can be delivered using person (“you are clever”) or process terms (“you worked hard”). Research suggests that giving people process praise after success can help them deal better with subsequent failures because it attributes outcomes to effort rather than fixed ability. However, research has thus far inadequately addressed how these types of praise compare to receiving no evaluative feedback. Aim: The aim of the present research was to examine the effects of person and process praise compared to a control group where only objective outcome feedback was given. Samples: In Study 1, 145 British school children aged 9-11 years took part. In Study 2, participants were 114 British university students. Method: In both studies, participants read three scenarios and were asked to imagine themselves as the main character. In each scenario, they succeeded in an educational task and received either person, process or no praise. Participants then read two scenarios where they failed at a task. Following each scenario participants evaluated their performance, affect and persistence. Results: After one failure, participants who received person praise reacted most negatively on all dependent measures. However, those in the process condition did not differ significantly from those in the control group. Conclusions: These findings suggest that process feedback may not be inherently positive; instead person feedback seems particularly detrimental.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
H Social Sciences
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Psychology
Depositing User: Karen Douglas
Date Deposited: 09 Feb 2012 17:13
Last Modified: 10 Jan 2014 13:08
Resource URI: http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/28690 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year