How shielding children from failure affects their self-perception and resilience

¶ … Self and Others

The manner in which people view themselves has been shown to be an important predictor of their behavior, achievement, and physical and psychological health. There has been a growing trend in recent years to promote a positive self-view in young people through the avoidance of failure. Increasingly, positive reinforcement is provided for merely taking part and trying rather than succeeding or failing, with little regard to the long-term consequences of such practices. To help identify the long-term implications of such practices, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature to determine whether keeping children from having to face failure provides them with an accurate view of themselves as they relate to the people around them and others around them. A discussion concerning how, as these children grow and mature, they will likely deal with cognitive dissonance and failure in their lives is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Children and Self-Esteem

It is natural to want to promote a sense of self-esteem and self-confidence in children, since these attributes can help them navigate their way through the complex and frequently harsh world around them. When self-esteem is founded on erroneous perceptions of ability, though, the navigation can become more difficult and even impossible. The frustration that can result from this cognitive dissonance can be profound and can lead to a vicious cycle of attempts and failures that could have been avoided if there had been a more accurate perception of self-esteem. Nevertheless, in an effort to prevent the initial frustration that goes hand-in-hand with failure, many parents and educators have cocooned young people from the exigencies of life in the real world in ways that contribute to an inflated sense of self-esteem in young people. The outcomes that can result from this lack of opportunity to fail can become even more severe later in life as these young people attempt to attain a higher education and gain meaningful employment and these issues are discussed further below.

Coping with Cognitive Dissonance and Failure

Meeting failure head-on should not be an option with cognitive-dissonance theorists, and this tendency does not provide young learners with the opportunities they need to try and fail on their own merit. Cognitive-dissonance theorists maintain that cognitive inconsistencies cause some degree of upset or stress (Pierce & Sarason, 1996). In fact, some cognitive-dissonance theorists argue that elevated cognitive dissonance can even lead to behaviors that are contrary to people's best interests (Cryder, Lerner, Gross & Dahl, 2008). Therefore, because everyone's sense of self-worth and self-esteem is naturally elevated to begin with, providing learning opportunities that are congruent with these exaggerated perceptions becomes especially challenging and satisfying the mandates of the No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disability Education Act require superhuman efforts to ensure every student receives the individualized level of attention needed to achieve this fine-tuned balance between actual achievement and these naturally inflated perceptions of ability (Van Dijk & Brown, 2006). In ome cases, people may avoid dissonance by behaving in ways that are incongruent with the way they actually feel because such behaviors are not violative of their fundamental sense of self (Van Dijk & Brown, 2006).

Abstract of scholarly research source:

The journal article selected for this review (Nielsen & Metha, 1999) concerned measuring perceptions of self-esteem in a group of adolescents using instruments with known reliability and validity, in which the researchers provide a careful report concerning their hypothesis, population of interest, procedures and so forth with respect to the selection criteria required for this paper which are discussed further below.

Introduction:

Purpose: The overarching purpose of the study by Nielsen and Metha (1999) was to evaluate the relationship between adolescents' perceptions of parental behavior and various dimensions of self-esteem in clinical and nonclinical groups.

Intent: The intent of the study was to specifically explore: (a) the antecedent parental behaviors of support (or acceptance), discipline, and autonomy granting and their relationship to (b) dimensions of adolescent self-esteem (Nielsen & Metha, 1999).

Scope: The scope of the study extended to both clinical as well as nonclinical samples of adolescents.

Statement of the Problem: These researchers preface their study with a brief review of the relevant literature concerning the general relationship between parenting styles and self-esteem among adolescents, followed by a more detailed discussion concerning parental discipline and its relationship to self-esteem. Although the research to date has provided mixed results, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that more attentive parenting styles are conducive to higher levels of self-esteem in children, but there remains a paucity of research that has specifically targeted adolescents who are undergoing therapy for mental health conditions (Nielsen & Metha, 1999). Therefore, this study sought to fill in this gap in the existing body of literature by providing benchmark comparisons of the relationship between parenting styles and levels of adolescent self-esteem (Nielsen & Metha, 1999).

Hypothesis: The study was guided by the following hypothesized relationships:

1. The construct of self-esteem is multidimensional; therefore, the study anticipates the dimensions of self-esteem worth and power;

2. The nonclinical sample of adolescents will achieve higher scores on each of the dimensions of self-esteem compared to their peers in a clinical sample;

3. A positive relationship will exist between dimensions of adolescent and parental support self-esteem across samples; likewise, a positive relationship will be identified between parental autonomy granting as well as dimensions of self-esteem across samples; and,

4. There will be a relationship between dimensions of adolescent self-esteem and parental control (discipline) across samples; however, the researchers did not make any predictions concerning the direction this relationship would evince (Nielsen & Mehta, 1999).

Key Concepts: The following key concepts are advanced by the researchers:

1. Self-esteem and self-acceptance have long been viewed as requisites for healthy personal development.

2. Several parental characteristics have been associated with adolescent self-esteem.

3. Most researchers agree that parental affection, or support, is positively related to adolescent self-esteem.

4. A parenting style that avoids the use of guilt, anxiety, and love withdrawal for use in controlling behavior appears to have a positive relationship with self-esteem in children and adolescents. It is believed that such behaviors instill in children a sense of their inherent value (Nielsen & Mehta, 1999, p. 527).

Methodology:

Research Design: The study by Nielsen and Metha (1999) used an exploratory research design.

Population Sample: Two samples (a nonclinical sample defined as subjects who were attending a public high school at the time data were gathered, and a clinical sample defined as subjects who were under the care of a psychiatrist and admitted to a psychiatric facility at the time data were gathered) were collected from five different institutions. Inclusion criteria included: (a) all subjects were required to be living with two parents and (b) received parental consent and given their own assent to participate.

Nonclinical sample. The nonclinical sample consisted of 165 students who were enrolled in English classes at a large Southwestern high school; all told, 119 students satisfied the inclusion criteria for this sample with ages ranging from 14 to 17 years (m-15.2 years), with 56% females and 44% males. Most of the subjects in the nonclinical sample were freshmen (25%) or sophomores (71%), and most were white (85%); the overwhelming majority (89%) lived with both of their biological parents, but 11% lived with one natural and one stepparent.

Clinical sample. This clinical sample for this study was comprised of 30 subjects who satisfied the inclusion criteria; although specific diagnoses were not obtained for all of the subjects in this sample, the demographic data provided by the treating institutions indicated that the majority of patients at these facilities were receiving treatment for affective disorder (major depression) or substance abuse. The ages of the clinical samples ranged from 13 to 17 years (m-15.07 years), with 60% females and 40% males; with approximately the same percentage of whites (86%) as the nonclinical sample. Only 40% of these subjects, though, lived with both biological parents with the remaining 60% majority living with one biological and one stepparent.

Data Collection: The data for the study were collected using the following instruments:

1. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES); this instrument is comprised of 10 Likert-type items measuring how frequently each of the questions that relate to self-esteem is true for respondents using a four-point scale.

2. Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory, which is a revised 56-item form of Schaefer's Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory used to measure adolescent perceptions of discipline, parental support, and autonomy granting.

3. The Osgood Semantic Differential (OSD); this instrument provides a standardized, quantified approach for evaluating the meaning of a given concept for an individual rated on a seven-point scale as being more closely related to one of a pair of bipolar opposites, modified for the purposes of this study.

Procedures: Following the administration of the above instruments, the researchers analyzed multiple dimensions of self-esteem based on selected items from the RSES and the modified version of the OSD were aggregated and principal component extraction and varimax rotation were factor analyzed. Because of the relatively fewer number of clinical subjects, the researchers managed the data to accommodate for this discrepancy by assigning appropriate weights and these self-esteem factor scores applied to all subsequent analyses.

Results:

Data Collected: The researchers reported that the reliability estimates for all of the four factors analyzed were consistent with the reported rates for the respective instruments.

Findings: In sum, there was a gender-based difference between the amount of self-esteem and the level of parental support provided for both samples, with the single exception of the level of parental support being unrelated to self-esteem levels among the clinical sample of females. The researchers also found a negative relationship between the level of material support and various dimensions of self-esteem in the clinical males involved in the study. In most cases, parental autonomy was highly correlated with self-esteem among the non-clinical female subjects (Nielsen & Mehta, 1999). In addition, the researchers determined that parental behavior appeared to be unrelated to self-esteem levels among the clinical female subjects and was less frequently related to self-esteem among clinical males compared to their nonclinical counterparts (Nielsen & Mehta, 1999).

Interpretation, Implications, and Limitations. The researchers are quick to point out that the relatively small size of both the clinical as well as the nonclinical samples precludes wide generalizations of the findings, but suggest that the implications of this study relate to the fact that there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to appropriate parenting styles, and that different types of parenting styles may be more effective than others in promoting self-esteem levels in young people depending on their problems and needs. A final limitation noted by the researchers concerned the potential for some of the clinical subjects to have engaged in malingering behaviors on their responses to the instruments that skewed the overall findings.

Researcher Credentials: No credentials were presented by the researchers; however, it was assumed they were practicing educational clinical psychologists based on the focus of their study and their ability to gain access to their population of interest.

Summary Assessment: The researchers presented a well-conducted and well-reported study of adolescent self-esteem that would be easily replicable by others. The researchers were also careful to elaborate the limitations of their study and to explain how they managed their data in ways that would facilitate replication.

Conclusion

The research showed that in their efforts to protect young people from failing, some overzealous teachers -- and parents -- are going out of their way to limit the opportunities for failure that young people need to grow and learn. Certainly, there is a fundamental need to protect young people from life-threatening situations and the myriad dangers that exist in the 21st century. Providing a safe and nurturing home and classroom environment is essential to the learning process, of course, and children need and deserve this type of support. There is a fine balance involved, though, in protecting young learners from overt dangers such as bullying and substance abuse from the types of experiences that may not be consistently positive but which provide the resilience needed to successfully weather the human condition later in life. While it is one thing to zero tolerate bullying and weapons in the classroom, for example, it is quite another to absolutely prevent the normal chiding, poor grades and other negative outcomes that accompany failure. Irrespective of whether failure occurs in the classroom, sports field, or otherwise, everyone experiences failure and it is an essential part of the learning process.