32
How can Optimal Self-Esteem be Facilitated in Children and Adolescents by Parents and Teachers?
This question is not as straightforward as might seem at first glance. As with all complicated questions, answers for this one also depend on how the terms of the debate are set out and on one’s assumptions about the nature of the phenomenon at hand. And, a debate it has been! The notion of self-esteem is not only one of the most important concepts of our time, but also one of the most controversial, especially when applied to matters of child-rearing, schooling, and social policy. Thus, it is important that I begin with a clear definition of self-esteem, followed by an analysis of the nature of the controversy, and conclude with a theoretical and empirically based perspective that hopefully paves the way for some constructive answers.
A Definition
Any consideration of the issues involved here must acknowledge that the research literature on self-esteem is truly massive, and this does not count that huge volume of writings found in the popular press. Fortunately, my task is made somewhat easier by the fact that the wording of the question provides some boundaries for our deliberations which I take to mean a consideration of the kinds of factors or conditions that adult care-givers, teachers, and parents alike, can mobilize to foster a sense of self-esteem in their wards. Nathaniel Branden’s broad definition of self-concept (1987) seems most appropriate in this context: “who and what we think we are… our physical and psychological traits, our assets and liabilities, and, above all, our self-esteem. Self-esteem is the evaluative component of self-concept.” (p. 6)
I will use the term self-worth interchangeably with self-esteem to represent this evaluative component, which refers to a person’s self-assessments as to whether he or she is valued by others or not, able or unable, loveable or reprehensible. These personal judgments about one’s worth, as Branden correctly argues, depend in turn on judgments about one’s personal assets, which in the case of schooling translates largely into assessments as to whether or not one’s mental abilities are sufficient to master the academic curriculum. When one adds an evaluative component to this particular measure of one’s self-esteem, stated in the starkest terms, it implies that individuals are only as worthy or valued as their achievements. Because this test of one’s worth is widely endorsed across our society, it is not surprising to find that often it not only represents the underlying ethos of many classrooms at all educational levels, but is also endorsed by many parents as well. Some parents hold their children to exacting standards of excellence, which in itself is admirable enough. However, when these expectations are accompanied by an implied threat of being ostracized if one does not succeed, then both self-esteem and achievement are victimized. But we are getting slightly ahead of our story. Based on this particular definition, I will argue that most issues regarding self-esteem and its promotion as they regard parents and teachers revolve around matters of achievement and “well-doing,” and around the child’s self-perceived sense of ability.
The Controversy
Now what is so controversial about the concept of enhancing self-esteem? Basically, there are two distinct positions on the matter of taking deliberate steps to enhance feelings of self-regard in young people. The first position—that of proesteem advocates, is that enhancing feelings of self-acceptance is the ultimate goal of all social interactions, the education enterprise included. In effect, it is thought that positive feelings of self-regard are a worthwhile goal in its own right, and that when these feelings exist in abundance good things happen to people including, importantly in the school context, increased scholastic achievement. This position holds that positive self-esteem is the natural birthright of all humans—a gift, in short, and one bestowed whether it is deserved or not. From this perspective, then, self-esteem is best enhanced by treating others with respect and support, and with direct reminders of their value and uniqueness, irrespective of any actual achievements.
While no one would discount the humanizing value of respect, trust, and nurturance, the critics of this view dispute the nature of self-esteem just described, question the effectiveness of the methods proposed for its initiation, and offer up empirical evidence which casts doubt on the implied casual relationship between self-esteem and academic performance. First and foremost, although numerous research studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between self-esteem variables and academic achievement, the magnitude of these correlations is extremely small; indeed, typically so minuscule that in one study, for instance, variations in self-esteem measures accounted for less than three percent of the variations in achievement records (for review, see Covington, 1992). Moreover, such correlations, even had they been more substantial, lend no particular plausibility to the theory they self-esteem causes achievement gains: the alternative hypothesis, that is, increased achievement causes positive feelings of self-regard, remains equally plausible.
Second, quite apart from these empirical findings, critics maintain that self-esteem is best conceptualized not as a gift to which all persons are entitled as human beings, but rather as a reward for doing something well (e.g., Krauthammer, 1990). They maintain that the gravest injustice that schools could inflict would be to encourage children to be happy without their having earned it. Moreover, one wonders if by fostering good feelings alone, many of the traditional reasons for learning and striving to improve would disappear, including dissatisfaction with one’s life circumstances.
Despite this assault, many pro-esteem advocates have attempted to maintain the moral high-ground, disbelieving that anyone would doubt the importance— indeed, the urgency, of trying to improve children’s perceptions of their own worth. As these contesting positions have crystallized over time, we are often left with the unhelpful statement of the issues in the form of a mutually exclusive dichotomy of goals: whether students should become good learners or feel good about themselves.
Fortunately, we are better informed about the nature of the relationship between self-esteem and academic performance than either advocates or critics acknowledge. Recent research from our laboratory and the findings of other colleagues have verified the underlying dynamics that firmly place self-esteem dynamics in the midst of the achievement process. Rather than relying on simple one-to-one correlations between feelings of self-regard and achievement of the kinds described above, we have explored the complex networking of many factors as they interact among themselves over time and eventually influence the academic performance of the learner. These data were subject to statistical techniques that allow for the presumption of causality. Several findings are critical to our story:
First, when self-esteem is defined around Branden’s evaluative emphasis on one’s self-judgments about personal strengths and limitations (e.g., “how able are you to do well on this task?”), the evidence convincingly demonstrates that positive self-evaluations play a substantial role in causing increases in academic performance. Pro-esteem advocates have it right in this instance: self-esteem factors are clearly implicated in the achievement process.
Second, a subtle, nuanced qualification is needed here. The influence of self-esteem on performance is largely indirect, that is, it operates through various mediators, the most important of which are the reasons (or motives) for learning in the first place! For those learners whose reasons for learning involve positive goals—for instance, becoming the best one can be, to learn to care for others, or merely to satisfy one’s curiosity, then the entire network of influential factors work in harmony and unison toward enhanced achievement. These reasons for learning are associated with the belief that one has the ability to meet the challenge of the tasks at hand. If, however, one’s reasons for learning are more self-promotional or defensive in nature—for instance, striving to succeed in order to avoid failure and its implication that one is incompetent, or to prove one’s superiority over others, then academic performance flags largely because of the interfering effects of the fear that one may not succeed. In this case, these reasons for learning tend to be associated with self-doubts about one’s ability.
Third, critics are also correct, at least on one point. Positive self-regard seems to depend on achieving worthwhile goals, not merely deserving respect, but actually earning it. Every thing in our data underscores the critical role played by feelings of pride at having achieved something of value as a trigger for continued striving (Covington, 2002). Yet, these critics have overlooked another reality. High grades and other noteworthy accomplishments alone are no guarantee for personal fulfillment. As we have noted, feelings of worthiness also depend on the right reasons for learning, and when these reasons are wrong, that is, driven by fear or self-doubt, the foundation on which one’s worth is built remains tenuous.
Incidentally, this is one reason why the simple one-to-one correlations between self-regard measures and achievement are so low. This simple linkage does not take into account the reasons for learning. For example, the prediction of pro-esteem advocates that high self-regard causes noteworthy achievements can be turned upside down when someone with low self-esteem actually performs well. In this case, the individual may do well because he is driven to avoid failure and feelings of worthlessness. It is not that self-worth considerations are not important—obviously, they are, even in this counterintuitive example. The problem with past thinking is that the key role of motives for learning has never been properly acknowledged by either critics or advocates.
Recommendations
Based on this fuller and more balanced understanding of the role of self-esteem factors in the achievement process, what recommendations can be made to the care-givers of young learners regarding the enhancement of self-esteem? I propose a series of five interlocking observations:
For parents and teachers alike, it is best to assume that self-acceptance is a by-product of achieving something meaningful to the learner. Attempts to encourage self-worth in the learner simply by reinforcing their status as being “special” will fail if feelings of “well-being” are not justified by “well-doing.”
Having emphasized the importance of creating meaningful achievements, the ways youngsters achieve is also critical for the facilitation of self-esteem. Caregivers need to recognize that self-confidence is best strengthened when learners are challenged incrementally, with the prospects for success maximized when children are allowed to set achievement goals themselves and to modify them as needed so that when failures to meet them occur, disappointments serve to renew the child’s resolve to continue, not demoralize them. Helping children think of learning in terms of a series of goals, and encouraging in them the capacity to set moderate subgoals along the way is as important a skill as any subject-matter content. In this connection, children should be encouraged to take responsibility for planning and carrying out plans for learning as soon as developmentally appropriate. A significant aspect of a sense of “well-being,” as we have seen, is a conviction of self-confidence to succeed and the independence of judgment to rearrange circumstances as the need arises.
Of vital importance, yet a reality often overlooked, as already noted, is that one’s successes will strengthen a sense of self-regard only when the reasons for learning are positive. But how do care-takers encourage those positive, intrinsically-satisfying reasons associated with the growth of feelings of self-worth—such as satisfaction of ones curiosity or learning in order to benefit others? The challenge is especially difficult when we realize that many classrooms (as well as some homes) are structured around an implicitly competitive norm. Because of these competitive rules of the “learning game,” children often must compete with their peers for a limited number of rewards, a condition which forces them into a position of trying to avoid failure, not necessarily to succeed. Such fear-driven reasons diminish self-respect, even should they succeed.
Caregivers can help youngsters be resilient in such failure-prone circumstances by encouraging positive definitions of their worth, mainly encouraging students to do the “best they can” and to focus on improvement rather than “doing better than others.” This mind set is powerfully important not only from a self-esteem perspective, but also because the evidence suggests that students who see schools as an opportunity to better themselves are likely to stay in school longer, whereas those who see school as a contest in which students must try to outscore others are more likely to drop out sooner, probably to avoid the fear and anxiety that often results from such confrontations (Covington, 1998).
Given the importance of the motivational factors in the decision to continue in school, parents often fear the wrong thing. Far from being worried if their children do not enter the frenzied “rat-race” for grades in competitive contests, they should start worrying when their children do. All too often the result is not excellence, but self-doubt, anger, and a decline in caring about learning. What matters ultimately regarding the facilitation of self-acceptance is not performance per se, but learning; and not for short-term learning gains but learning for the right reasons.
References
Branden, N. (1987). How to raise your self-esteem. New York: Bantam Books.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: A needs-based developmental perspective. In T. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Motivation of adolescents. New York: Academic Press.
Krauthammer, C. (1990). Education: Doing bad and feeling good. Time Magazine, 135 (6), 78.