Not only does praise need to be specific, it needs to be commensurate with its object. Overblown or grandiose praise tends to be overwhelming and anxiety provoking—because the child knows it does not match his or her self-perceptions (a problem that is avoided by descriptions of behavior, plus expressions of appreciation, that omit these unrealistic evaluations).
Some parents are intent on helping their children’s self-esteem, but they praise globally, indiscriminately, and extravagantly. At best, this does not work. At worst, it backfires: the child feels invisible and anxious. In addition, this policy tends to produce “approval addicts”—children who cannot take a step without looking for praise and who feel disvalued if it is not forthcoming. Many devoted parents, with the best intentions in the world but without the appropriate skills, have turned their children into such approval addicts by saturating the home environment with their “loving” evaluations.
* * *
Inappropriate praise can be as harmful to self-esteem as inappropriate criticism.
* * *
If we wish to nurture autonomy, always leave space for the child to make his or her own evaluations, after we have described behavior. Leave the child free of the pressure of our judgments. Help create a context in which independent thinking can occur.
When we express our pleasure in and appreciation of a child’s questions or observations or thoughtfulness, we are encouraging the exercise of consciousness. When we respond positively and respectfully to a child’s efforts at self-expression, we encourage self-assertiveness. When we acknowledge and show appreciation for a child’s truthfulness, we encourage integrity. Catch a child doing something right and convey pleasure at the sight of it. Trust the child to draw the appropriate conclusions. That is the simplest statement of effective reinforcement.
As to criticism, it needs to be directed only at the child’s behavior, never at the child. The principle is: Describe the behavior (hitting a sibling, breaking a promise), describe your feelings about it (anger, disappointment), describe what you want done (if anything)—and omit character assassination.1
When I speak of describing your feelings, I mean statements like “I feel disappointed,” or “I feel dismayed,” or “I feel angry.” I do not mean statements like “I feel you are the most rotten kid who ever lived,” which is not a description of a feeling but of a thought, judgment, or evaluation concealed in the language of feeling. There is no such emotion as “You are the most rotten kid who ever lived.” The actual emotion here is rage and the desire to inflict pain.
No good purpose is ever served by assaulting a child’s self-esteem. This is the first rule of effective criticism. We do not inspire better behavior by impugning a child’s worth, intelligence, morality, character, intentions, or psychology. No one was ever made “good” by being informed he or she was “bad.” (Nor by being told, “You’re just like [someone already viewed as reprehensible].”) Attacks on self-esteem tend to increase the likelihood that the unwanted behavior will happen again—“Since I am bad, I will behave badly.”
* * *
No one was ever made “good” by being informed he or she was “bad.”
* * *
Many an adult in psychotherapy complains of still hearing the internalized voices of Mother or Father telling them they are “bad,” “rotten,” “stupid,” “worthless.” Often they struggle toward a better life against the gravitational pull of those abusive terms, fighting not to succumb to their parents’ dark view of them. They do not always succeed. Since self-concept tends to turn into destiny through the principle of self-fulfilling prophecies, we need to consider what self-concept we wish to promote.
If we can rebuke without violating or demeaning a child’s dignity, if we can respect a child’s self-esteem even when we are angry, we have mastered one of the most challenging and important aspects of competent parenting.
Parental Expectations
I have already commented on Coopersmith’s findings with regard to parental expectations. It is no service to children to expect nothing of them. Rational parents uphold ethical standards to which they hold children accountable. They also uphold standards of performance: they expect children to learn, master knowledge and skills, and move toward increasing maturity.
Such expectations need to be calibrated to the child’s level of development and be respectful of the child’s unique attributes. One does not overwhelm a child with expectations that take no cognizance of his or her context and needs. But neither does one assume that a child will always operate at a high level “naturally,” guided by sheer emotional impulse.
Children clearly show a desire to know what is expected of them and do not feel secure when the answer is “nothing.”
Recommendations for Further Reading
Of all the books written on the art of child-rearing, there are six that I personally found extraordinarily useful because of the wisdom and clarity they bring to the “nuts-and-bolts” problems of everyday family living. Although they rarely mention self-esteem as such, they are superb guidebooks to nurturing the self-esteem of the young. I mention them here because they develop so artfully and imaginatively the specifics of conveying love, acceptance, respect, and appropriate praise and criticism in the face of the countless challenges that children present to parents and other adults.
Three of these books are by Haim Ginott: Between Parent and Child, Between Parent and Teenager, and Teacher and Child.* The other three titles are by two former students of Ginott, Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish: Liberated Parents, Liberated Children; How To Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk; and Siblings without Rivalry.
Yet another outstanding book is Parent Effectiveness Training by Dr. Thomas Gordon. One of its great merits is that it offers fairly detailed principles combined with specific skills and techniques for resolving a wide variety of child-parent conflicts. Gordon’s approach is largely congruent with that of Ginott, although there appear to be some differences. For one, Ginott insists that parents must in some circumstances set limits and rules; Gordon criticizes this idea and seems to argue that all conflicts should be resolved “democratically.” In this issue I side with Ginott, although I am not certain how real this difference is, since Gordon would not allow a small child to play in the streets at his or her discretion. What both men share (along with Faber and Mazlish) is a passionate aversion to disciplining by physical punishment. I applaud this because I am convinced that fear of physical punishment is deadly for the growth of a child’s self-esteem.
Dealing with Mistakes
How parents respond when children make mistakes can be fateful for self-esteem.
A child learns to walk through a series of false moves. Gradually he or she eliminates the moves that don’t work and keeps the moves that do; making mistakes is integral to the process of learning to walk. Making mistakes is integral to a great deal of learning.
If a child is chastised for making a mistake, or ridiculed, humiliated, or punished—or if the parent steps in impatiently and says, “Here, let me do it!”—he or she cannot feel free to struggle and learn. A natural process of growth is sabotaged. To avoid mistakes becomes a higher priority than to master new challenges.
A child who does not feel accepted by parents if he or she makes a mistake may learn to practice self-rejection in response to mistakes. Consciousness is muted, self-acceptance is undermined, self-responsibility and self-assertiveness are suppressed.
Given the chance, children will usually learn from their mistakes naturally and spontaneously. Sometimes it can be useful to ask, noncritically and nonpedantically, “What did you learn? What might you do differently next time?”
* * *
Making mistakes is integral to a great deal of learning.
* * *
It is more desirable to stimulate the search for answers than to provide answers. However, to think of stimulating the mind of the child usually requires a higher level of consciousness (and of patience)
of the parent than does the practice of handing down ready-made solutions. Impatience is often the enemy of good parenting.
Working with adults who received destructive messages about mistakes as children, I often use a series of sentence stems. Here are a typical sequence and typical endings:
When my mother saw me making a mistake—
She became impatient.
She conveyed that I was hopeless.
She called me her big baby.
She became angry and said, “Here, let me show you!”
She laughed and looked contemptuous.
She yelled for my father.
When my father saw me making a mistake—
He got angry.
He gave a sermon.
He swore.
He compared me to my superior brother.
He sneered.
He launched into a half-hour lecture.
He talked about how brilliantly he did things.
He said, “You’re your mother’s son.”
He walked out of the room.
When I catch myself making a mistake—
I tell myself I’m stupid.
I call myself a klutz.
I feel like a loser.
I feel frightened.
I wonder what will happen when I’m found out.
I tell myself it’s pointless to try.
I tell myself it’s unforgivable.
I feel self-contempt.
If someone had told me it’s all right to make mistakes—
I’d be a different person.
I wouldn’t make so many mistakes.
I wouldn’t be so afraid to try anything.
I wouldn’t be so self-critical.
I’d be more open.
I’d be more adventuresome.
I’d accomplish more.
What I hear myself saying is—
I’m doing everything to myself my mother and father once did to me.
My parents are still inside my head.
I have no more compassion for myself than my father did.
I berate myself worse than Mother did.
If I can’t make mistakes, I can’t grow.
I’m stifling myself.
My self-esteem is devastated by mistakes.
If I had the courage to allow myself mistakes—
I would not make as many mistakes.
I’d be careful but more relaxed.
I could enjoy my work.
I would take more chances with new ideas.
I’d have more ideas.
I could be more creative.
I’d be happier.
I would not be irresponsible.
If I were more compassionate about my mistakes—
I wouldn’t feel doomed and I would try harder.
I would give more.
I’d like myself more.
I wouldn’t be depressed.
I would be more conscious.
I wouldn’t struggle with all this fear.
I’d be my own man and not my parents’ little boy.
As I learn a better attitude toward making mistakes—
I will feel less tense.
My work will improve.
I think I will try new things.
I will have to say good-bye to an old script.
I will become a better parent to myself.
I will find it hard.
I will have to learn that it’s not self-indulgence.
I will have to practice.
It will take getting used to.
I feel hopeful.
I feel excited.
The last six stems listed above point to one of the ways we can begin to undo negative programming. In therapy or in my self-esteem groups I might ask a client to write six to ten endings for several of these last stems every day for two or three weeks—as a potent device of deprogramming. The principle is that we keep “radiating” the destructive ideas with highly concentrated awareness (which is very different from worrying or “stewing” or obsessing or complaining about them).
The Need for Sanity
There is perhaps nothing more important to know about children than that they need to make sense out of their experience. In effect, they need to know that the universe is rational—and that human existence is knowable, predictable, and stable. On that foundation, they can build a sense of efficacy; without it, the task is worse than difficult.
Physical reality tends to be far more “reliable” than most human beings. Consequently, children who feel ineffective in the human realm often turn for a sense of power to nature or machinery or engineering or physics or mathematics, all of which offer a degree of consistency and “sanity” rarely found among human beings.
But “sanity” in family life is one of a child’s most urgent needs if healthy development is to be possible.
What does sanity mean in this context? It means adults who, for the most part, say what they mean and mean what they say. It means rules that are understandable, consistent, and fair. It means not being punished today for behavior that was ignored or even rewarded yesterday. It means being brought up by parents whose emotional life is more or less graspable and predictable—in contrast to an emotional life punctuated by bouts of anxiety or rage or euphoria unrelated to any discernible cause or pattern. It means a home in which reality is appropriately acknowledged—in contrast to a home in which, for instance, a drunken father misses the chair he meant to sit on and crashes to the floor while Mother goes on eating and talking as though nothing had happened. It means parents who practice what they preach. Who are willing to admit when they make mistakes and apologize when they know they have been unfair or unreasonable. Who appeal to a child’s wish to understand rather than the wish to avoid pain. Who reward and reinforce consciousness in a child rather than discourage and penalize it.
* * *
There is perhaps nothing more important to know about children than that they need to make sense out of their experience.
* * *
If, instead of obedience, we want cooperation from our children; if, instead of conformity, we want self-responsibility—we can achieve it in a home environment that supports the child’s mind. We cannot achieve it in an environment intrinsically hostile to the exercise of mind.
The Need for Structure
Children’s security and growth needs are in part met by the presence of an appropriate structure.
“Structure” pertains to the rules, implicit or explicit, operative in a family, rules about what is or is not acceptable and permissible, what is expected, how various kinds of behavior are dealt with, who is free to do what, how decisions affecting family members are made, and what kind of values are upheld.
A good structure is one that respects the needs, individuality, and intelligence of each family member. Open communication is highly valued. Such a structure is flexible rather than rigid, open and discussible rather than closed and authoritarian. In such a structure, parents offer explanations, not commandments. They appeal to confidence rather than to fear. They encourage self-expression. They uphold the kind of values we associate with individuality and autonomy. Their standards inspire rather than intimidate.
Children do not desire unlimited “freedom.” Most children feel safer and more secure in a structure that is somewhat authoritarian than in no structure at all. Children need limits and feel anxious in their absence. This is one of the reasons they test limits—to be certain they are there. They need to know that someone is flying the plane.
Overly “permissive” parents tend to produce highly anxious children. By this I mean parents who back away from any leadership role; who treat all family members as equal not only in dignity but also in knowledge and authority; and who strive to teach no values and uphold no standards for fear of “imposing” their “biases” on their children. A client once said to me, “My mother would have thought it ‘undemocratic’ to tell me that getting pregnant at the age of thirteen is not a good idea. Do you
know how terrifying it is to grow up in a house where no one acts like they know what’s true or right?”
When children are offered rational values and standards, self-esteem is nurtured. When they are not, self-esteem is starved.
A Family Dinner
With both parents working, sometimes long hours, it is often difficult for parents to spend with children all the time they would like. Sometimes parents and children do not even take meals together. Without entering into all the complexities of this issue and all the problematic aspects of contemporary life-styles, I want to mention one simple suggestion that clients of mine have found helpful.
I ask parents who consult me to make a commitment to have at least one major family dinner a week at which all members are present.
I ask that dinner be slow and leisurely and that everyone be invited to talk about his or her activities and concerns. No lectures, no sermons, no patronizing, just sharing of experiences, everyone treated with love and respect. The theme is self-expression and self-disclosure—and the sustaining of connections.
Many parents who agree with the project in principle find they need considerable discipline in its execution. The urge to condescend, patronize, pontificate, can be powerful. They can stifle self-expression even while “demanding” it. If, however, they can overcome the impulse to be “authorities,” if they can express thoughts and feelings simply and naturally with their children and invite the same self-expression in return, they offer a profound psychological gift to their children and to themselves. They help create a sense of “belonging” in the best sense of that word—that is, they create a sense of family. They create an environment in which self-esteem can grow.
Child Abuse
The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem Page 22