“That’s not Just Beautiful—That’s Incredibly Beautiful!”
The Adverse Impact of Inflated Praise on Children with Low Self-Esteem

Eddie Brummelman
Utrecht University
Sander Thomaes
University of Southampton and Utrecht University
Bram Orobio de Castro
Utrecht University
Geertjan Overbeek
University of Amsterdam
Brad J. Bushman
The Ohio State University and VU University Amsterdam

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Author Note
Eddie Brummelman, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, theNetherlands; Sander Thomaes, School of Psychology, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom, and Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht,
the Netherlands; Bram Orobio de Castro, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, the Netherlands; Geertjan Overbeek, Research Institute of Child Development and
Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Brad J. Bushman, Schoolof Communication and Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus,
OH, and Department of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
This research was supported by a grant from The Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (431-09-022).
We thank Constantine Sedikides and Jennifer Crocker for their valuable input.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to E. Brummelman,
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.140, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The
Netherlands. E-mail: e.brummelman@uu.nl

2

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Abstract
In current Western society, children are often lavished with inflated praise (e.g., “You madean incredibly beautiful drawing!”). Inflated praise is often given in an attempt to raisechildren’s self-esteem. An experiment (Study 1) and naturalistic study (Study 2) found that
adults are especially inclined to give inflated praise to children with low self-esteem. This
inclination may backfire, however. Inflated praise might convey to children that they should
continue to meet very high standards—a message that might discourage children with low
self-esteem from taking on challenges. An experiment (Study 3) found that inflated praisedecreases challenge seeking in children with low self-esteem, and has the opposite effect onchildren with high self-esteem. These findings show that inflated praise, although wellintended, may cause children with low self-esteem to avoid crucial learning experiences. (132words)
Keywords: inflated praise, self-esteem, challenge seeking, late childhood3

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM“That’s not Just Beautiful—That’s Incredibly Beautiful!”
The Adverse Impact of Inflated Praise on Children with Low Self-Esteem“Amazing! You made an incredibly beautiful drawing!” At this moment, parents andteachers all around the Western world are giving such overly positive, inflated praise tochildren. In self-help books, such as Positive Parenting from A to Z (Joslin, 1994), parents areencouraged to lavish children with inflated praise like “Wonderful!,” “You did an
outstanding job!,” “You are terrific!,” and “Perfect!” (also see McNeil & Hembree-Kigin,2010). On the widely-known poster entitled 101 Ways to Praise a Child, parents and teachers
are similarly encouraged to give children inflated praise such as “Fantastic job!,”“Excellent!,” and “That’s incredible!”
Inflated praise is often given in an attempt to raise children’s self-esteem. Adults may
therefore be especially likely to give such praise to those who seem to need it the most—children with low self-esteem. However, there is reason to believe that inflated praise canbackfire in children with low self-esteem. We propose that inflated praise might discouragechildren with low self-esteem from taking on challenges.
How Do Adults Praise Children with Low Self-Esteem?
Adults see low self-esteem in children as a pervasive and worrisome problem(Thomaes, Brummelman, Bushman, Reijntjes, & Orobio de Castro, 2013). Consequently,
adults are highly motivated to raise children’s low self-esteem, and they believe that praise isan effective means to do so (Brummelman et al., 2013). In fact, 87% of adults agree with thestatement that “children need praise in order to feel good about themselves” (Brummelman &Thomaes, 2011). Adults may feel that inflated praise is especially effective in raising selfesteem (Damon, 1995). For example, when a child has low self-esteem, adults might become
more inclined to praise the child as doing “incredibly well” than merely as doing “well.”4

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Indeed, adults may believe that they are more persuasive when they use more extreme
language (Hamilton & Hunter, 1998). Thus, when adults want children to feel worthy, they
may intentionally “inflate” their praise.
How Do Children with Low Self-Esteem Respond to Praise?
Inflated praise has not been empirically studied to date. However, a growing body ofresearch shows that praise is not invariably beneficial to children (Dweck, 2006; Henderlong& Lepper, 2002). For example, ability praise (e.g., “You’re so smart!”), unlike effort praise(e.g., “You worked so hard!”), can cause children to avoid challenges and to withdraw in theface of failure, presumably because it teaches children that ability is a fixed, unchangeable
trait (Gunderson et al., 2013; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Pomerantz & Kempner, 2013). If they
try challenging tasks and fail, they might infer lack of ability. Also, social-comparison praise(e.g., “You did better than other kids!”) compared to mastery praise (e.g., “You’re getting thehang of it!”) decreases intrinsic motivation, presumably because it teaches children that it isimportant to outperform others (Henderlong Corpus, Gole, & Love-Geiger, 2006). Thus, theimpact of praise depends on the message it sends to children.
What message does inflated praise send to children? Praise conveys standards for
future performance (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Kamins & Dweck, 1999). When children
receive inflated praise, they might feel they should continue to meet very high standards inthe future (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; McKay & Fanning, 2000). When children arepraised for doing “incredibly” well, they might infer that they are expected to do incredibly
well in the future. Thus, inflated praise contains an implicit demand for continued exceptional
performance (Baumeister, Hutton, & Cairns, 1990; Kanouse, Gumpert, & Canavan-Gumpert,
1981; Ryan, 1982).
We predict that such a message could hinder children with low self-esteem, but
benefit children with high self-esteem. People with high self-esteem are self-promoting,5

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
whereas people with low self-esteem are self-protecting (for reviews, see Baumeister, Tice, &Hutton, 1989; Crocker & Park, 2004). People with high self-esteem are relatively
unconcerned with failure, and seek out opportunities to demonstrate their worth and ability.
They may interpret inflated praise as an encouragement, and seek challenges to display thatthey are able to meet the high standards set for them. In contrast, people with low self-esteem
are relatively concerned with failure, and avoid situations that may reveal their worthlessness
and low ability. They may cherish inflated praise, but avoid challenges because they areafraid that they will not be able to meet the high standards set for them. Thus, inflated praise
may ironically backfire in children with low self-esteem, discouraging them from taking onchallenges.
Although direct evidence is lacking, indirect evidence is consistent with thishypothesis. One study found that praise directed at one’s worth as a person (e.g., “You’regreat!”) causes children, especially those with low self-esteem, to feel ashamed following
failure (Brummelman et al., 2013). Shame, in turn, may compel them to avoid challenges(Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009). Another study found that very positive performance
feedback (e.g., very high test scores) backfires in people with low self-esteem, causing themto fear future failure (Wood, Heimpel, Newby-Clark, & Ross, 2005). Fear of failure candiscourage challenge seeking (Dweck, 2006).
Overview
The present research tests two hypotheses. First, we test whether adults are more
likely to give inflated praise to children with low self-esteem than to children with high selfesteem, both inside (Study 1) and outside (Study 2) the laboratory. Second, we test whether
inflated praise decreases challenge seeking in children with low self-esteem and increases
challenge seeking in children with high self-esteem (Study 3). In all three studies, praise wasdefined as written or spoken positive evaluations of the child’s characteristics, actions, or6

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
products (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Kanouse et al., 1981). Praise was considered inflated
when it contained an adverb (e.g., “incredibly”) or adjective (e.g., “perfect”) signaling a very
positive evaluation.
We studied children in late childhood, for two main reasons. First, although young
children have a rudimentary sense of “goodness” or “badness” (Burhans & Dweck, 1995;
Davis-Kean & Sandler, 2001), it is only from late childhood that children can form andexpress self-esteem (Harter, 2012). Second, children this age, more so than younger children,
tend to internalize performance feedback, such as praise, as a standard for future performance(Parsons & Ruble, 1977). Late childhood therefore represents a key developmental phase to
study the impact of inflated praise on children with differential levels of self-esteem.
Study 1
Study 1 examined whether adults are especially inclined to direct inflated praise atchildren with low self-esteem.
MethodParticipants. Participants were 712 adults (95% women, 94% of Dutch origin), aged
18–65 (M=41.44, SD=6.14), recruited via online advertisements (87% parents, 12% teachers,
1% other).
Procedure. Participants read six short descriptions of hypothetical children―threewith high self-esteem (e.g., “Lisa usually likes the kind of person she is”) and three with low
self-esteem (e.g., “Sarah is often unhappy with herself”)―each followed by a description of
the child’s performance (i.e., made a drawing, solved a maths problem, or played piano).
Participants wrote down the praise they would give the child (Brummelman et al., 2013).
Two independent trained coders, blind to variation in self-esteem, classified praise as
either inflated or non-inflated; agreement was high (Cohen κ=.97). Discrepancies were
7

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
resolved through discussion. The most common inflated praise statements were: “Very well
done!”, “You made an excellent drawing!”, “Very good that you solved these problems!”,“You played the piano very well!”, and “That sounded magnificent!”. The most common
non-inflated praise statements were: “Good job!”, “Well done!”, “You made a nicedrawing!”, “Good that you solved these problems!”, and “You played the piano well!”.
Results and Discussion
On average, 25% of praise was inflated. As hypothesized, adults gave more inflatedpraise to children with low self-esteem (33%) than high self-esteem (18%), pairedt(711)=12.35, p<.001, d=0.46. This effect was not moderated by participant age, gender,
years of education, or role (parent, teacher, other), ps>.077.
Given that Study 1 used an experimental design, causal inferences can be made: Low
self-esteem in children led adults to give more inflated praise. However, an importantunanswered question is whether the findings replicate in naturalistic adult-child interactions.
Study 2 addressed this question.
Study 2
Study 2 attempted to replicate the findings of Study 1 in an in-home observation ofparent-child interactions.
MethodParticipants. Participants were 114 primary caregivers (87% mothers, 95% of Dutch
origin), aged 30–62 (M=43.40, SD=4.15), and their child (50% girls, 87% of Dutch origin),
aged 7–11 (M=8.86, SD=0.85). They were recruited via public elementary schools serving
lower-to-upper middleclass communities in the Netherlands. All participants received active
parental consent (rate=56%) and gave their assent (rate=100%).

8

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Procedure. Several days before the in-home observation, children completed astandard measure of self-esteem—the 6-item (e.g., “Some kids are happy with themselves asa person”) Global Self-Worth subscale of the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter,1985). Participants rated items on 4-point scales (0=I am not like these kids at all to 3=I am
exactly like these kids). Responses were averaged across items (M=2.11, SD=0.61; Cronbach
α=.78).
During the in-home observations, parents administered 12 math exercises to theirchild (i.e., exercises 5–16 from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III subtest
Arithmetic; Wechsler, 1991). Parents were given a stopwatch and a score sheet and judged
whether the child correctly completed the exercise within a set amount of time (30 seconds;
mean correct answers=11.09, SD=1.04). Research assistants left the room until the exercises
were completed, which took about 5min. The session was videotaped. Two independent
trained coders, blind to variation in self-esteem, counted the number of times parents praised
their child, and classified the praise as either inflated or non-inflated; agreement was high(Cohen κ=.98). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The most common inflatedpraise statements were: “Very good!”, “Extremely good!”, “You answered very fast!”,“Super good!”, “Fantastic!”. The most common non-inflated praise statements were: “Welldone!”, “Good!”, “You’re fast!”, “You’re doing well!”, “You’re good at this!”.
Results and Discussion
On average, parents praised their children 6.31 (SD=3.96) times during the session,and 25% of praise was inflated (i.e., the same percentage as in Study 1). Children with lower
self-esteem answered fewer questions correctly, r(113)=.23, p=.015. Number of correct
answers, gender of parent, age of parent, gender of child, and age of child were unrelated tofrequency of inflated praise, ps>.463, and did not moderate its link with self-esteem, ps>.108.

9

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
The results were consistent with the hypothesis. Children with lower self-esteem
received more inflated praise, r(113)=–.23, p=.015. Self-esteem was unrelated to frequency
of non-inflated praise, r(113)=–.14, p=.142. To provide a more stringent test of the
hypothesis, self-esteem was regressed on frequency of inflated praise while controlling for
number of correct answers and frequency of non-inflated praise. Again, lower levels of selfesteem predicted more inflated praise, b=–0.86, SE=0.34, t(110)=–2.55, p=.012, β=–.25.
Study 3
Study 3 examined how inflated praise impacts on children’s challenge seeking. First,
children completed a self-esteem measure. Then, they made a drawing and received inflated,
non-inflated, or no praise from a “professional painter.” Next, challenge seeking wasmeasured. We hypothesized that inflated praise would decrease challenge seeking in children
with low self-esteem, but would increase challenge seeking in children with high self-esteem.
This study also addressed alternative explanations. We tested whether children withlow self-esteem feel discouraged by inflated praise because they perceive it as insincere (e.g.,“Actually, my painting is far from perfect”; Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Swann, 2012) or as acue of low ability (e.g., “When you give me such praise, you must think I can’t do muchbetter”; Meyer, 1992).
MethodParticipants. Participants were 240 children (57% girls, 88% of Dutch origin), aged
8–12 (M=9.85, SD=1.32), who visited NEMO, the largest science museum in the
Netherlands. This research was part of Science Live, the innovative research program of
Science Center NEMO that enables scientists to use NEMO visitors as participants. All
participants received active parental consent and gave their assent.
Procedure. Participants first completed the 6-item Global Self-Worth subscale of the
Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985; Cronbach α=.64; M=2.40, SD=0.40).
10

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Next, participants drew a famous painting (i.e., Wild Roses by Vincent van Gogh) and weretold that a professional painter, who in reality did not exist, would examine their drawing.
The “painter” introduced himself via a video message. After participants had finished theirdrawing, the experimenter brought the drawing to the painter, who was ostensibly working inanother room. After two minutes, the experimenter returned with a hand-written note fromthe painter. In the inflated-praise condition, the painter wrote: “You made an incredibly
beautiful drawing!” In the non-inflated-praise condition, the painter wrote: “You made abeautiful drawing!” In the no-praise condition, the painter wrote nothing about the drawing.
In all conditions, the painter wrote that he would keep the child’s drawing at his studio.
Children were randomly assigned to conditions, and the experimenter was blind to bothcondition and variation in self-esteem.
Next, to index challenge seeking, participants were told that they were going to draw
other pictures, but that they could choose which ones to draw (based Mueller & Dweck,1998). They were presented with four pairs of figures. Each pair consisted of one complex
and one simple version of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (Osterrieth, 1944). Participants
were told that “if you choose to draw these difficult pictures [pointing to the complex
figures], you might make many mistakes, but you’ll definitely learn a lot too”; and “if you
choose to draw these easy pictures [pointing to the simple figures], you won’t make many
mistakes, but you won’t learn much either.” Challenge seeking was computed as the numberof complex figures that children selected to draw (M=2.07, SD=1.22; median=2, range=0–4).
Then, participants rated the perceived sincerity of the painter’s written note (honest,
serious, credible, sincere; Cronbach α=0.70; M=2.68, SD=0.82) and their impression of thepainter’s ability inferences (“The painter thinks that…” I am good at drawing, I have talent
for drawing, I can draw well; M=2.25, SD=0.83, Cronbach α=.89) on 4-point scales (0=not at
all true to 4=completely true). A debriefing followed.

11

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Results and Discussion
Preliminary analyses. Self-esteem, gender, and age did not differ between
conditions, p=.180, indicating successful random assignment. Higher age predicted morechallenge seeking, r(238)=.33, p<.001, but controlling for age did not affect the results.
Neither gender nor age interacted with condition in predicting challenge seeking, ps>.151.
Neither inflated nor non-inflated praise caused children to think that the painter thought they
had low ability, regardless of children’s level of self-esteem, ps>.276. Importantly, children
perceived inflated praise, non-inflated praise, and no praise as equally sincere, regardless of
their self-esteem level, ps>.418.
Primary analyses. Data were analyzed using general linear model with challengeseeking as the dependent variable. Self-esteem (centered), praise (inflated, non-inflated, no),and their interaction were entered as predictors. Although there were no main effects ofpraise or self-esteem, Fs<1, ps>387, there was an interaction between praise and self-esteem,
F(2,234)=4.49, p=.012, ηp2=.04. Simple slopes analysis showed that, as hypothesized,
children with lower self-esteem sought fewer challenges following inflated praise, b=0.65,t(236)=2.08, p=.039, β=.22, but sought more challenges following non-inflated praise, b=–0.72, t(236)=–2.10, p=.037, β=–.24. Self-esteem was unrelated to challenge seeking whenchildren received no praise, b=–0.17, t(236)=–0.46, p=.645, β=–.06. The interaction was
further followed-up using region of significance analysis (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006;
α=.05, two-tailed; Figure 1). As hypothesized, compared to non-inflated praise, inflatedpraise decreased challenge seeking in children with low self-esteem (<M–1.3 SD), but
increased challenge seeking in children with high self-esteem (>M+0.5 SD).
General Discussion
The present research investigated, for the first time, causes and consequences ofinflated praise. We found that adults are more likely to give inflated praise to children with
12

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
low self-esteem than to children with high self-esteem, both inside (Study 1) and outside(Study 2) the laboratory. This inclination may backfire, however. We found that inflatedpraise decreases challenge seeking in children with lower self-esteem, and increases
challenge seeking in children with high self-esteem (Study 3). Attesting to the subtlety of thisprocess, the difference between inflated and non-inflated praise in Study 3 was only a single
word—“incredibly.” Although small to an outside observer, this single word may feel quite
large to children with low self-esteem, who fear that they might not be able to perform“incredibly” well in the future. Thus, inflated praise can cause children with low self-esteem
to avoid crucial learning experiences—a process that may eventually undermine theirlearning and performance.
Theoretical Implications
What psychological mechanisms underlie our findings? Inflated praise may convey tochildren that they should continue to meet very high standards (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002;
McKay & Fanning, 2000). Building on self-presentation literature (Baumeister et al., 1989;
Crocker & Park, 2004), our findings suggest that inflated praise triggers self-protection
motives in children with low self-esteem (e.g., “I want to avoid revealing my deficiencies”)
and self-promotion motives in children with high self-esteem (e.g., “I want to demonstrate
my capacities”). Non-inflated praise, by contrast, may acknowledge and value children’s
performance without setting very high standards for them. People with low self-esteem, moreso than those with high self-esteem, take on difficult tasks in “safe” contexts (e.g., when they
are confident that they will meet the standards set for them; Wood, Giordano-Beech, Taylor,Michela, & Gaus, 1994). Accordingly, non-inflated praise might reduce low self-esteem
children’s fear of failure and thus foster their challenge seeking, but it might fail to provide
high self-esteem children with sufficient impetus to seek challenges.

13

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Our results address alternative explanations. One theory (Meyer, 1992) suggests thatchildren with low self-esteem infer from inflated praise that the provider of the praise thinks
they have low ability, and thus feel discouraged. Our results show, however, that children
with low self-esteem did not make such inferences. Another theory (Sherif & Hovland, 1961;
Swann, 2012) suggests that children with low self-esteem find inflated praise insincere, andtherefore discouraging, because it mismatches their preexisting views of themselves. Yet, ourresults show that children, even those with low self-esteem, found inflated praise as sincere as
non-inflated praise. We suggest that praise and children’s self-views mismatch only when
they concern the same domain. In our study, receiving inflated praise for a drawing may nothave conflicted with low self-esteem children’s more general negative views of themselves asa person.
Our research builds on previous work by examining how praise affects children’s
willingness to take on challenges (Gunderson et al., 2013; Mueller & Dweck, 1998;
Pomerantz & Kempner, 2013). Yet, our research extends this work in three ways. First, ourresearch identified a novel dimension of praise—inflated praise, showing that this form ofpraise is not only common (i.e., comprising 25% of all praise), but also consequential forchildren’s motivation levels. Second, whereas past literature focused mostly on main effects
of praise (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002), our research shows that the effects of praise dependon characteristics of the children receiving the praise. In fact, inflated praise can backfire in
those who seem to need it the most: children with low self-esteem. Third, our research
indicates that, ironically, children’s low self-esteem can lead adults to administer more
inflated praise. Common sense, it seems, can misguide adults in their attempts to support
children with low self-esteem.
Practical Implications

14

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Our studies were designed to test theory-based hypotheses, but also have practical
implications. Praise is a popular motivational tool—and, unlike most other tools, it can begiven an infinite number of times. Self-help books often encourage parents and teachers tolavish children with inflated praise (Joslin, 1994; McNeil & Hembree-Kigin, 2010). Ourfindings, however, recommend a more considerate approach. Inflated praise discourages
children with low self-esteem from taking on challenges. Yet, the opposite holds for children
with high self-esteem: Rather than discouraging them, inflated praise gives them an impetus
to seek out challenges. Adults might therefore be advised to resist the temptation to target
inflated praise at children with low self-esteem, and to target such praise at children with highself-esteem instead.
Strengths and Limitations
Our research has several methodological strengths, including its timing in a criticalstage of development, its use of naturalistic-observational and experimental methods, and its
focus on both antecedents and consequences of inflated praise. Our research also has
limitations, and addressing them may yield interesting avenues for future research. First, ourfindings suggest that inflated praise undermines challenge seeking in children with low selfesteem by arousing self-protection motives, but we did not actually measure these motives.
Future research should test this possible mediating process directly. Second, the studies wereconducted in the Netherlands, a Western country. Although we defined inflated praise on thebasis of linguistic content alone, the extent to which praise “feels” inflated may differ
between cultures. For example, “wonderful” might feel more inflated in non-Western than inWestern cultures; in the latter, people may be more used to giving and receiving such praise.
Third, Study 3 examined the impact of just a single phrase of inflated praise—“You
made an incredibly beautiful drawing!” Repeated praise may have even larger and more
persistent consequences. Praise may have addictive qualities (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001),
15

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
and, as such, the effects of repeated praise may accentuate over time. Previous work has
shown that many young adults would rather receive praise than engage in their favorite
sexual activity, drink their favorite alcoholic beverage, eat their favorite food, receive apaycheck, or see their best friend (Bushman, Moeller, & Crocker, 2011). Given that children
with low self-esteem receive inflated praise relatively frequently, an interesting question iswhether they may become addicted to such praise, craving it despite its adverse
consequences.
Future Directions
Our findings also identify novel research directions. An important question is how
inflated praise impacts on children’s academic performance. Previous studies have nottypically found correlations between frequency of teacher praise and student achievement(Hattie & Timperley, 2007), but these studies measured neither the inflated nature ofteachers’ praise nor students’ level of self-esteem. Our findings suggest that inflated praise
may undermine academic performance in children with low self-esteem by making themavoid challenges. When children avoid challenges, they tend to perform worse in school(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). Research into these questions would be an
important step before drawing strong educational implications from our findings.
Another relevant question is whether inflated praise induces contingencies of selfworth. When children receive inflated praise, they might infer that they should meet very
high standards to be valuable as a person (e.g., “If I don’t excel, I won’t be valued”; cf.
Kamins & Dweck, 1999). Children with low self-esteem are especially inclined to form suchcontingencies (Baldwin, 1997; Brummelman et al., 2013). Thus, children with low selfesteem might view inflated praise as “controlling” (Ryan, 1982), and feel pressured rather
than intrinsically motivated to meet the high standards set for them.

16INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Another research direction involves the impact of inflated praise at different
developmental phases. Young children typically hold unrealistically positive expectations for
future performance (Schneider, 1998). When they receive inflated praise, they might feel able
to meet the high standards set for them, and thus seek more challenges. However, once
children reach late childhood, they hold more realistic performance expectations, and they
can form and express self-esteem (Harter, 2012). Thus, from this age, inflated praise canbackfire in children with low self-esteem. Over the course of adulthood, however, people
tend to become less affected by external evaluations like praise (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).
Consequently, inflated praise might become gradually less impactful throughout adulthood.
Testing these possibilities will shed light on the developmental boundary conditions underwhich inflated praise exerts its effects.
Conclusions
In current Western society, everyday life is replete with instances of inflated praise—
like “Perfect!” or “That’s incredibly beautiful!” Our research represents the first empirical
study of inflated praise. Our findings show that adults are inclined to give inflated praise tochildren with low self-esteem. Unfortunately, inflated praise may cause children with low
self-esteem to avoid challenges that might lead to failure. These findings show that inflatedpraise, although well-intended, may cause children with low self-esteem to avoid crucial
learning experiences.

17

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Author Contributions
E. Brummelman and S. Thomaes developed the study concept. All authors
contributed to the study design. Data collection was overseen by E. Brummelman. E.
Brummelman and Brad J. Bushman performed the data analysis, and all authors interpreted
the data. E. Brummelman drafted the paper, and S. Thomaes, B. Orobio de Castro, G.
Overbeek, and B. J. Bushman provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final
version of the manuscript for submission.

18

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
References
Baldwin, M. W. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if–then self-inference procedures.
Review of General Psychology, 1, 326–335. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.4.326
Baumeister, R. F., Hutton, D. G., & Cairns, K. J. (1990). Negative effects of praise on skilled
performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 131–148.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1102_2
Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations andpersonality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 547–579.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb02384.x
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to esteem. PsychologicalInquiry, 12, 206–210. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_2
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories ofintelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study
and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2007.00995.x
Brummelman, E., & Thomaes, S. (2011). [Parents’ beliefs about praise]. Unpublished raw
data.
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Overbeek, G., Orobio de Castro, B., van den Hout, M. A., &Bushman, B. J. (2013). On feeding those hungry for praise: Person praise backfires inchildren with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0031917
Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role ofcontingent worth. Child Development, 66, 1719–1738. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.1995.tb00961.x

19

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Bushman, B. J., Moeller, S. J., & Crocker, J. (2011). Sweets, sex, or self-esteem? Comparing
the value of self-esteem boosts with other pleasant rewards. Journal of Personality,
79, 993–1012. doi:1/j.1467-6494.2011.00712.x
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin,
130, 392–414. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108,593–623. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593
Damon, W. (1995). Greater expectations: Overcoming the culture of indulgence in ourhomes and schools. New York, NY: Free Press.
Davis‐Kean, P. E., & Sandler, H. M. (2001). A meta‐analysis of measures of self‐esteem foryoung children: A framework for future measures. Child Development, 72, 887–906.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00322
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random
House.
Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin‐Meadow, S., &Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1‐to 3‐year‐olds predicts children’s motivationalframeworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84, 1526–1541.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12064
Hamilton, M. A., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The effect of language intensity on receiver
evaluations of message, source, and topic. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.),
Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 99–138). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children: Revision of thePerceived Competence Scale for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

20

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Harter, S. (2012). Construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
Henderlong Corpus, Ogle, C. M., & Love-Geiger, K. E. (2006). The effects of socialcomparison versus mastery praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. Motivation andEmotion, 30, 335–345. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9039-4
Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation:
A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 774–795. doi:10.1037/00332909.128.5.774
Joslin, K. R. (1994). Positive parenting from A to Z. New York, NY: Ballatine Books.
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism:
Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35,
835–847. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835
Kanouse, D. E., Gumpert, P., & Canavan-Gumpert, D. (1981). The semantics of praise. In J.
H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research(Vol. 3, pp. 97–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McKay, M., & Fanning, P. (2000). Self-esteem: A proven program of cognitive techniques forassessing, improving, and maintaining your self-esteem (3rd ed.). Oakland, CA: New
Harbinger.
McNeil, C. B., & Hembree-Kigin, T. L. (2010). Parent-child interaction therapy (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Springer.
Meyer, W.-U. (1992). Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism on perceived ability.
European Review of Social Psychology, 3, 259–283 doi:10.1080/14792779243000087

21

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s
motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–
52. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
Osterrieth, P. (1944). Le test de copie d’une ﬁgure complex: Contribution a l’etude de laperception et de la memoire. Archives de Psychologie, 30, 286–356.
Parsons, J. E., & Ruble, D. N. (1977). The development of achievement-related expectancies.
Child Development, 48, 1075–1079. doi:10.2307/1128364
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement
emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journalof Educational Psychology, 101, 115–135. doi:10.1037/a0013383
Pomerantz, E. M., & Kempner, S. G. (2013). Mothers’ daily person and process praise:
Implications for children’s theory of intelligence and motivation. Developmental
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0031840
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probinginteractions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–
461. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
Schneider, W. (1998). Performance prediction in young children: Effects of skill,metacognition and wishful thinking. Developmental Science, 1, 291–297.
doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00044
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C.I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects incommunication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

22

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
Swann, W. B., Jr. (2012). Self-verification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski,& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 2342). London, England: Sage.
Thomaes, S., Brummelman, E., Bushman, B. J., Reijntjes, A., & Orobio de Castro, B. (2013).
Is it time to rethink the pervasiveness and nature of low self-esteem in children?
Manuscript submitted.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wood, J. V., Giordano-Beech, M., Taylor, K. L., Michela, J. L., & Gaus, V. (1994).
Strategies of social comparison among people with low self-esteem: Self-protection
and self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 713–731.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.713
Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., Newby-Clark, I. R., & Ross, M. (2005). Snatching defeat fromthe jaws of victory: Self-esteem differences in the experience and anticipation of
success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 764–780.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.764

23

INFLATED PRAISE AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM

Figure 1. The relation between self-esteem and challenge seeking in children who received
inflated praise, non-inflated praise, or no praise.

24