Gunderson et al. (2013) Parent Praise to 1-3 Year Olds
Aims: Results:
Gunderson et al. investigated the use of praise by parents of children aged 14 months to 48 months old Praise of any type, was on average 3% of all utterances by parents
To look at the category of praise that parents gave their children and what type of praise was most used Person praise as a percentage of all praise was significantly less at 38 months than it was at 14 months old
To look at whether person praise or process praise can be a predictor of the child’s motivational frameworks five years Process praise showed no significant change
later Other praise was significantly higher at 38 months than 14 months
Boys received more process praise than girls
Girls received more person and other praise than boys
Procedure: Motivational frameworks data:
Sample: 53 children from Chicago (29 boys and 24 girls) taken from a larger sample of 63 families who had been taking Boys reported marginally more incremental motivational frameworks than girls
part in a study of language development (Represented the demographics of Chicago, e.g. income, race, ethnicity ● When broken down this was significant higher for the intelligence domain but not for the
(stratified sampling)) sociomoral domain
Participants (children and parents) were visited at home every four months from when the child was 14 months old as part There were few correlations between parental scores and the praise type or frequency they used with the
of the original study children
● Therefore the data was double-blind as neither the families nor researcher or transcriber at the time were A higher score for malleable cognitive development correlated with higher use of person praise
aware that their interactions would later be studied for praise Relationships between praise style and motivational frameworks:
The video recordings from the language study lasted 90 minutes, and Gunderson et al. used the interactions recorded at 14 A significant correlation between process praise (as a % of total praise) when children were 14 months to 38
months, 26 months and 38 months old months old and children’s incremental (malleable) motivational framework scores at 7 to 8 years old
The speech from the video recordings was also transcribed by the original researchers No significant correlation between person praise and children’s entity (fixed ability) motivational framework
Parent praise was measured by coding the transcripts of the interactions, with distinctions made between explicit praise scores at 7 to 8 years old
(‘good’, ‘nice’, ‘great’) or implicit praise (‘you got it’)
The praise was categorised into three categories:
Process praise emphasises the effort of the child, e.g. ‘you must have tried so hard’ or ‘good job drawing’
●
Conclusions: Strengths:
● Person praise implies a child has a fixed quality, e.g. ‘good girl’ or ‘you’re so smart’
The amount of process praise (effort of the child) that parents gave Findings supports Dweck’s
● Other praise included general positive praise, e.g. ‘good’ ‘wow!’
their children between 14 and 38 months was a predictor of children’s theory
The coding was tested for reliability on 20% of the transcribed scripts, where the coding was also completed independently
incremental (cognitive traits are malleable, effort is important) The procedure was double blind
by a minimum of two further coders (there was a kappa value of 0.81 indicating high agreement between coders, so
Children whose parents used more process praise were more likely to (researchers who videotaped
inter-coder reliability is considered high)
have beliefs and behaviours associated with an incremental and transcribed the data did not
When the children reached 7 to 8 years old, they took part in two verbal questionnaires about their motivational
motivational framework, measured in the sociomoral and intelligence know that parental praise was
framework, which were completed 3 months apart (each of these questionnaires were part of a larger cognitive
domains the point of interest)
assessment lasting 2 hours)
The questionnaires were adapted from Heyman and Dweck (1998) and aimed to test the domains of intelligence (18
Gunderson et al. found a gender difference in the types of praise Weaknesses:
received Ethical considerations,
items) and sociomoral attributes (6 items)
Boys received significantly more process praise than girls, even participants were told that the
● Intelligence domain items included 5 point Likert-scaled questions, e.g. “Imagine a kid who thinks that a
though overall, boys and girls received the same amount of praise study was about child
person is a certain amount of smart, and they stay pretty much the same. How much do you agree with this
(explaining why existing research highlights that girls tend to development
kid?”
attribute failures to lack of ability and show decreased persistence Parents were aware they were
● Sociomoral domain items included yes/no questions, e.g. “Imagine a girl who gets in trouble a lot at school.
and motivation after failure) being observed, so could of
Some people think she will keep getting into a lot of trouble even when she is in high school. Do you think this
Parents with stronger incremental theories were more likely to give changed their style of praise,
is right?”
person praise (explains why parents who believe that intelligence is causing a lack of validity
Parents completed an 8-item questionnaire to test how malleable they considered cognitive ability to be
malleable believe that the way to make their child smarter is to Lack of generalisability, sample
● Items included questions about fixed intelligence, fixed maths ability and other cognitive skills
increase the child’s self-esteem by saying how smart they are, using only included 53 parent/child
● This was also administered as part of a larger questionnaire assessing their beliefs about academic
person praise) pairs in Chicago
development
Aims: Results:
Gunderson et al. investigated the use of praise by parents of children aged 14 months to 48 months old Praise of any type, was on average 3% of all utterances by parents
To look at the category of praise that parents gave their children and what type of praise was most used Person praise as a percentage of all praise was significantly less at 38 months than it was at 14 months old
To look at whether person praise or process praise can be a predictor of the child’s motivational frameworks five years Process praise showed no significant change
later Other praise was significantly higher at 38 months than 14 months
Boys received more process praise than girls
Girls received more person and other praise than boys
Procedure: Motivational frameworks data:
Sample: 53 children from Chicago (29 boys and 24 girls) taken from a larger sample of 63 families who had been taking Boys reported marginally more incremental motivational frameworks than girls
part in a study of language development (Represented the demographics of Chicago, e.g. income, race, ethnicity ● When broken down this was significant higher for the intelligence domain but not for the
(stratified sampling)) sociomoral domain
Participants (children and parents) were visited at home every four months from when the child was 14 months old as part There were few correlations between parental scores and the praise type or frequency they used with the
of the original study children
● Therefore the data was double-blind as neither the families nor researcher or transcriber at the time were A higher score for malleable cognitive development correlated with higher use of person praise
aware that their interactions would later be studied for praise Relationships between praise style and motivational frameworks:
The video recordings from the language study lasted 90 minutes, and Gunderson et al. used the interactions recorded at 14 A significant correlation between process praise (as a % of total praise) when children were 14 months to 38
months, 26 months and 38 months old months old and children’s incremental (malleable) motivational framework scores at 7 to 8 years old
The speech from the video recordings was also transcribed by the original researchers No significant correlation between person praise and children’s entity (fixed ability) motivational framework
Parent praise was measured by coding the transcripts of the interactions, with distinctions made between explicit praise scores at 7 to 8 years old
(‘good’, ‘nice’, ‘great’) or implicit praise (‘you got it’)
The praise was categorised into three categories:
Process praise emphasises the effort of the child, e.g. ‘you must have tried so hard’ or ‘good job drawing’
●
Conclusions: Strengths:
● Person praise implies a child has a fixed quality, e.g. ‘good girl’ or ‘you’re so smart’
The amount of process praise (effort of the child) that parents gave Findings supports Dweck’s
● Other praise included general positive praise, e.g. ‘good’ ‘wow!’
their children between 14 and 38 months was a predictor of children’s theory
The coding was tested for reliability on 20% of the transcribed scripts, where the coding was also completed independently
incremental (cognitive traits are malleable, effort is important) The procedure was double blind
by a minimum of two further coders (there was a kappa value of 0.81 indicating high agreement between coders, so
Children whose parents used more process praise were more likely to (researchers who videotaped
inter-coder reliability is considered high)
have beliefs and behaviours associated with an incremental and transcribed the data did not
When the children reached 7 to 8 years old, they took part in two verbal questionnaires about their motivational
motivational framework, measured in the sociomoral and intelligence know that parental praise was
framework, which were completed 3 months apart (each of these questionnaires were part of a larger cognitive
domains the point of interest)
assessment lasting 2 hours)
The questionnaires were adapted from Heyman and Dweck (1998) and aimed to test the domains of intelligence (18
Gunderson et al. found a gender difference in the types of praise Weaknesses:
received Ethical considerations,
items) and sociomoral attributes (6 items)
Boys received significantly more process praise than girls, even participants were told that the
● Intelligence domain items included 5 point Likert-scaled questions, e.g. “Imagine a kid who thinks that a
though overall, boys and girls received the same amount of praise study was about child
person is a certain amount of smart, and they stay pretty much the same. How much do you agree with this
(explaining why existing research highlights that girls tend to development
kid?”
attribute failures to lack of ability and show decreased persistence Parents were aware they were
● Sociomoral domain items included yes/no questions, e.g. “Imagine a girl who gets in trouble a lot at school.
and motivation after failure) being observed, so could of
Some people think she will keep getting into a lot of trouble even when she is in high school. Do you think this
Parents with stronger incremental theories were more likely to give changed their style of praise,
is right?”
person praise (explains why parents who believe that intelligence is causing a lack of validity
Parents completed an 8-item questionnaire to test how malleable they considered cognitive ability to be
malleable believe that the way to make their child smarter is to Lack of generalisability, sample
● Items included questions about fixed intelligence, fixed maths ability and other cognitive skills
increase the child’s self-esteem by saying how smart they are, using only included 53 parent/child
● This was also administered as part of a larger questionnaire assessing their beliefs about academic
person praise) pairs in Chicago
development
