New thinking on self-esteem
In the 1970s and 80s schools worked hard to make students feel good about themselves. But the early self-esteem movement failed to solve problems of anti-social behaviour, depression and drug use, and may in fact have increased students’ vulnerability to them. Helen McGrath suggests that helping students feel capable, responsible and resilient is a more effective way to go.
New views and research studies have emerged over the last few years that question some of our previous assumptions about the role of student self-esteem in achievement and behaviour.
Many psychologists and educators are now urging schools to adopt a more hard-nosed approach that focusses less on helping students to feel good about themselves and more on helping them achieve outcomes and personal characteristics they can be proud of.
The history of the self-esteem movement
The early self-esteem movement of the 1970s and 80s reflected the culture’s growing emphasis on feelings and on everyone’s right to happiness. Self-esteem was seen as an inoculation that would prevent all sorts of undesirable personal and social outcomes, including academic failure. Extensive efforts were made to ensure that students ‘felt good’ about themselves. Many classroom activities were along the lines of ‘I am special and unique and there is no one just like me’. Schools also put into place a variety of policies and practices aimed at protecting students from failing, making too many mistakes, being criticised and having other ‘bad feelings’ about themselves.
Research has since shown that this approach did not change anti-social behaviour nor improve relationships, and did not reduce depression or lessen the likelihood of drug use. Psychologist Martin Seligman claims that over-focussing on students’ self-esteem in this ‘feel good’ way has actually had the opposite effects from those intended. By emphasising how a child feels, at the expense of what the child does, teachers may have misguidedly contributed to two generations of students becoming more vulnerable to depression.
Global self-esteem and earned self-esteem
Global self-esteem theory was the basis of the original self-esteem movement. It was underpinned by the belief that self-esteem leads the way and achievement, behaviour and character will then follow. However, global self-esteem can be artificial and often requires active intervention on the part of teachers.
The newer earned self-esteem theory stresses that competency, achievement of personal goals and ‘pro-social’ behaviour come first and self-esteem follows. Earned self-esteem develops when students have accomplished something worthwhile or behaved in a personally or socially responsible way. Self-esteem is perceived as a side-effect of a student’s putting pro-social moral values into action, and of mastering challenges, working hard, over-coming obstacles, and succeeding. Psychologist Barbara Lerner has proposed a similar dichotomy, using the terms ‘good self-esteem’ as opposed to ‘feel good now self-esteem’.
Trying to shield students from feelings of sadness, frustration, and anxiety when they lose, fail or make mistakes can deprive them of the motivation to persist in difficult tasks until they succeed. It is success in the face of these difficulties that can genuinely make students feel good about themselves.
Low, healthy and inflated self-esteem
Self-esteem, or the value that one places on oneself, is not necessarily a reality-based evaluation. Some students have many strengths and accomplishments but do not perceive them as valuable, and other students have a sense of personal superiority that is neither reality-based nor warranted.
Students with low self-esteem have a pessimistic and negative view of their strengths and achievements.
They are overly self-critical and focus on the things they cannot do, rather than on their strengths. They tend to give up easily and show little confidence in areas that are new. They only compare themselves to people who are highly successful. They want the same things that other students do (to be liked and included, to achieve well, and so on) but they get stuck on self-protection and spend a lot of their time trying to avoid humiliation, rejection and failure.
Students with healthy self-esteem have worked hard to achieve their goals and acknowledge this. When faced with failure or mistakes, they stay optimistic and try to work out what went wrong without blaming themselves for everything. They are not crushed by constructive criticism. They compare themselves to appropriate people, not perfection. They do what their conscience tells them is right, even if it doesn’t serve their own direct interests at the time.
Many students have an inflated self-esteem. They have poor self-knowledge, especially about their own limitations. This can lead to vulnerability and disappointment, but it can also lead to conceit, pride, feelings of superiority and entitlement. They choose less threatening people with whom to compare themselves. Many studies confirm that in some students inflated self-esteem is also related to aggression and mistreatment of others.
Healthy self-esteem equals resilience?
Having healthy self-esteem is linked to being resilient. The characteristics that lead students to be able to ‘bounce back’ after adversity and disappointment are similar to those that are typical of students with healthy self-esteem. Listed below are some of the skills and understandings that schools can teach students to help them to develop both resilience and healthy self-esteem. There are many classroom resilience programs available that provide strategies and activities for this purpose, including BOUNCE BACK! and MindMatters.
Pro-social values: These underpin personal and social responsibility and include honesty, fairness, support and concern for others, cooperation, acceptance of differences, respect and friendship. A defensible belief in these values helps to give life meaning.
Coping skills: These include helpful thinking, normalising negative events in one’s life rather than personalising them, and talking to trusted people to get a reality check on one’s thinking. When students manage to cope with an unpleasant event in their lives, they feel less vulnerable and more capable.
Courage: Showing courage is an important life skill that can help young people be more resilient when faced with adversity and contribute to a positive sense of self. Optimistic thinking: This includes positive tracking (focussing on the positive aspects of a negative situation), turning failures and mistakes into opportunities to learn, accepting that bad times are temporary, and having a realistic and balanced view of the causes of both good and bad outcomes in one’s life.
Managing feelings: When students can understand and manage their ‘bad’ feelings, they feel less overwhelmed by them and develop a greater sense of control and self-respect.
Social skills: Students who have effective social skills develop greater confidence in their ability to transact positive relationships and terminate negative ones. The end result is that they feel less like victims and are more likely to establish strong positive social connections.
Goal achievement: By setting goals and planning strategies to achieve them, applying self-discipline and being persistent in the face of obstacles, students achieve more of the goals they set for themselves and create a sense of confidence, optimism and self-respect.
Evidence-based self-knowledge: Students with a realistic self-knowledge about their strengths and limitations that is based on evidence rather than wishful thinking are more able to use their strengths to their own advantage and minimise the effects of their limitations.
Conclusion
Schools can still make students’ emotional wellbeing a significant focus. However, they need to reflect on the ways in which they are currently trying to foster student self-esteem and consider the potential and multiple benefits of a resilience approach.
Lerner, B (1996). ‘Self-esteem and excellence: The choice and the paradox’, American Educator, 20, (2).
McGrath, H & Noble, T (2003). BOUNCE BACK! A classroom resiliency program, Pearson Education, Sydney.
MindMatters: Enhancing resilience (2000). Curriculum Corporation, Melbourne.
Seligman, M E P , Rievich, K, Jaycox, L & Gilhma, J (1995). The Optimistic Child, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass.
Helen McGrath is a part-time senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Deakin University in Melbourne. She is also a counselling psychologist in private practice.
top
EQ Winter 2003 © Curriculum Corporation