Skip to main content

Win, lose or participate: what's good for children?


American authors Ashley Merryman and Po Bronson have written on the science of winning and losing. And they think they have answers for parents and teachers.

Competition trophies—in sport, spelling bees, and other competitions—were once rare. It was a rare honor to win. But what about those that didn’t win—the, er, losers?

Currently, participation is the buzz word. It doesn’t matter if children win or lose, it’s the participation that is most important. Or is it?

Participation ribbons, certificates, and trophies are now abundant. Children are constantly assured that they are winners, just by participating. A regional branch of the Youth Soccer Organization, according to Merryman and Bronson, issue 3,500 awards each season—each player receives an award, and about 33% receive two awards. Trophy and award sales are an estimated $3 billion a year industry in the United States and Canada.

The authors write about winning and losing experiments on children. A Stanford University psychology professor, Carol Dweck, found that children respond positively to praise—they enjoy hearing that they are talented, smart, and special. But when they “fail” or find a task difficult, they feel “defeated” very easily. In fact, children would rather cheat than risk failing again. By age 4 or 5, children are surprising accurate in identifying who excels and who struggles in their classroom. Those who constantly lose or fail soon give up. Those who do well feel upset if they are not recognized for their talent, and if they never or rarely receive praise they soon give up. However, once children obtain some proficiency in a task, the excitement of real competition may become appealing. This is more because real competition challenges their individual talent, and children do not initially see it as a ranking system against other children.

When it comes to rewards, if everyone receives an award for participation, then children are all treated equally. So what’s wrong with that?

Jean Twenge, author of “Generation Me,” studied American college students. When participation trophies were given, the cultural message is: to succeed, you just have to show up. In college, those who constantly received participation awards in their childhood did the requisite work in college, but did not see the need to do it well. Their perception is that attendance is all they need to be promoted. And this carries into the workplace. In fact, in the workplace they cannot understand why they are not promoted automatically. It’s a puzzle to them—a problem that they can’t seem to fix. Why? The reason could be because they never had to fix the problem, or any problem, or strive to achieve anything before in their life. It was all too easy.

The authors reveal the science of winning and losing: it is clear, they state. Awards can be powerful motivators, but non-stop recognition does not inspire children to succeed. Instead, constant awards can cause children to underachieve. If children know that they will automatically receive an award, there is little impetus for improvement. Problem-solving is not an issue because there is no problem to solve—and that is the problem! If there is no obstacle, children do not even know there is a problem to solve, and therefore do not acquire problem-solving techniques.

The solution is to allow children to make mistakes, to see that it’s okay to lose, and to encourage problem-solving skills and the desire to strive for improvement. The authors maintain that the job of parents and teachers is to help children overcome losing and setbacks, to help children to see that progress over time is more important than a particular win or loss, and to cease the practice of giving out participation trophies. Life is more than just showing up.


From “Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing” by Ashley Merryman and Po Bronson.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pir-E-Kamil - The Perfect Mentor by Umera Ahmed: book review

The Perfect Mentor pbuh  (2011) is set in Lahore and Islamabad in Pakistan. The novel commences with Imama Mubeen in medical university. She wants to be an eye specialist. Her parents have arranged for her to marry her first cousin Asjad. Salar Sikander, her neighbour, is 18 years old with an IQ of 150+ and a photographic memory. He has long hair tied in a ponytail. He imbibes alcohol, treats women disrespectfully and is generally a “weird chap” and a rude, belligerent teenager. In the past three years he has tried to commit suicide three times. He tries again. Imama and her brother, Waseem, answer the servant’s call to help Salar. They stop the bleeding from his wrist and save his life. Imama and Asjad have been engaged for three years, because she wants to finish her studies first. Imama is really delaying her marriage to Asjad because she loves Jalal Ansar. She proposes to him and he says yes. But he knows his parents won’t agree, nor will Imama’s parents. ...

Flaws in the Glass, a self-portrait by Patrick White: book review

The manuscript, Flaws in the Glass (1981), is Patrick Victor Martindale White’s autobiography. White, born in 1912 in England, migrated to Sydney, Australia, when he was six months old. For three years, at the age of 20, he studied French and German literature at King’s College at the University of Cambridge in England. Throughout his life, he published 12 novels. In 1957 he won the inaugural Miles Franklin Literary Award for Voss, published in 1956. In 1961, Riders in the Chariot became a best-seller, winning the Miles Franklin Literary Award. In 1973, he was the first Australian author to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for The Eye of the Storm, despite many critics describing his works as ‘un-Australian’ and himself as ‘Australia’s most unreadable novelist.’ In 1979, The Twyborn Affair was short-listed for the Booker Prize, but he withdrew it from the competition to give younger writers the opportunity to win the award. His autobiography, Flaws in the Glass...

Sister cities discussed: Canberra and Islamabad

Two months ago, in March 2015, Australia and Pakistan agreed to explore ways to deepen ties. The relationship between Australia and Pakistan has been strong for decades, and the two countries continue to keep dialogues open. The annual bilateral discussions were held in Australia in March to continue engagements on a wide range of matters of mutual interest. The Pakistan delegation discussed points of interest will include sports, agriculture, economic growth, trade, border protection, business, and education. The possible twinning of the cities of Canberra, the capital of Australia, and Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, were also on the agenda (i.e. called twin towns or sister cities). Sister City relationships are twinning arrangements that build friendships as well as government, business, culture, and community linkages. Canberra currently has international Sister City relationships with Beijing in China and Nara in Japan. One example of existing...