The findings revealed that children who were praised according to effort exemplified improved performance. while those praised according to intelligence stagnated. The rationale for the outcome was explained by Dweck, to wit: “Emphasizing effort gives a child a variable that they can control,” she explains. “They come to see themselves as in control of their success. Emphasizing natural intelligence takes it out of the child’s control, and it provides no good recipe for responding to a failure” (Bronson 2). One is therefore significantly impressed and intrigued by the contention of Dweck and one’s diverse reactions ranged from disbelief, amazement, and finally, succumbed to agree. There were various supporting ideas that were validated through considerable research to establish credibility to the arguments that were presented in the article.
One particular point that was deemed to be of considerable importance was the rationale for the outcome: by praising children based on effort, they could always exert more to achieve more. On the contrary, by praising children based on intelligence, children would be typecast into that perception and based future decisions to conform to this so that risk taking is avoided. For example, one’s personal experience was observing my nephews who showed considerable laziness in studying their lessons. When their parents showered them with praises such as: “Hey guys, you are such smart kids like you Dad. Go on and study so that you will keep up your good grades.” My nephews would reply: “We do not need to study, Mom. We already know our lessons.” And therefore, the outcome of not studying was likewise not appropriately addressed, whether they got good grades, average, or low grades. Unlike what was emphasized by Bronson in the article that cited in one of the experiments conducted at Life Sciences where students were “predominantly minority and low achieving” (Bronson 2),