Show Hide image

Just because you think your children are extraordinary, doesn’t mean they are

Although a large majority of parents might believe that praise is invariably beneficial to children, research suggests otherwise.

Everyone is brilliant, right? Photo: Jacobsen /Three Lions/Getty Images

It is natural for parents to value their child – and feeling valued is key to children’s well-being; but some parents “overvalue” their child, believing their child is more special and more entitled than others.

The idea of parental overvaluation was first introduced in psychology by Sigmund Freud, who saw it as “a revival and reproduction” of parents' own narcissism. Parents who overvalue their child, Freud argued: “are under a compulsion to ascribe every perfection to the child, which sober observation would find no occasion to do”.

Empirical research on parental overvaluation has been scarce, but in an article published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we put it to the test.

We conducted six studies involving more than 1,700 Dutch and American parents. We first developed a concise self-reporting instrument to assess individual differences in parental overvaluation – something called the Parental Overvaluation Scale (POS). In the scale, parents rate their agreement with statements such as: “my child deserves special treatment” and: “my child is a great example for other children to follow.”

The scale yields an average score in the range from: “not at all overvaluing” to: “extremely overvaluing”. We found that there are important differences between parents in how strongly they overvalue their child and that these differences shape parents’ thoughts and behaviours.

The Tale of Benson Bunny

Given that overvaluing parents see their child as an “embryonic genius” (as the neo-Freudian psychoanalyst Karen Horney put it), they might overestimate their child’s capacities. Our findings confirm this prediction.

In one study, we asked parents to rate their child’s smartness, and we assessed the child’s actual IQ. Parental overvaluation predicted how smart parents thought their child was, but not how smart the child actually was. In another study, we presented parents with items that children should be familiar with by the end of their first year at secondary school, such as “Neil Armstrong” and the book “Animal Farm". For each topic, we asked parents whether they thought their child would be familiar with it. Unbeknown to the parents, we also included items that did not actually exist, such as “Queen Alberta” and “The Tale of Benson Bunny.” Overvaluing parents tended to claim that their child had knowledge of many different topics – including these non-existent ones.

What’s in a name?

Overvaluation shapes not only how parents think about their child, but also how they treat and raise their child. Overvaluing parents want their child to stand out from the crowd. One way to accomplish this is by giving children a unique, uncommon first name. To test this, we used a national database to obtain the proportion of children who were the same sex and born in the same year as the children in the study, and we found that overvaluing parents were indeed more likely to give their child an uncommon first name.

When parents overvalue their child, they might want to express their inflated views of their child. One means to do so is by heaping praise on the child. We conducted in-home observations, and we counted how often parents praised their child while the child was doing mathematics exercises. We found that overvaluaing parents praised their child 62 per cent more than parents who had less inflated views of their child.

Although a large majority of parents might believe that praise is invariably beneficial to children, research suggests otherwise. Previous work by Carol Dweck and by us shows that praise, if focused on the person (for example: “you’re great”) or phrased in an overly positive way (for example: “you made an incredibly beautiful drawing”), can ironically backfire, especially in children with low self-esteem.

Reality or fiction?

Are overvalued children different from other children? Are they somehow more “extraordinary” or “special” than others? Perhaps not. We found that overvalued children are not smarter or better performing than other children, nor do they differ in their basic temperamental traits. So, the justification for overvaluing their child seems to reside more in parents’ minds than in objective reality.

Not all parents are equally inclined to overvalue. We found that narcissistic parents, who believe they are superior to others and who want to be admired by others, are especially inclined toward it. But why? One possibility is that narcissistic parents are trying to put themselves on a pedestal. Because parents often see their child as part of themselves, admiring their child may also be an indirect way of admiring themselves. Another possibility is that narcissistic parents simply believe that the child has inherited their “wonderful qualities”.

So, much like Narcissus admired his own image in the water, narcissistic parents often admire their own image of flesh and blood: their child.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.The Conversation

Green Party
Show Hide image

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley: "The Greens can win over Ukip voters too"

The party co-leaders condemned Labour's "witch hunt" of Green-supporting members. 

“You only have to cast your eyes along those green benches to think this place doesn't really represent modern Britain,” said Caroline Lucas, the UK’s only Green MP, of the House of Commons. “There are lots of things you could do about it, and one is say: ‘Why not have job share MPs?’”

Politics is full of partnerships and rivalries, but not job shares. When Lucas and Jonathan Bartley were elected co-leaders of the Green party in September, they made history. 

“I don't think any week's been typical so far,” said Bartley, when I met the co-leaders in Westminster’s Portcullis House. During the debate on the Hinkley power plant, he said, Lucas was in her constituency: “I was in Westminster, so I could pop over to do the interviews.”

Other times, it’s Bartley who travels: “I’ve been over to Calais already, and I was up in Morecambe and Lancaster. It means we’re not left without a leader.”

The two Green leaders have had varied careers. Lucas has become a familiar face in Parliament since 2010, whereas Bartley has spent most of his career in political backrooms and wonkish circles (he co-founded the think tank Ekklesia). In the six weeks since being elected, though, they seem to have mastered the knack of backing each other up. After Lucas, who represents Brighton Pavilion, made her point about the green benches, Bartley chimed in. “My son is a wheelchair user. He is now 14," he said. "I just spent a month with him, because he had to have a major operation and he was in the recovery period. The job share allows that opportunity.”

It’s hard enough for Labour’s shadow cabinet to stay on message. So how will the Greens do it? “We basically said that although we've got two leaders, we've got one set of policies,” said Lucas. She smiled. “Whereas Labour kind of has the opposite.”

The ranks of the Greens, like Labour, have swelled since the referendum. Many are the usual suspects - Remainers still distressed about Brexit. But Lucas and Bartley believe they can tap into some of the discontent driving the Ukip vote in northern England.

“In Morecambe, I was chatting to someone who was deciding whether to vote Ukip or Green,” said Bartley. “He was really distrustful of the big political parties, and he wanted to send a clear message.”

Bartley points to an Ashcroft poll showing roughly half of Leave voters believed capitalism was a force for ill (a larger proportion nevertheless was deeply suspicious of the green movement). Nevertheless, the idea of voters moving from a party defined by border control to one that is against open borders “for now” seems counterintuitive. 

“This issue in the local election wasn’t about migration,” Bartley said. “This voter was talking about power and control, and he recognised the Greens could give him that.

“He was remarking it was the first time anyone had knocked on his door.”

According to a 2015 study by the LSE researcher James Dennison, Greens and Kippers stand out almost equally for their mistrust in politicians, and their dissatisfaction with British democracy. 

Lucas believes Ukip voters want to give “the system” a “bloody big kick” and “people who vote Green are sometimes doing that too”. 

She said: “We’re standing up against the system in a very different way from Ukip, but to that extent there is a commonality.”

The Greens say what they believe, she added: “We’re not going to limit our ambitions to the social liberal.”

A more reliable source of support may be the young. A May 2015 YouGov poll found 7 per cent of voters aged 18 to 29 intended to vote Green, compared to just 2 per cent of those aged 60+. 

Bartley is cautious about inflaming a generational divide, but Lucas acknowledges that young people feel “massively let down”.

She said: “They are certainly let down by our housing market, they are let down by universities. 

“The Greens are still against tuition fees - we want a small tax for the biggest businesses to fund education because for us education is a public good, not a private commodity.”

Of course, it’s all very well telling young people what they want to hear, but in the meantime the Tory government is moving towards a hard Brexit and scrapping maintenance grants. Lucas and Bartley are some of the biggest cheerleaders for a progressive alliance, and Lucas co-authored a book with rising Labour star Lisa Nandy on the subject. On the book tour, she was “amazed” by how many people turned up “on wet Friday evenings” to hear about “how we choose a less tribal politics”. 

Nevertheless, the idea is still controversial, not least among many in Nandy's own party. The recent leadership contest saw a spate of members ejected for publicly supporting the Greens, among other parties. 

“It was like a witch hunt,” said Lucas. “Some of those tweets were from a year or two ago. They might have retweeted something that happened to be from me saying ‘come join us in opposing fracking’, which is now a Labour policy. To kick someone out for that is deeply shocking.”

By contrast, the Greens have recently launched a friends scheme for supporters, including those who are already a member of another party. “The idea that one party is going to know it all is nonsense,” said Bartley. “That isn’t reality.”

Lucas and Bartley believe the biggest potential for a progressive alliance is at constituency level, where local people feel empowered, not disenfranchised, by brokering deals. They recall the 1997 election, when voters rallied around the independent candidate Martin Bell to trounce the supposedly safe Tory MP Neil Hamilton. Citing a recent letter co-signed by the Greens, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru condemning Tory rhetoric on immigrants, Bartley points out that smaller parties are already finding ways to magnify their voice. The fact the party backed down on listing foreign workers was, he argued, “a significant win”. 

As for true electoral reform, in 2011, a referendum on changing Britain's rigid first past the post system failed miserably. But the dismal polls for the Labour party, could, Lucas thinks, open up a fresh debate.

“More and more people in the Labour party recognise now that no matter who their leader is, their chance of getting an outright majority at the next election is actually vanishingly small,” she said. “It’s in their interests to support electoral reform. That's the game changer.” 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.