Our eyes, gestures, and tone bring us together in a more profound way than words alone. It’s why we look hopefully toward the return of in-person, face-to-face connection.
Last month, I was invited on Fox & Friends to discuss participation trophies. Detested by some, celebrated by others, they’ve become a hot topic again after a recent poll at Reason Magazine showed that 57 percent of people felt that trophies should only be given to winners.
But underneath all that, the question remains: Should we give our kids trophies just for showing up?
Those perceptions change drastically among different economic and political groups, making the debate a proxy for larger political debates. As a sport psychologist, I think that's the wrong question to ask.
In my opinion, trophies are a bad metric for winners and losers alike. Countless studies have shown that we’re more committed to an activity when we do it out of passion, rather than an external reward such as a trophy.
The people who denigrate these trophies are often bent on teaching their kids that life has “winners” and “losers,” but this can also be a tricky matter. The science suggests that we need to praise our kids on process, not results. For example, instead of dealing with defeat by telling our kids that “everyone’s a winner at heart,” we should praise them for how hard they hustled, what they did right and how they improved.
But it’s not just the “losers” we need to worry about; it’s the “winners” too. Phrases like “You’re a winner” or “You’re a natural” can actually be toxic to how kids deal with losing. As the work of child psychologist Carol Dweck shows us, praising kids for their innate talents (in this study’s case, their intelligence) actually makes it more difficult for them to cope when they’re actually confronted with losing. Kids who are praised for their effort rather than their ability tend to strive harder, enjoy activities more, and deal with failure in a more resilient way.
So: should we give our kids participation trophies?
To be honest, it depends. As an unexpected surprise for someone’s unwavering dedication and effort — absolutely! As a meaningless gesture for just “showing up” — maybe not. Kids are smart, and they know that being handed a participation trophy isn’t the same as winning.
I coach tons of world-class athletes, and the pride they feel from a big win doesn’t come from a ring, or a trophy, and it doesn’t come from someone else telling them they’re the best. That moment of pride comes from out-performing the best of the best, from knowing that years of relentless training led them to the performance of a lifetime. The pride comes from doing what they love and being the best at it.
And that’s a feeling no trophy can provide.
For more on sport psychology and motivation, follow Dr. Fader on Twitter or Facebook, and watch Dr. Fader's appearance on Fox & Friends below.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 10, 2014 - 10:30am
I think participation trophies are a bit lazy.
Most sports teams have less than 12 kids -- not so many that a coach (and often with assistant coaches) can't take the time to note each kids genuine contribution to the team and recognize it in some way.
Instead of a thanks-for-showing-up trophy, a plaque or memento that says the kid was on the team along with something that acknowledges that kid's contribution gives the child something to be proud of and lets them know they belonged to a team and were welcomed there is far more valuable.
Also, a coach, knowing that he/she will have to come up with something for each kid at the end of the season, will require them to pay attention to each kid rather than just their star players.
Submitted by astorian on September 10, 2014 - 11:36am
As a kid, I loved sports- I just wasn't very good at most of them. I was just the kind of kid that well-meaning adults think they're helping by giving trophies to everybody, or by starting baseball and soccer leagues where they don't even keep score.
And it's precisely BECAUSE I was a terrible athlete that I know such measures, don't help. Kids aren't stupid. Slow runners KNOW they're slow. Kids who can't catch the ball KNOW they can't catch.
Even in soccer leagues that don't keep score, I guarantee you that every kid on both teams know EXACTLY what the score was, and who "won."
If you give out awards, make sure the award is for something real, something a kid can geuinely take pride in. If, for instance, a weak team loses a soccer game 10-2, it's fne to give out a medal or trophy for "Best Play of the Game." If one kid on the losing side made a goal, give him/her a medal. Or, if one Little League team loses a game 8-0, you can still give a "Play of the Game" medal to an outfielder who made a nice catch.
Kids "know the score"- both literally and figuratively. Medals and trophies DON'T have to be just for the winers, but they DO have to reflect some genuine accomplishment.
In my experience it's not really true that the kids always know the score and who "won," but I do like your idea of giving awards for real accomplishments. A kid in a baseball game could have five or six hits and still lose, but getting a game ball for that performance is an award you can still take pride in.
Submitted by Anon50 on September 10, 2014 - 3:22pm
The biggest school trophies should go to the math and science geniuses, the most accomplished musicians, the most fabulous artists, and the best programmers. Our kids are stupid because we overvalue the wrong stuff in school. (And if you don't think they're stupid come work at a college.)
I don't really know if participation trophies help kids or not, but I can say that trophies for "winners" at early ages are just about as meaningless. If a team wins when the players are six or eight years old, it's as much dumb luck as ability. Watch a soccer game at that level. The kids just swarm around the ball. Every now and then they might by chance kick it into the net. Declaring a winner at that age doesn't do anyone any good, because all that the coaches and parents should be hoping for is for them to learn some skills and - if they enjoy the game - play again next year. Before about middle-school age, "winning" doesn't really mean anything more than "participating."
I think participation trophies are setting up kids for failure in life. Think about this. Let's say you are a terrible athlete, but your parents sign you up for various sports and you not only get a trophy for playing, but the trophy says "1st place" even though you and your team were both bad. So here you are as a teenager with a ton of 1st place trophies in your trophy case without any kind of skill set. Then you go out for your high school teams and get cut. Now you feel like a piece of garbage. You think life is unfair and everyone in authority has something against you. Is that good? No. I think trophies should be earned. Those who don't get trophies should be able to see that if they want it, they need to work for it.
I do think it depends how they're presented. As a child it was pretty demotivating and demoralising to never receive anything for putting in the effort. I think that if you have something like a sports day and participation is voluntary there is nothing wrong with giving out recognition for giving it everything and trying your best even if you didn't come first, second or third. Giving out participation awards came about as a response to old way which was these are the winners and the rest of you are losers (which implied being worthless and useless).
And you know what, in the real life as an adult you do get recognition even when you're not the best. It's only at psychopathic companies where they still divide people into winners and losers.
Verified by 
11COMMENTS
