Telling Students How Smart They Are May Not Be Beneficial

Source: Peggy and Marco Lachmann-Anke/Pixabay

Recognizing and endorsing hard work is crucial in teaching and coaching. To understand the significance of hard work, Coyle (2009) presented in his book The Talent Code the remarkable and significant 2007 educational social study by Dweck, which involved four hundred New York fifth graders.

Coyle (2009) writes that the study by Dweck was a scientific version of the fable ‘The Princess and the Pea’. “The goal was to see how much a tiny signal – a single sentence of praise – can affect performance and effort, and what kind of signal was most effective.”

A Fairly Easy Puzzle

Coyle reports that the first thing Dweck set out to do was to assess the motivational engagement and cognitive performance of each of the four hundred participants. To test their motivation and cognitive performance, all of the participants undertook and completed what was referred to as a “fairly easy puzzle.”

"You Must Be Smart at This"

Following the completion of this puzzle, Coyle writes that Dweck informed all four hundred participants of their score. According to Coyle, when Dweck was providing each student with their score, through a process of random selection, one half of the four hundred students were praised with a “single six-word sentence of praise: “You must be smart at this.”

"You Must Have Worked Really Hard"

Coyle writes that the other half of the four hundred students were praised with two combined sentences: “You must be smart at this. You must have worked really hard.” Which meant one half of the four hundred participants were randomly praised specifically for their intelligence with the phrase: “You must be smart at this.” While the other half of the 400 participants were praised not only for their intelligence (just like the first group) they were also praised for their work and effort.

A Choice of Two Different Puzzles

Following this process, where two different “motivational marking” statements were presented to each student, a second new puzzle test was administered. However, prior to the second puzzle being administered, each one of the participants (of both groups), as noted by Coyle, “was [verbally] offered a choice between a harder test and an easier test.”

When this choice was offered, ninety percent of the participants who had been praised for their intelligence and effort chose the harder test. On the other hand, Coyle reported that the majority of the participants who had been praised for their intelligence “chose the easier test.” This result was an unexpected and even bewildering result for Dweck. This immediately prompted Dweck to ask the question: Why?

Source: Peggy and Marco Lachmann-Anke/Pixabay

What is Going on Here?

Why would ninety percent of the group that were praised for their intelligence and their effort choose the harder test? And why would the majority of the group, praised specifically for their intelligence, choose the easier test?

One would think, argued Dweck, that the group that was praised for their intelligence would also want to do the harder and more difficult puzzle as well? After all, weren’t they just told they were intelligent? And that statement is nothing but encouraging, supportive and positive; one could also argue it is an inspirational statement.

Therefore, as the inference above strongly suggests, it is reasonable to assume that praising children for their intelligence would be encouraging, positive, motivating and inspirational. After all, it makes perfect sense that children would enjoy receiving praise that highlights their intelligence.

As such, one might self-evidently and successfully assume that being praised for being smart would be a joyous and encouraging experience; motivating anyone to then be inspired and to immediately work harder and continually strive to do their best. From an observational perspective, being told you are smart makes perfect sense. So, where to from here?

Opinions, thoughts, bewildering quandaries, and even confusions needed to be acknowledged. After all, isn’t the analysis of all evidence, the undeniable universal essence of research? This analysis needed to continue until a hypothesis could emerge that objectively presented the quantitative evidence and outcome of the experiment.

Intelligence Essential Reads

The Existential Crisis of the Gifted

What It's Like to Be a Gifted, High-IQ Person in a Non-Gifted Family

From this most unexpected result, Coyle reports that Dweck eventually presented a hypothesis declaring the following: “When we praise children for their intelligence…we [are telling] them that’s the name of the game: look smart, don’t risk making mistakes.” Who has to work hard if people think you are smart and intelligent?

Following on from there, a third puzzle test was administered. The third puzzle, according to Coyle, was “uniformly harder” for both groups. The results of this equally harder test resulted in “none of the kids [doing] well.”

According to Coyle, when Dweck asked each participant about the third test, she discovered to her amazement that the two groups “responded very differently to the situation.” The intelligence and effort praised group “dug in and grew very involved with the test, trying solutions, testing strategies…They later said they liked it. But the group praised for [specifically] its intelligence hated the harder test. They took it as proof they weren’t smart.”

A Fourth Test Was Administered

Coyle reports that this result was again so surprising to Dweck that she decided to administer a fourth test. In this fourth test, the puzzle presented to both groups had the same level of difficulty as the initial puzzle administered in the first test. At the completion of the fourth test, the “praised-for-effort group improved their initial score by 30 percent, while the praised-for-intelligence group’s score declined by 20 percent.”

Coyle writes that “Dweck was so surprised and so amazed at this result that she re-ran the study a total of five times! Each time the result was the same.” From the results of this experiment, Dweck concluded that broad-based motivational language was not all that beneficial. In fact, Coyle reports that Dweck came to the conclusion that “motivation does not increase with increased levels of praise but often dips.”

Source: Anna Varsányi/Pixabay

All of the Evidence was Unambiguous

The results of this extensive experiment also informed Dweck that if teachers or coaches wanted to lift the performance of their students, and if parents, carers, and significant others wanted to lift the performance of their children. All praise to support and encourage needed to be objective.

The results of this significant experiment, according to Coyle, unambiguously informed Dweck that platitudes were not needed to enhance children's performance; in fact, as the research and evidence clearly informs, platitudes hinder effort and progress potential.

What is needed are clear, specific words that acknowledge the objective, effort, and personal discipline, dedication, and determination of the participants. This research by Dweck also clearly demonstrates that telling students how ‘smart’ they are is not actually all that helpful. Instead, recognizing how much effort they put in and how they have worked is what truly matters. "I can see you are working hard." "You certainly put a great deal of effort into your performance." "I can see that you worked hard to achieve that result." "I can see that you worked hard and you never gave up." (Purje, 2025).