Explanatory Style 1

Optimal Development and Performance: The Role of Explanatory Style

Maureen Neihart, Psy.D.

Copyright 2002 Understanding Our Gifted

Three goals that we all share for our gifted children are that they are happy,

socially competent, and realizing their potential in whatever domains they show promise.

We want them to be achieving and well adjusted. But we often go about the pursuit of these goals haphazardly, without deliberate attention to what are known to be some of the most effective support strategies. Research clearly points to some factors as more influential than others in promoting optimal development and performance. There are psychosocial factors that make a difference, and these factors can be nurtured (Dweck &

Licht, 1980; Greenberger & Padesky, 1995; Park, 1998; Peterson, Maier, & Seligman,

1993). One of these factors is explanatory style: an individual’s perspective on success and failure experiences.

How we interpret events contributes to our future vulnerability or resilience

(Goodhart, 1985; Park, 1998; Rutter, 1987; Scheier & Carver1985). Explanatory styles are categorized as optimistic or pessimistic (Mcginnis, 1990; Scheier & Carver, 1985;

Seligman, 1990; 1995), and each person’s style falls somewhere on the continuum from one to the other. Studies with both children and adults indicate that pessimists are less resilient; more depressed, and achieve less in their lifetimes than do optimists (Scheier &

Carver, 1992; Seligman, 1995; Sweeney, Anderson & Bailey, 1986). Optimal development requires shaping and maintaining an optimistic style of interpreting success and failure experiences. We can promote emotional health, social competence, and high Explanatory Style 2

achievement in our children by teaching them to think positively about day-to-day events

in their lives. What meaning do they give to situations that go well or that don’t go well?

How do they think about the causes of positive and negative events in their lives?

There are three dimensions of explanatory style: permanence, pervasiveness, and

personalization (Seligman, 1995). Each dimension has to do with how we think about the

causes of positive and negative events. Permanence, for instance, refers to whether we

view the causes of events as being temporary, or enduring forever. If you believe that the

causes of bad things are will never change, what happens to your motivation? It tends to

drop, doesn’t it? You become discouraged. Why keep trying, if things aren’t going to

change? When bad things happen pessimists tend to think in terms of always and never.

"I'll never get to . . .” “It's always going . . .” “My friends will never . . ." Helplessness,

hopelessness, apathy, and withdrawal can ensue when people believe that the causes of

negative events are permanent.

In contrast, optimists think in terms of sometimes and recently. They view setbacks as temporary. When bad things happen they say to themselves, "I’ve been really stressed lately . . .” “Sometimes life is difficult . . .” “Recently she’s been very hard to live with . . ." People are more likely to persevere in the face of adversity when they believe that the causes of bad events are temporary. They feel hopeful.

Views of success are just the opposite. When things go well, optimists view the causes as permanent, while pessimists see them as temporary. Optimists say to themselves things like, "I did well on that paper because I am good with words. I’ve always been a good writer." Pessimists say things like, “I got lucky.” Or, “I got a good grade on that paper because Mr. Sorenson was in a good mood.” Explanatory Style 3

Suppose a gifted middle school student wins a piano competition. If her explanatory style is optimistic, she’ll attribute the causes to something enduring, (e.g.

“I’m very musical and I have a great memory.”) If her style is pessimistic, she’ll attribute the cause of her success to something more temporary, (e.g. “The other performers had a bad day.”) Success experiences build confidence for optimistic thinkers, but they have little impact on the confidence or self esteem of pessimistic thinkers.

Pervasiveness, the second dimension, refers to projecting causes across many different situations. Pessimists tend to see the causes of bad events as global and optimists tend to see them as local. As a result, people who are optimists can compartmentalize their problems more easily and move on with their lives. They say things like, “I don’t like the way Ms. Ankeny grades.” “My parents are upset about this.”

Or, “Sarah isn’t my friend any more.” They remain engaged with difficult tasks.

Pessimists, on the other hand, tend to catastrophize and view their entire world as falling apart when one bad event occurs. They say things like, “Teachers are unfair.” “My parents never listen to me.” Or, “Other kids don’t like me.” As a result, they tend to give up. It's the difference between the specific, and the general.

When they have success experiences, pessimists and optimists think just the reverse. Pessimists localize the causes and optimists generalize them. For instance, an optimistic student who does well on a math test may say to herself, “I’m a good student.”

But a pessimistic student will say something like, “I know my multiplication tables.”

People who limit the effects of negative events and generalize the effects of positive events are less likely to become depressed or lose their motivation, and are more likely to persevere when they face challenges. Explanatory Style 4

Personalization is the third dimension of explanatory style and refers to one’s

decision about who or what is responsible for events (Seligman, 1995). People attribute

this responsibility either internally or externally. Pessimists attribute responsibility

internally for bad events and externally for good events. In other words, they blame

themselves when bad things happen, and they give other people the credit when good

things happen. Optimists do just the reverse, taking credit for their successes. How are you likely to feel if you always think that problems are your fault? What happens to your self-confidence and general outlook over time if you rarely pat yourself on the back for

your successes? You can imagine how such thinking contributes to feelings of

hopelessness and helplessness.

Optimists do just the opposite. They take credit for good events and attribute

responsibility for bad events to external causes. This is not to say that they don’t hold

themselves accountable and accept responsibility for their errors! Rather, optimists tend

to see themselves more accurately than do pessimists. When problems are the result of

their poor judgment, impulsivity, or impatience, for instance, they acknowledge their

need to address those specific weaknesses without disparaging their entire character.

They differentiate between their behavior and their person.

Let’s consider two students who illustrate different perspectives about their

experiences. Nathan is a talented high school junior who enjoys soccer and hanging out

with his friends. He recently earned strong marks on the ACT and has consistently earned

good grades, with the exception of Social Studies where he earns only mediocre grades.

Nathan’s parents and teachers are concerned about him, though, because he doesn’t put

forth much effort, and gives up too easily when things get difficult. He seems willing to Explanatory Style 5 slide by doing as little as possible. Although he was enthusiastic about school and soccer when he was in elementary school, his parents note that his motivation has really waned during junior and senior high. He has elected not to take most of the advanced classes his high school offers and doesn’t embrace challenge in any other arena either. In spite of his long history of relative “success” in school, Nathan doesn’t see himself as particularly intelligent or competent. He seems to be losing confidence as he gets older and feels down more often about his friendships and his future.

A number of things might explain Nathan’s behavior, but one strong possibility is his explanatory style. Even though he has done well academically and socially over the years, Nathan may be quite pessimistic, attributing his successes to external factors and viewing the causes of his success as temporary and easily lost. He might think “The teachers at my school are easy graders.” “The work isn’t very difficult.” “The coach likes me.” Nathan might not think that the positive experiences in his life are likely to last, and fails to give himself credit for the strong social and academic skills he does possess. If he is a pessimist, he may have trouble when he confronts real adversity for the first time.

Pessimists tend to put forth little effort, feel discouraged easily, and withdraw from challenge because they view difficult situations as hopeless.

Twyla, on the other hand, is a gifted fifth grader who also has several good friends and enjoys school. She has a mild learning disability and ADHD, but in spite of these obstacles, she does well in school and has a strong self-esteem. Twyla is deeply curious about a great many things, and will spend long hours learning what she can about animals, her passion. Twyla has to work harder than many of her gifted classmates to get similar results, and has a particularly tough time in testing situations, but she is learning Explanatory Style 6

to advocate for herself and is developing a sense of humor about her limitations.

Again, there are probably several factors contributing to Twyla’s emotional health, social competence, and academic confidence. One likely factor is that she has an optimistic explanatory style. Twyla probably takes credit for her successes, saying things to herself like, “Other kids like me because I’m funny.” “I do better in school when I remember to take my medication and study for tests.” When she experiences minor setbacks, Twyla probably does not berate herself or others, but says things to herself like,

“My friends got upset because I was interrupting.” “I got a B because I lost my notes from the film we watched.” Because she doesn’t generalize the causes of her failure experiences, nor personalize them, she remains engaged in the struggle when she faces challenge and feels confident. She believes that things will improve if she continues to work hard and she feels encouraged.

Even though Nathan has had an easier time than Twyla with schoolwork and with making friends, he may be more at risk for , underachievement, and relationship conflicts because he is the more pessimistic thinker. Simply doing well is not enough to promote optimal development. How one thinks about doing well makes a big difference.

Explanatory style influences motivation (remaining engaged in challenging tasks), perseverance (sustaining high effort over time), and risk taking (pursuing goals with uncertain outcomes). It is not difficult to shape explanatory style, and Seligman (1995) has demonstrated that the positive effects of shaping an optimistic explanatory style in school aged children can last for years. If we want to optimize emotional and social functioning as well as performance, we would do well to pay attention to our children’s Explanatory Style 7

explanatory style.

In summary, there are crucial differences between how optimistic and pessimistic

students view their success and failure experiences. Children who stay motivated and

remain positively engaged in the pursuit of high goals tend to take credit for themselves

when things go well, saying to themselves things like, “I worked hard” or, “I am really

good at this” whereas dissatisfied students tend to credit external factors, saying things

like, “She’s an easy grader” or “Other kids had a bad day.” Additionally, individuals who

view the world positively tend to generalize their success experiences, expecting that they will continue to do well and improve (e.g. “I’m becoming a very good math student”) in contrast to negative thinkers who tend to limit the effects of their successes (“This is the only thing I’m good at it. I won’t be able to repeat this.”) When they fail, resilient, persevering children tend to consider external factors (e.g. “I was up late.” “The other kids played better.”), while less motivated or depressed children tend to blame themselves (“I’m so stupid.”). Additionally, when experiencing a setback, optimists do not generalize the negative effects, but limit the same, telling themselves that the experience is just temporary, and will improve with time (e.g. “I had a bad day. I’ll do better next time.”) while pessimists generalize from a specific negative experience to other areas of their life (e.g. “My life is never going to turn out right.”)

Becoming More Positive

The first step to helping students develop a more positive explanatory style is to pay attention to what we say about success and failure experiences ourselves. What are we modeling? Since children learn some of their explanatory style from adults, we should be careful to correct them and affirm them using an optimistic explanatory style. Use Explanatory Style 8

permanent or pervasive messages when they are successful, not when they are struggling or misbehave. We should work to make our own interpretation of events more optimistic

and less negative. Interested adults can complete the brief questionnaire in Seligman’s

(1990) book, Learned , to get an objective assessment of their own optimism

and pessimism. There are many resources on the market for developing greater optimism.

Seligman (1995) suggests that we use the three dimensions of explanatory style as focal points for teaching children how to play detective and improve their optimism. He

says the goal is to teach children to see themselves accurately. We want them to accept responsibility, without being overwhelmed by guilt, shame, or anxiety when bad things happen, and to take appropriate credit for their successes. We can begin by introducing

the concepts of optimism and pessimism. Who knows what an optimist is? What’s a

pessimist like? Explain that just as people have their own style of dress, talking, music,

etc., they also have their own way of thinking about things. Listen to your children or your students when they are talking about their successes and their disappointments. How permanent or temporary do they view the causes of such events? Are they generalizing or limiting the effects of negative events? Do they view the causes of their successes as permanent or temporary? What are they personalizing? For a formal analysis of their

style, teachers and parents could provide children with a copy of the Children’s

Attribution Questionnaire (Weissman, Orvaschel, & Padian, 1980) included in

Seligman’s (1995) book, The optimistic child.

It is not especially effective to dispute children’s pessimistic thinking. Saying

things like, “Oh, come on. You’re good at social studies. I know you are. You just need

to try a little harder” is not helpful. Such statements may be true and they may make the Explanatory Style 9

adult feel better, but they’re not likely to have much impact on how a child thinks about

future challenges. Instead, we must be deliberate in teaching our children how to play

detective, searching for evidence that supports and refutes their conclusions, so that they gradually become more accurate in their perspectives.

Read or act out skits, scenes, monologues, that contrast optimists and pessimists.

What do they notice? Ask them what it might feel like to view life like the more pessimistic characters. Analyze the perspectives on success and failure of characters in a

story or film. Who would they rather spend time with? Compare the behaviors and

feelings of those who believe that the causes of negative events are permanent, pervasive,

and personal with those of more optimistic figures. Invite students to share a time when

their thoughts were particularly optimistic or pessimistic. What was that like? What did

they notice happened to their self-confidence? How much did they feel like working

toward a solution? How easy is it to persevere in the pursuit of high goals if one is

pessimistic? Emphasize the relationship between thoughts and feelings.

Since permanence is the most important dimension for resilience and resistance to

depression, it may be wise to focus on this dimension first. Use cartoon worksheets, skits,

literature, and real life situations to increase understanding of how viewing causes

permanently can contribute to motivation or apathy. You might provide children with

skits and cartoons initially, (see Seligman, 1995 for several examples) and then let them

write their own. Let them make instructional videos to teach the concepts, or work with a

digital camera to illustrate the difference between pessimism and optimism. The point is

to keep students engaged with the concepts and to have fun! Explanatory Style 10

Depressed or poorly motivated children have trouble seeing more than one answer and often view themselves as to blame for everything. They need help to consider a greater range of possibilities. Seligman (1995) suggests a simple pizza pie game to help them see multiple causes for events and learn to allocate blame or responsibility more

evenhandedly. It is especially helpful to play the game as a small group. Draw a circle

and divide it into ten or more sections. Use a recent dilemma or success students have

encountered and invite them to come up with as many reasons for the event as they can.

For instance, how many reasons can they think of that an elementary student might not be

invited to a classmate’s birthday party? What are all the possible reasons a high school

student might do well on a standardized test? Record a reason in each section of the pie.

With practice, pessimistic thinkers will learn to use the exercise as a tool for broadening

their perspective, and developing greater optimism.

There is a lot of talk about meeting the social and emotional needs of gifted students, but few of the recommended support strategies are grounded in research. Most of the attention given to improving academic performance has focused on assessment and

standards, without regard for the emotional and contextual factors known to nurture high

performance. Whether the domain is academics, music, business, or athletics, realizing

the promise of high potential requires specific psychosocial factors that can be nurtured.

Studies of explanatory style demonstrate that pessimistic thinking is associated with

lower productivity, a greater incidence of depression, and more vulnerability. Optimistic

thinking is associated with strong performance, especially at the highest levels of

achievement, and with better physical and emotional health. Those of us responsible for

promoting the optimal development and achievement of gifted children should consider Explanatory Style 11 incorporating strategies that develop optimistic explanatory styles into the work that we do with our students. Explanatory Style 12

References

Dweck, C.S.,& Licht, B. (1980). and intellectual achievement. In J.

Garber & M. Seligman (Eds.). Human helplessness: theory and applications, 197-

222. New York: Academic Press.

Goodhart, D.E. (1985). Some psychological effects associated with positive and negative

thinking about stressful event outcome: Was Pollyanna right? Journal of

Personality and Social , 48, 14-148.

Greenberger, D. & Padesky, C.A. (1995). Mind over mood: Change the way you feel by

changing the way you think. New York: Guilford Press.

Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

McGinnis, A. (1990) . The power of optimism. New York: Harper Collins.

Park, C.L. (1998). Stress-related growth and thriving through coping: The roles of

personality and cognitive processes. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 267-278.

Peterson, C., Maier, S., & Seligman, M. (1993). Learned helplessness. New York:

Oxford.

Rutter,M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal

of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Scheier, M.F. & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and

implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-

247.

Scheier, M.F. & Carver, C.S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical

well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Explanatory Style 13

Research, 16, 201-228.

Schulman, P., Keith, D., & Seligman, M. (1993). Is optimism heritable? A study of twins.

Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 569-574.

Seligman, M. (1995).The optimistic child. New York: HarperPerennial.

Seligman, M. (1990) Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.

Sweeney, P., Anderson, K., & Bailey, S. (1986). Attributional style in depression: a meta-

analytic review. Journal of Personality and , 50, 974-991.

Weissman, M., Orvaschel, H., & Padian, N. (1980). Children’s symptom and social

functioning: Self-report scales. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 736-

740.