Parents should help kids cope with failure
A common argument against snowplow parents is that we need to prepare and not shield our kids. Obviously, a parent can do both, but it might sound better to word it in either-or terms.
By Daniel R Stalder (Parenting)
Published: Mon 1 Apr 2019, 8:18 PM
Last updated: Mon 1 Apr 2019, 10:20 PM
In the recent college admissions scandal, some wealthy parents allegedly bribed and lied to get their kids into certain colleges. Although we've known for a long time that kids from wealthy families have advantages in higher education, the criminal element of this story is new. Parents are getting arrested.
Many of us have criticised these parents for such behaviour. But along the way, some of us have gone further by criticising their general parenting style.
As a professor, I've had to deal with cases of student cheating, such as smuggling cell phones into tests or copying a classmate's answers. Such behaviours are wrong, but I don't extend this judgment to other aspects of the students' lives, such as how they study or take lecture notes. Is it different for judging parents who break the law?
Maybe. I'm definitely not trying to defend the alleged behaviour. But several recent authors have gone further by using the scandal as a jumping-off point to criticise "snowplow" parents in general. In my view, everyday parents who seem to snowplow or hover get criticised enough without unfairly grouping them into a high-profile scandal.
Snowplow parents are usually described as parents who clear their child's way of every obstacle, or shield their child from any stress or failure. Helicopter parents are similarly described as wanting to "ensure their children's success". A common criticism of all these parents includes the adage that we learn and grow from our mistakes and failures.
In my profession, if I get a call from a parent demanding I change their child's grade, does that mean this parent is a snowplow parent? If a student makes a similarly unreasonable demand, does that mean they were raised by a snowplow parent? I don't know.
My first point is that there is an inability to see the whole at-home story based on a single behaviour. This is partly to say that a particular parent might seem to fit a parenting label in one context, but not another. But even if the label fits a parent in general, I've observed other biases in criticising snowplow (and helicopter) parenting.
These biases include the strawman fallacy, dichotomous thinking, the converse error, and just not considering individual differences in children.
It's easy to criticise an action if we first exaggerate it. Many define snowplow parenting as protecting against "any harm" or removing "every obstacle." But is it physically possible to protect against "every" problem? Most parents fall in between "none" and "every."
An argument against snowplow parents is that we need to prepare and not shield our kids. Obviously, a parent can do both, but it might sound better to word it in either-or terms. I get the semantics of persuasion, but oversimplifying the situation can create a more negative stereotype that, again, can make reasonable parents question their parenting choices.
Although mistakes and failures can lead to learning or growth, that doesn't mean growth requires personal blunders. That's a cool thing about being human - we can grow in other ways such as through observational learning and listening. In other words, blunders may be sufficient for growth but not necessary. Don't get me wrong - if a child makes a mistake, there is a learning opportunity. It's okay to make mistakes. But to criticise a parent for preventing a child's mistake because it would prevent learning seems like the converse error. Fortunately, learning does not require the pain or embarrassment of mistakes (even if mistakes can help). I didn't have to burn my own hand on the stove to learn not to touch it when it's hot.
Without knowing as much about the child as the parent knows, it's hard to judge what constitutes going too far in trying to protect a child.
Let's talk about the admissions scandal. But why are we talking so much about snowplow parenting? One possible answer is that the scandal offers an opportunity to give well-intentioned advice on a way to parent, which some research may show can benefit the average child. Although some of these researchers fall into the traps of strawman fallacy and converse error, that doesn't mean their advice is useless. I advise parents to be open to advice - but not to judge themselves too harshly when considering whether it applies to their own situation.
- Psychology Today
Daniel R Stalder, Ph.D., is a social psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
iPhone | iPad
Android
Huawei
