A healthy self-esteem among students had become a focal point of education policy by the 1980s in the United States and obligatory by the 1990s. They used methods suggested by popular psychology, such as games involving a group of students and teachers talking about how much they like themselves, and a similar ‘self-esteem programme’. It was capable of having some temporary effects on well-being (Beane, 1991, pp. 25-27). Exercises like positive self-examination of consciousness, reliving the joyful mysteries of life, writing about daily achievements, etc., have a similar self-boosting effect.
There are different thought patterns behind such endeavors. Acceptance by others, especially by a significant figure, will definitely be a curative factor in self-esteem. Acceptance by parents in the developmental stage and acceptance by the therapist in the therapeutic set-up are definitely important for the development of healthy self-esteem. When one gets older, parents are replaced by friends, co-workers, leaders etc. Consistently providing positive and affirmative feedback is also considered a guiding notion here (Mruk, 2013, p. 98). The principles of classical conditioning support the possibility that these techniques have an impact on the individual. Empirical research concluded that the repetitive exposure to positive and warm social feedback leads to an improvement of low self-esteem (Baccus,Baldwin, & Packer, 2004, pp. 492 & 501).
Some experts suggest focusing on positives rather than negatives in building up students’ self-esteem (Mruk, 2013, p. 98). The Canadian human formation model also proposes that the process of strengthening self-esteem will be more successful if there is more concentration on one’s strengths. A process which emphasizes and concentrates on the limitations or problems will be less effective (Boyer et al., 1993, pp. 82–83). Those who suffer from self-esteem problems will naturally find it difficult to address their limitations. Any attempts to touch their vulnerability will produce emotional conflicts, whereas a process based on the individual’s merits will make the students interested and feel at ease. But such attempts at a self-boosting curriculum actually created some controversies in the field of education. A simple self-esteem-boosting programme with unsubstantiated praise as a motivator may also contribute to egoistic and narcissistic attitudes among students (Racy, 2015, p. 42). Glorification and over-romanticizing of such self-esteem movements has also promoted radical individualism (Beane, 1991, p. 29). Some computer games oriented towards boosting self-esteem reinforce antisocial attitudes among players (Baccus, Baldwin, & Packer, 2004, p. 501). Such attempts produce negative or imbalanced results among the participants, making them more arrogant and selfcentered people by generating overconfidence, hubristic pride and even violence.
One of the problems related to such programmes is that they consider self-esteem as a linear reality and low self-esteem as its only negative pole. But the other side of the line, i.e. inflated high self-esteem, becomes unhealthy by promoting violence and narcissistic traits. Therefore, conditioning methods in this sphere, with all their freedom, cannot be promoted. Any attempts at changing selfesteem using conditioning techniques demand continuous monitoring. Conditioning techniques can be positively effective and equally dangerous if they are not skillfully monitored in any education system. Humanistic psychology states that feedback must be authentic; i.e. based on reality, not phony praise. Again, slow doses of steady praise and encouraging feedback will be fruitful in avoiding the possibility of excessively high self-esteem (Mruk, 2013, p. 99)