Acknowledge the Good

“Thank you. That was great. Without you I wouldn’t have made it!” Sometimes it takes just a few words to create an open and trusting environment. We say these things without much reflection, but phrases of this kind contain miniature marvels. They honor what someone has done and express our appreciation. They acknowledge an action not only as having been successful, but also as morally good and worthy of praise. Despite this, philosophers who have debated the good and the bad over millennia have scarcely paid attention to the role of praise.

Experimental philosopher Pascale Willemsen wants to change this. Her new research project, PRAISE – shining light on praise, which has received a Starting Grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation, is taking a closer look at the moral function of praise. Rather than starting from theory as philosophers usually do, she begins with how normal people actually behave in everyday life. Her objective is to develop an empirically informed philosophy of praise, thereby rethinking a piece of the human moral puzzle.

A glance at the literature on moral questions reveals an unbalanced perspective. “When talking about morality, we almost always think about guilt, wrongdoing, blame and punishment,” says Willemsen. “But hardly anyone asks why and when we issue praise.” In philosophy, psychology and linguistics, it is mostly negative topics that receive research attention. Hundreds of studies are dedicated to moral accusations, but only a handful concern themselves with praise.

What explains this preference for the negative? Despite the long-established effectiveness of praise in guiding and influencing behavior – in childrearing, for example – criticizing and blaming others seems both easier and more effective. We focus on keeping our distance to that which could damage us: others shouldn’t rob, injure or kill us, for instance. “Moral blame is closely connected to our legal system,” says Willemsen.

That’s why we nowadays have a decent understanding of what people view as morally wrong and deserving of blame and when they wish to punish others. In contrast, little is understood about how these mechanisms work when it comes to praise. This asymmetry, says Willemsen, is not simply an academic curiosity, but rather a reflection of a deeper-seated attitude: “We’re good at recognizing moral failure but much worse at understanding moral excellence.”

This is despite the fact that praise plays a central role in our social lives. It motivates, builds trust and creates communities. Those who offer praise demonstrate what they find good and correct. Those who receive praise discover what actions are rewarded. “Praise lubricates our moral engines,” says Willemsen. “Without it, coexistence is more difficult.”

Philosophers long believed that praise and blame were two sides of the same coin, meaning that understanding blame would also give us insights into praise. “The assumption of symmetry is deeply rooted in philosophy as a discipline,” says Willemsen. However, this is refuted by empirical evidence. People react more strongly to bad things than to good ones, which is known as the negativity bias. They remember criticism longer, emphasize mistakes and react more sensitively to being blamed. This means that our moral theories have only told half the story thus far – a story of failure rather than success.

Praise is more fleeting; it’s often quiet and said in passing, making it more forgettable. “We take morally good behavior for granted,” says Willemsen. “It’s easier for us to condemn something rather than appreciate it.” For instance, no one would praise you for greeting your colleagues when you come to work, as this is generally expected behavior. It is only when exceeding expectations that we might receive praise from colleagues – for letting parents with kids in school take prime vacation slots, or for defending coworkers in front of management.

Willemsen’s research combines philosophy with psychology and linguistics. As an advocate of experimental philosophy, she investigates moral questions not only in theory, but also analyzes how people actually judge them. “In some sense, I’m bringing philosophy to the streets,” she says. Part of her research includes surveys, text analysis and online experiments. Traditionally, moral philosophy concerns itself with what we ought to do, not with what we actually do. Willemsen wants to blur this divide. “To develop an ethics that’s philosophically rigorous but not overly demanding, it’s important to understand how people actually tick,” she says.

For this reason, PRAISE combines traditional philosophical analysis with empirical methods – psychological experiments, statistical analyses and linguistic corpora, which are collections of spoken and written texts used for analyzing language usage. In collaboration with researchers from other fields, PRAISE aims at producing a comprehensive understanding of topics such as how we discuss morally good conduct, which cognitive processes and emotions are connected to praise and when acknowledgment crosses over into irony or displays of superiority.

In one pilot project, Willemsen analyzed the frequency and context of words such as “praise”, “admiration” and “gratitude” in English. The study showed that praise is rarely direct – it hides in specific expressions and exclamations like “wow” or “great”, in thank-you phrases and in words of recognition. We don’t say “I praise you”, but rather “that was really friendly of you.” This linguistic invisibility makes the phenomenon fascinating for Willemsen, but also hard to grasp. “We constantly give praise, but mostly indirectly. So we don’t realize all the diverse forms praise can take,” she explains.

One central aim of PRAISE is obtaining a better understanding of the social rules of praise. After all, not every type of praise is welcome. Praising someone who stands morally far above you can easily come across as patronizing. A millionaire who praises someone for donating 20 francs strikes the wrong tone. “Social status plays a large role in praise,” says Willemsen. On the other hand, it would also be odd if someone praised another person for their exemplary climate-neutral lifestyle while not caring about climate issues themselves. “It’s a moral act, but also a social dance,” says the philosopher. Too much praise can come off as manipulative, while too little can create an icy atmosphere.

Willemsen is interested in when praise is perceived as honest and appropriate and when it comes off as inappropriate. She is also investigating the role that emotions play in these interactions. When looking at gratitude, admiration, pride and shame, we can see how finely tuned our moral sensors are.

At first glance, praise might seem trivial, like a friendly gesture without any great philosophical significance. It is precisely this attitude that Willemsen seeks to address: “If we only understand good as the absence of bad, we miss out on what morality can do for us.” Praise shows that we are capable not only of condemning others but also of acknowledging their goodness. It reminds us that morality doesn’t only mean control, but also recognition, encouragement and community. And perhaps – this is Willemsen’s hope – a better understanding of praise can also help us interact more generously with one another – not with faux friendliness, but with real respect.

At first glance, praise might seem trivial, like a friendly gesture without any great philosophical significance. It is precisely this attitude that Willemsen seeks to address: “If we only understand good as the absence of bad, we miss out on what morality can do for us.”

Praise shows that we are capable not only of condemning others but also of acknowledging their goodness. It reminds us that morality doesn’t only mean control, but also recognition, encouragement and community. And perhaps – this is Willemsen’s hope – a better understanding of praise can also help us interact more generously with one another – not with faux friendliness, but with real respect.