Calvinists are not proponents of this kind of thinking. The reasons are obvious. The Calvinists do not really believe man has any value; hence a positive self-image is not something to be sought after. And they oppose divorcing rewards from merit for probably the same ideological and/or practical reasons as any other religious conservative. I do not necessarily oppose their stance on either issue, although on the first--the value of man--I might disagree on some of the particulars.
At any rate, what I find fascinating is how completely they abandon the principle when applied to God. According to them God acts toward His own creatures in a way which no human father should act toward his children. And yet when God does it, it’s wonderful. Why? Because He’s God and everything He does is wonderful! We dare not lavish praise on an innocent toddler simply for being a precious, intrinsically wonderful creature of God whose existence constitutes a bright spot in God’s creation. That would be to praise without good reason. But should God elect to torture that child in hell forever we ought to shower Him with adulation for it. Why? Because He’s God and everything He does is wonderful. In other words, for man the title good ought to reflect something good he has actually done. For God it need not reflect anything other than the fact that God did it. That's what makes it good. Thomas Thayer put it this way:
It is idle to argue that God is infinitely good, and at the same time affirm that he would create an immortal being, knowing at the moment of doing it, that the existence he was forcing upon him, would prove an endless curse to him. To call him good, in such sense, is to use words without sense. Goodness is not a name, a mere title, but character, principle, conduct. (The Theology of Universalism, p 65)