This is a good breakdown, but to address sharemywin's question:
When you tell your child "don't be a cheater," the focus is on character. You don't want them to do things that a person with bad character does.
When your child cheats, on the other hand, you say, "I'm disappointed, because I know you have a good character, but your action didn't reflect that." So, the focus is on the bad action, rather than the character.
Is some of this mere semantics? Possibly. If a person who does bad things can be a person of good character, and a person who does bad things can be a person of bad character, then how do we tell the difference between a person of good character and a person of bad character except by their actions?
But, if we're merely talking about what strategy is effective, then we can indeed say to focus on character when praising and on the action when admonishing.
Yeah, it's a matter of past-vs-future. Identity is important, but when a child makes a mistake you don't want to "lock it in" by confirming it as an unalterable quality.
When you tell your child "don't be a cheater," the focus is on character. You don't want them to do things that a person with bad character does.
When your child cheats, on the other hand, you say, "I'm disappointed, because I know you have a good character, but your action didn't reflect that." So, the focus is on the bad action, rather than the character.
Is some of this mere semantics? Possibly. If a person who does bad things can be a person of good character, and a person who does bad things can be a person of bad character, then how do we tell the difference between a person of good character and a person of bad character except by their actions?
But, if we're merely talking about what strategy is effective, then we can indeed say to focus on character when praising and on the action when admonishing.