Fostering Strengths or Correcting Weaknesses

26 October, 2026

Donate Subscribe

EduFamilia

Analysis

05 December, 2025

6 min

Fostering Strengths or Correcting Weaknesses

Fostering Strengths: A Sure Path to Success

We usually multiply
what we pay attention to,
even if it is with the purpose of correcting it.

Promoting qualities, a condition for effectiveness

Encourage qualities…

As I have already mentioned, and although when we reflect on it, it may often seem obvious, it is difficult to be convinced operationally, in the education of our children and in the treatment of our spouse, that fostering qualities is always much more profitable than correcting defects.

And even more so —I add now— that the best thing to do with flaws is to ignore them!

Ignore the flaws?

What does it mean to ignore the flaws of the people I love? How can I help them overcome them if I don’t bring them to light? Doesn’t that mean I’m neglecting them, not truly loving them?

No. It means committing to paying attention to the best in each person, to fostering qualities, which is what is truly effective.

The best thing to do with flaws is
to ignore them!
Don’t pay them any attention at all!

Experimental verification

Correcting defects or fostering qualities?: first experiment

For the most recalcitrant, I will simply transcribe, literally, the first part of the experiment collected by Elisabeth Lukas (in Equilibrium and Healing through Logotherapy . Barcelona: Paidós, 2004, pp. 55-57).

These are his words:

The choice of what we preferentially pay attention to is an act upon which many things depend, as demonstrated in the small experiment of behaviorist psychology that we present below:

The experiment begins

It was 9:20 in the morning in a primary school classroom; forty-eight students and two teachers. The classroom had two sections with a sliding wall in between. The desks were arranged in six groups of eight children each. The students had been given homework, which they had to do at their desks, while the two young and qualified teachers taught reading separately in small groups.

The observers entered the classroom, sat down, and, for the next twenty minutes, recorded at ten-second intervals the number of children who were not in their seats. The study lasted for six days. The observers also recorded how often the teachers asked the children to sit down or return to their seats.

During these first six days, three children were recorded moving away from their chairs every ten seconds, while the teachers said ‘sit down’ about seven times during the twenty minutes of observation.

Seven warnings,
three violations.

Change of course

Then something surprising happened.

Teachers were asked to tell children to ‘sit down’ more often.
During the next twelve days, the teachers said ‘sit down’ 27.5 times in each twenty-minute interval, and there were more children standing up (an average of 4.5 every ten seconds).

Twenty-seven “and a half” warnings,
four “and a half” infractions.

New change of direction

We did another test.

During the next eight days, the teachers again only said ‘sit down’ 7 times in the twenty minutes [encouraging qualities].
The number of students who left their seats returned to an average of three every ten seconds.

Seven warnings,
three violations.

A new route investment

Then we asked the teachers again to say ‘sit down’ more often (28 times in twenty minutes).
The children started getting up again more frequently, 4 times every ten seconds.

Twenty-eight warnings,
four violations.

Definitive proof: the effectiveness of fostering qualities

Finally, we asked teachers to completely refrain from saying ‘sit down’ [encourage qualities!]
and instead, they will praise the act of working and sitting still.
They did well, and fewer than two children stood up every ten seconds (the lowest figure of all the observations).

No warnings
(only praise),
only two violations
(the fewest ever).

More corrections and warnings, more violations.
Fewer corrections and warnings, fewer violations.
Justified praise, better behavior!

Correcting defects or fostering qualities?: second experiment

Not content with this initial experimental verification, the authors of the test wanted to reinforce it.

Lukas tells the story again, and I transcribe his words verbatim:

Development

The reinforcement of the negative

Let’s see how much the negative can be reinforced if we only focus on it:

“In one experiment, we transformed a ‘good’ class into a ‘bad’ class for a few weeks. We suggested to the teacher that he no longer praise his students [no encouraging positive qualities]. When he stopped praising them, the unwanted disruptive behavior increased from 8.7% to 25.5%. The teacher reprimanded the misbehavior and refrained from praising [encouraging positive qualities] in the behavior of the children who were doing their homework.”

When we asked the teacher to fail his students 16 times in 20 minutes instead of 5 times, the disruptive behavior increased even further. It rose to an average of 31.2% and remained above 50% for several days.

The misconduct was further accentuated by the attention it received.

The effectiveness of praise

When the children were praised again [and their qualities were encouraged], their willingness to work returned.”

Excessive warnings and corrections
transform positive behavior
into reprehensible behavior.

Moral

The experiment shows how unwanted disruptive behavior from a group of children can increase, in just a few weeks, from 8.7% to an alarming 50%.

And just from the attention paid to this behavior !

Disruptive behavior increases
simply by paying attention to it.

Lesson: The “trap” of criticism

Criticism feeds on itself, multiplying bad behavior

What was proven in these experiments was the so-called “criticism trap,” that is, that in most cases, what reinforced criticism does is actually provoke the behavior that is criticized.

And since the disruptive behavior being criticized is reinforced, then it is criticized even more, and this criticism reinforces the behavior again, unless the criticism is reduced despite the repeated disruptive behavior and attention is directed towards the positive [encouraging qualities], which, in real life, outside an experimental setting, is not easy.

Cultivating qualities… the ultimate triumph!

Added to this is the aggravating factor that criticism often achieves short-term success, which makes one forget the fundamental mechanism of the trap.

Thus, the ‘sit down’ commands of teachers in the aforementioned daily school routine cause children to sit down momentarily, although they then get up again with even greater frequency, and that momentary sitting down can create the illusion that the criticism was correct and timely.

However, its ultimate effect is the opposite, because it forces teachers to focus on the negative rather than the positive, and because what we mentally focus on always experiences reinforcement.

The “criticism trap”:
in most cases, repeated criticism
provokes more and more of the behavior being criticized.

Conclusion

Contrary to what is often believed,
it is absolutely proven
that fostering qualities is much more effective
than trying to eliminate defects.

Tomás Melendo,
President of Edufamilia
http://www.edufamilia.com
[email protected]

EduFamilia

Edufamilia es una asociación sin ánimo de lucro, nacida en el año 2005. Su fundador, Tomás Melendo, advirtió que una mejora en la calidad de las familias facilitaría la resolución de bastantes de los problemas que aquejan a la sociedad de hoy. Y, apoyado siempre por su mujer, decidió lanzarse a esta aventura que cuenta con casi veinte años de vida y con múltiples ediciones de los distintos cursos formativos: Másteres y Maestrías, Expertos, cursos más breves, conferencias, ciclos culturales, seminarios y otros programas educativos. Aunque las primeras ediciones tuvieron carácter presencial, actualmente se ha hecho un gran esfuerzo por promover la infraestructura virtual para adaptarse a los nuevos tiempos y que la formación en torno a la familia alcance al mundo entero.