Study Reveals Parents Do Have A Favorite Child. Here's Who It Is.
When snow began to fall the other day, my children made a beeline outside to scoop it up and stomp around. Within minutes, they were chucking snowballs at one another, most of which disintegrated mid-flight and landed in a flurry on their faces and necks. There was a lot of delighted shrieking, punctuated every few minutes by an aggrieved howl of 'No fair!' or 'He hit me!'
Both of my kids wanted to throw snow at their sibling. Neither wanted snow to land on their exposed skin. I stood there uselessly saying benign things like, 'Gentle!' and 'Not the face!'
Finally, my 11-year-old daughter ran up to me to deliver an accusation: 'Whenever I hit him, you say 'Stop,' but when he hits me, you say nothing!'
I looked over at my 15-year-old son and raised my eyebrows to ask, 'Does this sound familiar?'
'You know what he says?' I told my daughter. 'That when he hits you, I say 'Stop,' but when you hit him, I say nothing.'
'Oh,' my daughter said, quietly assessing this predicament.
Over the years, whether wielding snow or Nerf guns or water balloons, both of my children have regularly accused me of favoring their sibling over them.
The problem with identifying favoritism is these shifting perspectives: the parent's and each siblings'. None of us are unbiased, and we're all predisposed to see ourselves as the aggrieved ones whenever confronted with criticism.
With siblings, some degree of comparison is inevitable, and it's hard not to show your relief when one kid is behaving by piling on the praise for the sibling who is doing their homework or brushing their teeth. I don't feel like I'm showing favoritism to one kid, but that's mostly because I'm so overwhelmed by the unique ways they are both trying my patience.
While every family has their own particular dynamic, researchers have discovered that, in most families, favoritism actually follows a similar pattern.
Researchers from Brigham Young University and Western University pulled from 30 peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertation/theses, along with 14 databases, for their meta-analysis of 'parental differential treatment,' or the ways that parents treat siblings differently. They categorized parents' actions into categories of 'differential affection, differential conflict, differential resources — like how much time you spend with your kids or things that you give to them — as well as differential autonomy or freedom — like how much leeway you give kids,' Alex Jensen, one of the study's authors, told HuffPost.
A parent might show differential treatment by spending more time with one child, or spending more money on them, for example.
The researchers examined how this differential treatment varied by the children's birth order and gender, as well as their temperament and personality. While previous research has been mixed when it comes to favoritism and gender, this study found that 'daughters tend to be favored, and that was across the board,' Jensen said. Both mothers and fathers tended to show differential treatment for daughters.
Not surprisingly, 'agreeable or conscientious children tend to be favored. That's also across the board,' Jensen said.
When it came to birth order, it was also no surprise to see that parents tended to grant first-born children more freedom and autonomy — these children are, after all, older than their siblings by definition. But this favoritism persisted into adulthood, Jensen said, well past the point when a parent would worry about a child's ability to, say, go to the store on their own.
It's possible thatsome patterns, like relying on the competence of an eldest daughter, begin in childhood and continue throughout adulthood. Jensen thinks this could be one explanation for why parents tended to favor girls, noting that they have a reputation of being easier to manage, behavior-wise, than boys.
'Maybe daughters are just a little bit easier to parent,' Jensen said, noting that if girls have fewer behavior problems than boys at school, it makes sense that a similar pattern would emerge at home. This seems more likely to him than another theoretical explanation: that parents treat daughters differently because they presume they will one day become the caregivers of their elderly parents. 'From an evolutionary kind of standpoint, I guess that's possible,' Jensen said, albeit less so than the theory that girls are simply 'easier to parent.'
The big question, of course, is why favoritism matters. Of all the things parents are supposed to be tending to, what are the consequences of letting favoritism go unchecked? Does it really matter if, once in a while, I avert my gaze the moment my daughter lobs a snowball at my son's head?
But like many other relationship dynamics in childhood, favoritism in a family can cast a long shadow.
Children who are favored 'tend to have better mental health, do better in school, have better family relationships. They're less likely to engage in substance use than other teenagers. They get in less trouble at school and home,' Jensen said. Children who are not favored, on the other hand, are more likely to have negative outcomes.
It's possible, Jensen noted, that when favoritism goes to an extreme, even the favored child will suffer because of it — but it would be tricky to determine when that line is crossed in a particular family, let alone in the general population.
While a family might fall into a pattern of favoring daughters, older siblings or children who are more conscientious (who wouldn't want one of those?), there can also be a huge amount of variation over the years in the way that parents feel about their children.
Dr. Blaise Aguirre, a psychiatrist who is a professor at Harvard Medical School and author of the forthcoming 'I Hate Myself: Overcome Self-Hatred And Realize Why You're Wrong About You,' told HuffPost, 'people, just generally speaking, tend to feel closer to those who are temperamentally similar to who they are.'
For example, if an emotionally intense child has a parent who is less so, 'they just don't understand how a child could be so reactive, and so it can be confusing,' Aguirre said. He added that parents tend to prefer easygoing children, the kind who don't get calls home from the teacher.
Aguirre also noted that a person's parenting can change significantly between a first child and subsequent children.
'These relationships are in constant states of flux,' he said.
Infants, Aguirre noted, are sort of hard-wired to charm their parents in a way that protects their own survival. As children grow, however, some parent-pleasing behaviors can lead to comparisons among siblings and accusations of favoritism.
In addition, 'we tend to remember rejection far more than we remember praise,' Aguirre said. 'If you're getting equal amounts of praise and rejection, if you could actually measure 50% praise, 50% rejection, when your parents criticize you for your behavior, you're going to remember that more.'
Unless the praise is for a sibling. 'You'll remember your sibling's positive praise, much more than you remember their rejection,' Aguirre said.
As a parent, you can't always control how your child recalls and interprets the things that you say or do. You can, however, listen with an open mind to any concerns your child has, whether they have to do with favoritism or something else.
If a child says you're playing favorites, Aguirre suggested that a parent say something like, 'That's just not my experience, but clearly, it's yours. So, tell me: What is it that you see?'
'Getting them to kind of understand their own state of mind and understand the state of mind of the parent,' and having them 'name and label what their experience is,' Aguirre said, often has the effect of making a child feel less upset.
Aguirre said that he would advise parents to talk with their children without delay about any feelings that arise.
'Often the perception is in the mind of the child,' he said. 'I think that the best thing to do is to sort of deal with it right away, lest it become ingrained in the child who sees themselves as less favorable, as being defective in some way.'
A parent might ask a child to consider another's perspective, like I did with my daughter, or reassure their child that they love them for what makes them unique, not how their math grades or musical talent compares to a sibling's.
Aguirre recalled one way that his mother cleverly eliminated the chance that any of her eight children might accuse her of favoritism.
'When my mom was dying, we were all spending time with her. She said, could she have a chat with each of us individually? And so I went in there, and she says, 'I'm just going to tell you, you're my favorite.''
Later, after all the siblings had their one-on-ones, they spoke about it and discovered that she had told each one of them exactly the same thing.
There Might Actually Be Some Science Behind Eldest Daughter Syndrome
It's Time We Acknowledge That Older Sisters Are The Backbone Of Society
New Study Reveals A Downside To Being A Firstborn Or Only Child

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Data on Novo Nordisk experimental weight-loss drug show mostly mild side effects
By Deena Beasley (Reuters) -Novo Nordisk on Sunday said full results from two late-stage trials of its experimental weight-loss drug CagriSema show that side effects were mainly mild-to-moderate and other outcome results, including blood sugar levels, were positive. The company had previously announced top-line results for the 68-week studies, which found that CagriSema led to nearly 23% weight loss for overweight or obese adults, while overweight type 2 diabetics lost nearly 16% of their weight. Those results, however, disappointed investors, sending Novo's shares lower. The company last month ousted its CEO Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen. The full Phase 3 results were presented in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In the obesity trial, 79.6% of CagriSema patients had mainly transient, mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal effects such as nausea, vomiting and constipation, compared with 39.9% of placebo patients. Serious adverse events occurred in 9.8% of CagriSema patients and 6.1% of placebo patients. In the CagriSema group, 6% of patients dropped out of the trial due to adverse events, compared with 3.7% in the placebo group. "Everything was in line with what we expected," Dr. Melanie Davies, lead investigator of the CagriSema diabetes trial, and co-director of the Leicester Diabetes Centre, told Reuters. The percentage of patients who had a glycated hemoglobin, or blood sugar, level of 6.5% or less was 73.5% in the CagriSema group and 15.9% in the placebo group. Dr. Davies acknowledged questions about why many patients in the trials were not given the highest tested dose. "Those patients on lower doses actually had higher weight loss reduction," she said. "We've not really seen that before because we have not had powerful treatments that have got people close to target." CagriSema is a weekly injection that combines Novo's blockbuster GLP-1 drug Wegovy with another molecule, cagrilintide, that mimics a hunger-suppressing pancreatic hormone called amylin. The CagriSema Phase 3 trial results "compared very favorably also with what we've seen with tirzepatide, which was previously the best-in-class," Dr. Davies said. Eli Lilly's tirzepatide, sold under the brand name Zepbound for weight loss, works by stimulating GLP-1 along with a second gut hormone called GIP. It was shown to help obese and overweight adults lose 22% of their weight over 72 weeks. Dr. Davies said it makes sense to have more options for patients, including "theoretical benefits" with amylin, which has been shown in animal studies to boost energy expenditure. If that effect is seen in humans, it could help mitigate the body's metabolic adaptation to weight loss, she said. Novo Nordisk said it plans to file for regulatory approvals for CagriSema in the first quarter of 2026. "We expect to see approval maybe around the beginning of 2027," Martin Holst Lange, head of development at Novo Nordisk, told Reuters. The company is conducting several other trials of CagriSema, including measuring its impact on cardiovascular outcomes. Lange said trial patients given lower doses of the drug often lost as much weight as those given higher doses, suggesting the need for flexibility including longer time periods between dose escalation. "This also allows them to lose their body weight at a pace that isn't too steep. It also mitigates side effects," he said. (Reporting By Deena Beasley, Editing by Franklin Paul)
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This
Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Company makes game-changing breakthrough that could solve common issue with plant-based food — here's what you need to know
Let's be honest: Plant-based protein doesn't always taste great. Even if you love the idea of eating less meat for your health and the planet, the weird aftertaste of some plant-based meats can be hard to ignore. But that might be about to change. According to FoodNavigator USA, the flavor company T. Hasegawa USA has developed a high-tech, natural flavor that tackles the unpleasant "off" notes of plant proteins such as pea and soy. The whole technology (and science) behind it is pretty impressive. When meat sizzles in a pan or bread gets crispy in the toaster, the Maillard reaction creates craveable aromas and flavors. But plant proteins such as soy and pea don't react the same way during cooking, which can leave them tasting bland or, worse, beany and bitter. If companies want people to go for meat alternatives, there's a need to focus on options that taste good and have pleasant textures. As Mark Webster, vice president of sales and marketing at T. Hasegawa, said, "That is where the headwind is." The T. Hasegawa team tackled this problem by developing a natural flavor technology called Plantreact that increases Maillard reactions — the chemical processes that give so-called browned foods their flavors. This innovation doesn't stop with fake meats. The same flavor solution can also recreate creamy, dairy-like notes in alternative milks and other nondairy products. That's huge for people who love the idea of oat or almond milk but miss the full-bodied taste of cow's milk. Plantreact has been in the works for a while, but it's now ready to hit the market. T. Hasegawa is already working with food brands to roll it out in products. Better flavor means plant-based foods are more enjoyable, which makes it easier for more people to cut back on animal products and reduce pollution, conserve water, and shrink their carbon footprints. This tech is already being explored by plant-based brands looking to improve their products, and it may soon appear in alternative meat and dairy products at your local grocery store. Combined with the work of companies such as Meati and Perfect Day, this kind of innovation helps build a future in which eating more sustainably doesn't mean compromising on taste. Why do you eat plant-based foods? The health benefits It's cheaper It's good for the planet I prefer the taste Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.