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


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
It's Time To Change The Math Calculus: How The US Can Finally Get Math Education Right
Four schoolboys watch as their teacher points to a lesson on the blackboard. PISA scores reveal deep problems in how the United States teaches math. Here's what research—and top-performing countries—say needs to change Julie Fitz, Researcher at the Learning Policy Institute, contributed to this story In recent years, a much publicized 'reading crisis' has been a hot topic in the United States, but mathematics achievement tells a much more troubling story. In the 2022 Program in International Student Assessment (PISA), which tested students in 80 jurisdictions worldwide, U.S. 15-year-olds did comparatively well in both reading, ranking 7th among participating nations, and science, ranking 13th. However, U.S. students ranked lower than 30 other nations in math—well below the international average score. In contrast to the highest-achieving countries, U.S. performance is lower for both high and low achievers and shows wider achievement gaps associated with students' socioeconomic status—gaps that national data show have grown even wider since the pandemic. Beyond the scores, the United States has become a math-phobic nation, with many students coming to hate and fear mathematics and too few interested in continuing into mathematically rich fields of study. A recent RAND study found that only about 25% of middle and high school students found their math classes interesting most of the time, while half reported losing interest in math class half or more of the time and the remainder reporting they were rarely engaged by math. Many students had decided they were not a 'math person' before they even got to middle school. This problem has manifested as labor shortages for technical occupations in the United States, with many positions needing to be filled by individuals from other countries on H1B visas, which are increasingly in short supply. As a consequence, calls for reform in mathematics education have once again become widespread. However, efforts to rethink the U.S. math curriculum, instruction, and assessments have come and gone over many years, beginning with the post-Sputnik era in the 1950s, and recurring regularly since. Efforts to create a curriculum focused on deeper understanding of mathematical concepts (often called 'new math,' even though it's decades old) have warred with a status quo that favors rote memorization of basic math facts and the use of algorithms to solve problems that are not deeply understood. This status quo is reinforced by textbooks and tests wedded to a coverage curriculum that touches on many subjects in each grade level without delving deeply into any. At the high school level, the United States has clung to a math curriculum prescribed by a set of educators called the Committee of Ten, appointed by the National Education Association in 1892, the year Thomas Edison received a patent for the telegraph and long before computers, large-scale data, or new statistical methods were on the scene. These combined challenges have been partly responsible for generations of elementary teachers poorly prepared in math and often math-phobic themselves. Furthermore, decades of secondary math teacher shortages means that many positions have been filled by individuals teaching on substandard credentials who have inadequate preparation in math or pedagogy or both. In a high-demand field like mathematics, where college graduates can earn at least 50% more in industry than they can in education, the wage gap between teachers and other professions is particularly problematic, and it is difficult to fill positions with fully qualified teachers. All of this contributes to the widespread difficulties students experience in understanding math. Coupled with long-standing biases about who deserves access to math opportunities, the United States has a widely shared belief that only some people have the 'math gene' that allows them to succeed at math—and that most women and people of color do not have it. There is renewed urgency around math education—fueled by growing global economic competitiveness, equity concerns, and technological change. A number of states are seeking to update their math requirements, infusing more attention to computer science and data science. Councils of mathematicians and mathematics teachers have urged changes to modernize math, focus on big ideas, teach it in meaningful ways, and connect it to real-world problems. Some states, like California, have overhauled their entire math framework with these goals in mind. As this move requires changes in the textbooks and materials the state adopts, it may shift the broader curriculum market. The Gates Foundation is devoting a significant share of its massive giving to the improvement of math education across the country. As Bill Gates has noted, not many students share his love of math. The Gates Foundation's K–12 education strategy is focused on modernizing math education so that it connects to students' interests, abilities, needs, and goals; engages them in collaboration to find answers and communication about their problem-solving approaches; and applies to complex, real-world problems that students know exist outside the classroom, from designing a budget to estimating population growth. The goal is for every student to become a 'math person' and to be able to use the power of mathematics in every aspect of their lives. First, it might be useful to learn from the very different way in which math is taught in the highest-achieving countries, where outcomes are also much more equitable. In the four highest-achieving nations on PISA rankings—Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Estonia—mathematics is taught in heterogeneous classrooms, with no tracking prior to 10th grade. The curriculum tackles a small number of seminal topics in each school year—like ratio and proportion or the concept of integers—and teaches these deeply from multiple angles. These countries and many others present math in an integrated fashion with domains of mathematical study combined to allow for more robust conceptualization and problem-solving. For this reason, none of these countries teach the Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II/Trigonometry sequence common in U.S. high schools, as prescribed by the Committee of Ten in 1892. In Japan, for example, Mathematics I, II, and III each combine elements of algebra, geometry, measurement, statistics, and trigonometry. As is also true in Singapore, the focus is on taking time for students to intently discuss and collaboratively solve complex problems that integrate the content—often just one complex problem in a class period—rather than memorizing formulas and applying rote procedures to multiple problems that isolate the mathematical ideas and challenge students' deep understanding. In both countries, reforms over the last decade have focused more intently on experiential and project-based learning and applications to real-world problems, adding data use across the grades. In Japan, when differentiation occurs in 10th grade to add greater challenge to the courses of advanced students, the curriculum remains similar, and both lanes allow students to reach advanced courses like calculus. A similarly integrated curriculum is used in South Korea, where a 'learner-centered' approach advanced by the Ministry of Education has focused mathematics on active engagement in problem-solving. In Estonia, the most rapidly improving country, reforms over the last decade have followed a similar path while focusing intensely throughout the grades on the use of computers and statistics for data analysis, using real-world problems to organize mathematical inquiry (Hõim, Hommik, and Kikas 2016). In all cases, these highly successful countries develop a more integrated curriculum organized around major concepts that are taught deeply, infused with real-world data and problem-solving, and taught to all students. Second, in addition to modernizing the mathematics curriculum, we need to support the development and use of high-quality instructional materials that reflect the integration of mathematical ideas, the use of real-world data to pose and solve problems, open-ended approaches to exploring problems using multiple methods, and robust mathematical discourse in the classroom. High-quality instruction also requires well-prepared, supported teachers. The curriculum will not teach itself. Teachers need extended opportunities to learn how to teach this kind of curriculum, beginning in preservice education and continuing throughout their careers. They need opportunities to develop both content knowledge and pedagogical skill through preparation programs and professional development that emphasize deep understanding and help teachers learn to create supportive, inclusive learning environments. Unlike the traditional 'sit and get' or drive-by workshops teachers often experience, professional learning needs to be ongoing and job-embedded, with opportunities for teachers to collaborate and learn from each other with support from skilled math coaches—a strategy used by many countries in updating their curriculum and adopted by California as part of its new math reforms. We also need to address the long-standing math teacher shortage. In the high-achieving countries noted earlier, teachers typically earn as much as other college graduates (Singapore pegs salaries to those of engineers), and are treated with great respect, so teaching is a desirable career. U.S. teachers, by contrast, earn about 25% less, on average, than other college-educated workers and have much more grueling work schedules—with more hours teaching students and less time for planning and collaboration. Pay differentials are even larger for fields like math, so filling teaching vacancies with fully qualified teachers is difficult, especially in schools serving large concentrations of students from low-income families, which are often under-resourced. These schools, as a result, offer fewer advanced courses and rely more heavily on uncertified teachers or substitutes who come and go. As was true for a brief time in the post-Sputnik era, the recruitment, retention, and training of teachers need urgent policy and funding attention. Research has shown that math isn't just about what we teach—it's about how we teach it. Classroom environments should foster curiosity, persistence, and collaboration. Instruction must reflect both powerful mathematical concepts and supports informed by the science of learning and development, recognizing students' social, emotional, and cognitive needs. A recent report from the Learning Policy Institute synthesizes research findings from the fields of mathematics teaching and learning, educational psychology, and the learning sciences to identify key classroom conditions that support K–12 math major principles emerge as key: There are compelling reasons on many levels to ensure all students are prepared and supported to excel in mathematics: to support our country's ability to be competitive in a global market, to prepare students at every level for the ever-increasing complexity of modern times, and to develop critical cognitive functioning. But at the heart of it, children should learn math because, as Francis Su said, 'To miss out on mathematics is to live without experiencing some of humanity's most beautiful ideas.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say
Body mass index (BMI) may not be the most accurate predictor of death risk. A new study from the University of Florida found that BMI — a measurement that is commonly used to determine whether a person's weight is in a healthy range for their height — is "deeply flawed" in terms of predicting mortality. Instead, one's level of body fat is "far more accurate," concluded the study, which was published this week in the Annals of Family Medicine. Bmi Is Wrong Way To Measure Obesity, Researchers Say To measure participants' body fat, the researchers used a method called bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which uses a device to measure the resistance of body tissue to a small electrical current. Over a 15-year period, those who had high body fat were found to be 78% more likely to die than those who had healthy body fat levels, researchers found. Read On The Fox News App They were also more than three times as likely to die of heart disease, the study noted. BMI — which is calculated by dividing weight by height, squared — was described as "entirely unreliable" in predicting the risk of death over a 15-year period from any cause. The study included 4,252 people in the U.S. and pulled data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Men Face Higher Cancer Risk With This Specific Body Fat Measurement BMI should not be relied upon as a "vital sign" of health, according to senior author Frank Orlando, M.D., medical director of UF Health Family Medicine in Springhill. "I'm a family physician, and on a regular basis, we're faced with patients who have diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other conditions that are related to obesity," Orlando said in a press release for the study. "One of the routine measures we take alongside traditional vital signs is BMI. We use BMI to screen for a person having an issue with their body composition, but it's not as accurate for everyone as vital signs are," he added. BMI has been the international standard for measuring obesity since the 1980s, according to many sources, though some experts have questioned its validity. An individual is considered obese if their BMI is 30 or above, overweight if it is between 25 and 29.9, of "normal" weight in the range of 18.5 to 24.9, or underweight if lower than 18.5. While BMI is easy to calculate, one of its main limitations is that it cannot distinguish between muscle and fat mass, the researchers noted. "For example, people who are bodybuilders can really elevate their body mass index," Orlando said. "But they're healthy even with a BMI indicating that they're obese." "BMI is just so ingrained in how we think about body fat," Mainous added. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." Experimental Drug Helps Patients Lose Nearly A Quarter Of Body Weight In Early Trials Other methods, such as a DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scan, may be even more accurate than BIA, but are much more expensive and not as accessible, the researchers noted. "If you talk to obesity researchers, they're going to say you have to use the DEXA scan because it's the most accurate," Mainous said in the release. "And that's probably true. But it's never going to be viable in a doctor's office or family practice." Dr. Stephen Vogel — a family medicine physician with PlushCare, a virtual health platform with primary care, therapy and weight management options — echoed the limitations of BMI. "It has been an easy measurement tool that helps us understand at-risk groups across various populations and demographics, but it doesn't provide accurate data from patient to patient," the North Carolina-based doctor, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. "These findings don't challenge the assumptions about BMI — they strengthen the message that new standards, delivered in a consistent and low-cost way, would provide better nuance for the individual when it comes to their overall physical health." "The main strengths of this study are a better correlation to an individual's risk of morbidity and mortality — however, the limitations lie in the fact that we don't have enough data to determine the right cutoff for these numbers, or to identify the right tools that will be both accurate and precise across the population," Vogel said. The researchers also acknowledged that body fat percentage thresholds haven't yet been as standardized as BMI and waist circumference. Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter Also, the age range of the participants in the study was limited by the data source. "Future studies should extend this comparison of body fat to BMI in older adults," the researchers wrote. The study was also limited by focusing only on mortality as an outcome, they noted, without taking into account any developing diseases — such as heart failure or cancer — that could deepen the understanding of body fat as a risk factor. The goal, according to Vogel, is to have a cost-effective, consistent method that can be used across the population with reliable accuracy. "Benefits would come in the form of a more detailed list of information that helps providers and patients make informed decisions about the patient's health, which is ideal," Vogel noted. "I'm hopeful there's enough buzz around these measures that steps will continue to be taken toward regular implementation." For more Health articles, visit The researchers are hopeful that once standards are validated, measuring body fat percentage with bioelectrical impedance analysis could become standard of care. They added, "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all."Original article source: Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Time Is Three-Dimensional and Space Is Just a Side Effect, Scientist Says
A fringe new theory suggests that time is the fundamental structure of the physical universe, and space is merely a byproduct. According to Gunther Kletetschka, a geologist — not a physicist, you'll note, but more on that later — from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, time is three-dimensional and the dimensions of space are an emergent property of it, a press release from the university explains. "These three time dimensions are the primary fabric of everything, like the canvas of a painting," Kletetschka said in the blurb. "Space still exists with its three dimensions, but it's more like the paint on the canvas rather than the canvas itself." Three-dimensional time is a theory that has been proposed before, though generally in pretty inaccessible terms. Similarly to the explanation for three dimensions of space — length, width, and depth — 3D time theory claims that time can move forward in the linear progression we know, sideways between parallel possible timelines, and along each one of those as it unfolds. Yes, it's a pretty mind-blowing concept — but scientists have long theorized that time, as the fourth dimension in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, is less intuitive than it seems in everyday reality. While other 3D time theories rely on traditional physics, Kletetschka suggests that his may help explain the many outstanding questions accepted physics still harbors. In a somewhat grandiose manner, the geologist even claims that his 3D time proposal could operate as a grand unifying theory or "theory of everything," the Holy Grail of quantum mechanics that would explain how the universe works on a sweeping level. "The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself," the scientist said. "This theory demonstrates how viewing time as three-dimensional can naturally resolve multiple physics puzzles through a single coherent mathematical framework." Obviously, there are an astonishing number of caveats to consider here. For one, Kletetschka is not a theoretical physicist — he's a geologist, and according to his university bio he also has some experience in astronomy. Extraordinary claims all call for extraordinary evidence. And the claims here are already stirring controversy: as an editor's note added to the end of the press release cautions, the scientist's theory was published in the journal Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences, a "legitimate step," but one that isn't remotely sufficient to take it out of the realm of the fringe. That journal, the note adds, is "relatively low-impact and niche, and its peer review does not match the rigorous scrutiny applied by top-tier journals." "The theory is still in the early stages of scrutiny," the note concluded, "and has not been published in leading physics journals or independently verified through experiments or peer-reviewed replication." Still, it's a fascinating concept to consider — especially because we still don't know exactly how time works, anyway. More on fringe theories: Physicists Say We Were Completely Wrong About How Gravity Works