Why Do Mommy and Daddy Love You More

WHY DO MOMMY AND DADDY LOVE YOU MORE?
AN INVESTIGATION OF
PARENTAL FAVORITISM FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE
Anthony Michael Lauricella, Ph.D.
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green

State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
SELECT ONE:
December 2009
Committee:
Gordon, Anne K., Advisor
Jorge M. Chavez
Graduate Faculty Representative
Eric Dubow
Richard Anderson
ii
ABSTRACT
Anne K. Gordon, Advisor
The current study examined the roles of parental certainty and offspring’s ability to
convert parental investment into fitness benefits for the parent (via social competitiveness) in
predicting parental favoritism. Participants were college students who had at least one fully-
biological sibling. Participants completed a series of on-line questionnaires that assessed their
personal experiences regarding parental favoritism (or non-favoritism) with each biological
parent. Additionally, they completed questionnaires that assessed their levels of health,
intelligence, ambition, physical attractiveness, and parental resemblance relative to their sibling.
As expected, results indicated that paternal resemblance predicted paternal favoritism, whereas
maternal resemblance did not predict maternal favoritism. Additionally, in partial support of a
hypothesis, fathers were shown to demonstrate favoritism in more specific areas than were
mothers. Contrary to predictions, health, offspring intelligence, ambition, and physical
attractiveness did not consistently predict parental favoritism. Discussion centers on the
implications of the findings, offers possible explanations regarding why certain expected results
were not obtained, and makes recommendations for future research.

iii
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey.
-Beck
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor Anne K. Gordon, Ph.D. whose
patience, encouragement, and thoughtful comments provided me with the necessary support
throughout this arduous process. I would like to thank my committee members Jorge Chavez,
Ph.D., Eric Dubow, Ph.D., and Richard Anderson, Ph.D. whose challenging questions and
comments fostered a honing of my research skills. Additionally, I thank fellow graduate students
and other faculty members who helped shape my graduate experience. Lastly, I would like to
thank my supportive friends and family. Yes, mom and dad, I am all done now.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE OF PARENTAL CARE....................................... 4
Genetic Relatedness to Offspring .............................................................................. 6
Paternal certainty ........................................................................................... 7
OFFSPRING ABILITY TO CONVERT PARENTAL CARE INTO FITNESS.................. 13
Health ............................................................................................................ 13
Social competitiveness............................................................................................... 17
Characteristics associated with male reproductive success ....................................... 18
Characteristics associated with female reproductive success .................................... 22
THE PRESENT STUDY ....................................................................................................... 25
HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................ 27
METHOD ............................................................................................................ 31
Participants ............................................................................................................ 31
Materials and Measures ............................................................................................. 32
Online questionnaires..................................................................................... 32
Informed consent ........................................................................................... 32
Instructions..................................................................................................... 32
Differential parental treatment sub-scale of the Sibling Inventory of Differential
Experience (SIDE) ......................................................................................... 33
Forced-choice and obviousness parental favoritism items ............................ 34
Relative physical resemblance to parents ...................................................... 35

vi
Relative health ............................................................................................... 36
Relative social competitiveness ..................................................................... 37
Relative intelligence....................................................................................... 38
Relative ambition and industriousness........................................................... 38
Relative physical attractiveness ..................................................................... 39
Demographics ................................................................................................ 40
Post-study questionnaire ................................................................................ 40
Debriefing ...................................................................................................... 40
Questionnaire order........................................................................................ 40
Procedure ............................................................................................................ 41
Debriefing ...................................................................................................... 42
RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 43
Overview ............................................................................................................ 43
Counterbalancing ........................................................................................... 43
Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................. 43
Parental favoritism ......................................................................................... 43
Possible Correlates of Parental Favoritism ................................................................ 45
Sex differences and dyad composition effects............................................... 45
Number of fully biological siblings ............................................................... 47
Sibling hierarchy............................................................................................ 47
Age gap between siblings .............................................................................. 48
Summary ........................................................................................................ 48
Primary Analyses ....................................................................................................... 49

vii
Maternal versus paternal favoritism............................................................... 49
Physical resemblance and favoritism............................................................. 52
Health ............................................................................................................ 53
Social competitiveness................................................................................... 54
Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 59
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 61
Support for hypotheses .............................................................................................. 61
Hypotheses that were not supported .......................................................................... 63
Concluding remarks ................................................................................................... 70
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX A. CONSENT FORM ....................................................................................... 88
APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTIONS ......................................................................................... 90
APPENDIX C. SIBLING INVENTORY OF DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCE (SIDE)..... 91
APPENDIX D. FORCED-CHOICE AND OBVIOUSNESS ITEM..................................... 94
APPENDIX E. RESEMBLANCE SCALE ........................................................................... 95
APPENDIX F. GENERAL HEALTH................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX G. INTELLIGENCE MEASURE .................................................................... 98
APPENDIX H. AMBITION/INDUSTRIOUSNESS MEASURE ........................................ 100
APPENDIX I. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS MEASURE............................................ 102
APPENDIX J. DEMOGRAPHICS FORM ........................................................................... 103
APPENDIX K. POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE........................................... 104
APPENDIX L. DEBRIEFING FORM .................................................................................. 105
APPENDIX M. EXPERIMETRIX ANNOUNCEMENT ..................................................... 107

viii
APPENDIX N. EXPLORATORY ANALYSES................................................................... 108

ix
LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES
Figure/Table Page
1 Means and Standard Deviations on Outcome Measures as a Function of Participant Sex
.............................................................................................................................. 111
2 Means and Standard Deviations of Physical Health Composite Index as a Function of
Participant Sex and Sibling Sex................................................................................. 112
3 Means and Standard Deviations of Intelligence Composite Index as a Function of
Participant Sex and Sibling Sex................................................................................. 113
4 Means and Standard Deviations on Dependent Measures as a Function of Sibling
Hierarchy ............................................................................................................ 114
5 Means and Standard Deviations of Re-coded SIDEs as a Function of Parental Sex. 115
6 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Physical Resemblance and Original SIDE Items
............................................................................................................ 116
7 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Physical Health and Original Maternal and
Paternal SIDE Items................................................................................................... 117
8 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Male Participants’ Intelligence and Original
Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items ............................................................................ 118
9 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Female Participants’ Intelligence and Original
Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items ............................................................................ 119
10 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Male Participants’ Ambition/Industriousness
and Original Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items ....................................................... 120
11 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Female Participants’ Ambition/Industriousness
and Original Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items ....................................................... 121

x
12 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Female Participants’ Physical Attractiveness and
Original Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items .............................................................. 122
13 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Male Participants’ Physical Attractiveness and
Original Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items .............................................................. 123
14 Bivariate Correlations Between Outcome and Predictor Variables across all Participants
............................................................................................................ 124
15 Means and Standard Deviations of Original SIDE Items as a Function of Parental Sex
............................................................................................................ 125
Parental Favoritism 1
INTRODUCTION
Parental favoritism, defined as the preference of a parent for one child over another
(Harris & Howard, 2001), has been a source of vexation for children throughout history. Famous
cases of parental favoritism have been noted throughout literature (e.g., the Biblical story of Cain
and Abel) as well as film (e.g., Cinderella). However, parental favoritism is not a phenomenon
limited to the past. Perceptions of parental favoritism, whether accurate or illusory, continue to
be reported by both parents and children (e.g., Suitor & Pillemer, 2007). For example, 36% 1
(Harris & Howard, 1985) to 92% (Suitor, Sechrist, Steinhour, & Pillemer, 2006) of adolescent
and adult children report perceiving parental favoritism. Furthermore, many parents report
differentially displaying affection, pride, and disappointment towards their children (Brackbill,
Kitch, & Noffsinger, 1988; Brody & Stoneman, 1994). For example, Suitor et al. (2006) found
that in a sample of over 700 mother-child dyads, 68% of mothers reported that they were
emotionally closer to one of their children, and 84% identified a child they would first approach
when confronted with a personal problem. Thus, parental favoritism is a prevalent phenomenon
that is reported by both parents and children.
Despite the prevalence of parental favoritism, few theories have been offered to explain
it. Alfred Adler (1932) has proposed the most prominent theory of parental favoritism. He
theorized that an individual’s psychological position 2 into which they are born and during which
they experienced their formative years of childhood influenced their psychological make-up. He
1
Harris and Howard’s lower prevalence rate (36%) was found only for one particular subgroup (two-child families).
When examining larger families, their prevalence rates are in accordance with other estimates.
2
Adler believed that one’s psychological position into which they were born was more important than their ordinal
position. He believed five psychological positions existed: only child, first child, second child, middle child, and
youngest child (For Review, See Kiracofe and Kiracofe, 1990).
believed that oldest children were most likely to develop neuroticism due to feeling responsible
for younger siblings, as well as feeling “dethroned” by the birth of a sibling. Adler also believed
that youngest children were most likely to develop grandiose feelings about themselves due to
never being “dethroned” by the birth of a sibling, and that parents were most likely to
overindulge the youngest child. Finally, Adler believed that middle children were most likely to
develop even-tempered personalities and become successful individuals because they would
neither feel “dethroned” nor overindulged.
Adler’s theorizing on this topic has prompted a number of researchers to examine the role
of birth order regarding parental favoritism. Yet, findings from more than 50 years of birth order
research demonstrate few meaningful results beyond some indication that last-born children are
most likely to be favored by parents (Brody, Stoneman, & Burke, 1987; Bryant & Crockenberg,
1980; Dunn & Plomin, 1991; Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2003). Despite the dearth of findings
from this line of research, researchers continue to explore the relationship between birth order
and parental favoritism. This state of affairs is problematic because birth order is thought to
account for only 1-2% of the variance regarding parental favoritism (Daniels, Dunn,
Fursternberg, and Plomin, 1985).
In the current research, I investigated parental favoritism from an evolutionary
perspective. In doing so, I hoped to provide a more modern and useful framework for examining
parental favoritism. For the purposes of this study, I defined parental favoritism as a child’s
perception of systematic bias by a parent in the direction of one child in the areas of financial
(e.g., father buys me gifts) and psychological (e.g., mother supports me) assistance.
In my review of the literature, I focus on two factors identified by evolutionary
psychologists that might influence the activation and expression of psychological mechanisms
associated with parenting behaviors. First, I review the role of genetic relatedness (i.e., degree to
which parent and offspring are genetically related), focusing specifically on the relationship
between paternal certainty and genetic relatedness. Based upon this review, I hypothesized that
mothers and fathers possess different psychological mechanisms associated with assessing the
genetic relatedness (i.e., paternal certainty) of offspring. In particular, I focus on psychological
mechanisms distinct to males that appear to be activated by cues associated with genetic
relatedness (e.g., resemblance of child to father) that influence parenting-related judgments and
decisions. I examine how these relatedness-assessment mechanisms might result in more
favoritism being displayed by fathers than mothers.
Second, I discuss the notion that an offspring’s ability to convert parental care into fitness
benefits for the parent (via later reproductive success) might predict various forms of parenting
behavior. Along these lines, I will review the literature on characteristics (e.g., physical health)
known to be associated with fitness. I will also discuss a previously un-researched child
characteristic, social competitiveness, which might indicate a greater likelihood of a child
converting parental care into fitness benefits for the parent. I end the section by proposing
several hypotheses regarding how characteristics of children that indicate (a) parental certainty or
(b) their ability to convert parental care into fitness, might be associated with parental favoritism.
AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE OF PARENTAL CARE
Richard Dawkins (1972) coined the phrase selfish 3 gene to highlight the point that natural
selection occurs at the level of the gene, rather than at the level of the organism. Genes that
account for traits that tend to benefit the organism’s survival or reproductive success will be
passed on to future generations. Organism’s are the cumulative products of their genes in
interaction with the environment and, metaphorically speaking, serve as vehicles for their genes.
Because offspring share 50% of a parent’s genes (r = genetic relatedness; in this case r = .50) a
child, too, might be thought of as a parent’s “gene vehicle.” In fact, offspring represent optimal
“genetic vehicles” for parents because offspring share the largest percentage of a parent’s genes
compared with other kin. For example, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews share 25% of one's
genes; first cousins share 12.5% of genes, etc. 4 . Therefore, offspring survival and reproductive
success is paramount to a parent's continued fitness. Thus, natural selection typically favors
mechanisms associated with the desire for children and for mechanisms associated with
thoughts, feelings, and, ultimately, behaviors that increase the likelihood of offspring survival
and later reproductive success.
Parents contribute to the fitness of their offspring in a variety of ways. Parents provide
material resources (e.g., food, shelter), as well as psychological resources (e.g., attention,
protection). Any contribution made by parents to their children that increases the fitness of
offspring can be categorized under the term “parental care” (Clutton-Brock, 1991). Because they
are born in an altricial state and have an extended childhood and adolescence, human offspring
3
Dawkins did not choose the word “selfish” in order to imply that genes have motivations. Metaphorically, he is
stating that genes are designed, by natural selection, to do what is in their best interest in terms of being replicated.
4
See William Hamilton’s (1964) inclusive fitness theory for further understanding of this matter.
require significant parental care over a rather extended time period. As a result, parents allocate a
substantial amount of tangible (e.g., food) and intangible (e.g., attention) resources towards
offspring. In terms of time, energy, and resource allocation, caring for offspring can be a very
costly endeavor for parents. In fact, few species invest in the growth and development of
offspring beyond the production of ova and sperm due to the costs associated with parental care
(Clutton-Brock, 1991). Humans, though, represent one of the few species that heavily invest in
the development of offspring.
Robert Trivers (1972) coined the term parental investment to highlight the costs
experienced by parents due to parental care. Trivers originally defined parental investment as any
cost associated with offspring that reduces a parent’s ability to produce or invest in other
offspring. The definition was subsequently broadened to include costs invested in a child that
reduce a parent's ability to invest in any additional fitness-related pursuits (Clutton-Brock, 1991).
For example, time spent towards childcare is time that cannot be spent on acquiring additional
resources, or attracting and securing additional mates. Due to costs associated with parental
investment, as well as limited investment quantities (e.g., time, food), parents necessarily and
regularly make decisions about how to distribute resources amongst themselves, their offspring,
and other kin.
Because each child shares 50% of a parent’s genes; offspring appear to possess equal
fitness opportunities for the parent. Therefore, parents might be expected to invest equally in all
offspring. However, this is not the case. Reproductive value refers to the expected probability of
reproduction of an individual from their current age onward, given the fact that they have
survived to their current age (Fisher, 1930). If offspring were of identical reproductive value
natural selection would favor an equitable distribution of parental care (Daly & Wilson, 1990). In
other words, if all offspring were equally likely to bear the same number of equally fit children
(equal reproductive success), then parents would tend to invest equally amongst all offspring.
However, based upon a number of factors (e.g., physical health), offspring within a family often
vary in their reproductive values. For example, a child with a congenital abnormality who is
unlikely to reach sexual maturity possesses a much lower reproductive value than a child who is
born healthy. Greater investment by the parent in the healthier children is beneficial to the parent
because the healthier child is more likely to capitalize on the parents' investment via later
reproductive success.
Because reproductive success of offspring increases the fitness of parents, parents might
invest more in offspring who are more likely to be reproductively successful. Were parents to
indiscriminately invest in all offspring equally, they would experience significant cost and less-
than-optimal fitness benefits. Thus, through the process of natural selection, psychological
mechanisms are thought to have evolved in parents that favor offspring who are likely to provide
a higher reproductive return on the investment (Daly & Wilson, 1995). These mechanisms result
in the condition known as parental favoritism. These ideas served as the theoretical basis for the
current research.
Genetic Relatedness to Offspring
Genetically-related offspring represent maximally efficient “vehicles” of genetic
transmission for parents because they share 50% of a parent’s genes. Because of the importance
(from an evolutionary perspective) of passing one’s genes on to future generations, evolutionary
psychologists have hypothesized that parents will invest more, on average, in genetically-related
than genetically-unrelated children.

In support of this hypothesis, research has repeatedly demonstrated a relationship
between the r between parents and offspring and the amount of parental care delivered by
parents to offspring (See Buss, 2008). For example, in one study, fathers reported providing
more than five times the amount of financial assistance to genetically-related offspring than to
step-children (Anderson, Kaplan, & Lancaster, 1999). Differences regarding resource allocation
are found amongst emotional resources as well. In another study, 53% of stepfathers and only
25% of stepmothers reported having “parental feelings” towards their stepchildren (Duberman,
1975) 5 . Thus, research has repeatedly supported the evolutionary psychology prediction that
parents invest more in children with whom they share a genetic relatedness. Therefore, it appears
that genetic relatedness influences parental investment with individuals of higher genetic
relatedness being more likely to receive parental investment.
Paternal certainty. Among humans, ovulation is concealed (relative to many other
primate species), and the fertilization process occurs internally within women. Thus, human
males cannot fully ascertain if and when females are fertile or if and when fertilization has
occurred. Further complicating this matter for males is that a male’s romantic partner may
become pregnant by another male through acts of infidelity (cuckoldry). Due to concealed
ovulation, internal fertilization, and female infidelity, males, unlike females, can never be 100%
certain regarding paternity (i.e., the genetic relatedness of the child). For example, in a random
sample of 35 to 45-year-old American women, 20% reported engaging in at least one extra
5
One may be surprised to see that females reported fewer parental feelings than males, as females, on average,
provide more care to children than males. However, this study only examined “parental feelings.” Therefore, one
should not conclude that stepmothers are more likely to treat children more harshly than stepfathers. To highlight
this point, research has repeatedly demonstrated that stepfathers are, on average, more likely than stepmothers to
commit more severe forms of parental neglect, such as physical abuse of stepchildren (Adler-Baeder, 2006).
martial affair (Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1988). Furthermore, current estimates of paternity by
someone other than the putative and domestic father are between 1 and 30% (Baker & Bellis,
1995). According to an analysis of 280,000 paternity tests conducted in 1999 by the American
Association of Blood Banks, approximately 30% of children were fathered by extra-pair
copulations (Platek & Shackelford, 2006).
Thus, cuckoldry and paternal uncertainty represent significant adaptive problems for
males. Failing to detect cuckoldry might result in the male investing substantial resources in a
child with whom he shares no genetic relatedness. A male’s reproductive success and fitness
level would decrease were he to invest limited, valuable resources in another man’s child (Buss,
2008). For example, resources invested in another man’s child can no longer be invested in one’s
own offspring. Furthermore, a cuckolded male who invests in a child with whom he shares no
genetic relatedness increases the fitness of rival males.
Because cuckoldry and paternal uncertainty represent adaptive problems that males have
always faced, natural selection has favored psychological and physiological mechanisms in
males that have helped solve these problems. Psychological mechanisms that might have evolved
in males to help combat the adaptive problem of cuckoldry include sexual jealousy, mate
guarding, and a preference for chaste women (Buss, 2007). For example, a male who regularly
guards his mate, especially when rival males are nearby, is less likely to fall victim to cuckoldry
than a male who is unaware of his mate’s general whereabouts. Physiological mechanisms, such
as those that increase sperm volume and, thus, aid in sperm competitions, have also evolved to
help solve the problem of cuckoldry (see Shackelford & Goetz, 2006).
Kin-discrimination mechanisms are mechanisms that help individuals distinguish
between offspring that are more or less likely to be theirs. These mechanisms are also thought to
have evolved in males to combat the adaptive problem of paternal uncertainty. A male who is
successful in inferring the relatedness of putative offspring is more likely to invest valuable
resources in those children with whom he shares a genetic relatedness and less likely to invest
resources in those children with whom he is not genetically related. Men who were able to make
such distinctions were likely to have greater reproductive fitness than men who were unable to
do so. Over many generations, these beneficial kin-discrimination mechanisms would spread
throughout the male population.
Along these lines, Platek, Burch, Panyavin, Wasserman, and Gallup (2002) provide
evidence that males possess kin-discrimination mechanisms that might influence their investment
in children. These authors investigated the relationship of facial resemblance between adults and
children and judgments regarding parental investment. Platek et al. (2002) noted that one method
used by males to assess the probability that children they are caring for are, in fact, their
genetically-related children is to infer relatedness via degree of facial resemblance between
themselves and the children. With parental uncertainty not representing an adaptive problem for
females, they were not expected to have evolved mechanisms associated with inferring
relatedness of offspring.
Based on this logic, Platek et al. (2002) hypothesized that perceived paternal resemblance
with a child would influence parental investment more strongly than would perceived maternal
resemblance with a child. In their study, 20 male and 20 female participants were exposed to
photo arrays of children’s faces. Unbeknownst to participants, one photo in the array was a
morphed image of the participant’s face and a child’s face (self-child morph). The remaining
photos were of other participants’ faces that had been morphed with a photo of a child’s face
(other-child morphs). During exposure to a group of these photos, participants were asked a
series of questions. They were asked to indicate which of the children (a) would you be most
willing to adopt?; (b) do you find to be most attractive?; (c) would you be comfortable spending
the most time with?; (d) would you spend the least time with?; (e) would you spend fifty dollars
on if you could only spend on one child?; (f) would you spend fifty dollars on last?; (g) would
you punish most if they damaged something valuable of yours?; (h) would you punish least?; (i)
would you most resent having to pay child support for?; and (j) would you least resent having to
pay child support for?
Consistent with predictions, results indicated that males were significantly more likely
than females to select their self-child morphed image on the following questions: (a) which child
would you most likely adopt (males = 90%, females = 35%; p < .001), (b) find most attractive
(males = 85%, females = 35%; p < .001), (c) be most comfortable spending time with (males =
70%, females = 35%; p < .01), and (d) spend fifty dollars on if you could only spend it on one
child (males = 80%, females = 40%; p < .01). Furthermore, on each of the remaining items males
were more likely than females to choose their own self-child morph, though these results did not
achieve statistical significance. Thus, men, compared to women, appeared to be more sensitive to
cues related to genetic relatedness, communicated in the form of facial resemblance, when
making judgments pertaining to parental investment. Interestingly, no participant when queried
following the experiment, cited child resemblance as a factor in their judgments. This suggests
that whereas physical resemblance appears to influence males’ investment decisions, they are not
necessarily aware of this influence.
In a second study, Platek, Keenan, and Mohammed (2005) demonstrated a neural basis
for the proposed sex differences regarding kin discrimination via facial resemblance. Using
fMRI, they showed that males display greater cortical activity than females in response to
children’s faces that resembled them. In particular, males displayed greater brain activation in
areas associated with attentional and decision-making processes (e.g., the anterior cingulate).
Together, these findings suggest that males might possess unique psychological mechanisms
regarding the ability to detect physical resemblance of self to a child, and that these mechanisms
appear to influence judgments related to paternal investment.
This laboratory research by Platek and his colleagues is complemented by other more
ecologically-valid research that also suggests that the degree to which a putative father believes a
child looks like him influences paternal investment (Burch & Gallup, 2000). For example, 53
men who were currently participating in a domestic violence treatment program completed
questionnaires wherein they rated the degree of physical similarity between themselves and their
child. Results indicated a significant positive correlation (r = .60) between the degree to which a
male believed the child looked like him and the self-reported quality of the relationship between
father and child. In other words, fathers reported having more positive relationships with
children with whom they perceived a greater self-resemblance. Additionally, fathers who
reported having heard more often that the child looked like him reported more positive
relationships with the child (r = .54). Furthermore, when these same participants were asked
about their own relationship with their father, participants who reported looking more like their
father reported closer relationships with their father (r = .40). Thus, it appears that a man’s
perception of the physical similarity between himself and a child is associated with his
investment in the child, and that this investment translates into the quality of the relationship
between the parties.
In sum, genetically-related offspring represent optimal “vehicles” for transmission of
one's genes. Consequently, parents are expected to and have been shown to invest greater
resources in children with whom they share a greater genetic relatedness. For females, genetic
relatedness of offspring is a certainty. For males, genetic relatedness is not certain. Instead males
must infer relatedness. Therefore, women know that any parental investment they provide is
given to genetically-related offspring, whereas males are uncertain of this. For these reasons, I
expected participants to report that mothers are, on average, more equitable regarding parental
investment than fathers. In other words, I expected participants to report that fathers show more
parental favoritism than mothers.
Males have always faced the adaptive problems of cuckoldry and paternal certainty. If
males were to indiscriminately invest equally amongst all putative offspring they could
experience significant costs because some offspring might be the product of cuckoldry. It has
been argued that males have evolved psychological and physiological mechanisms that assist
them in solving these problems. In particular, males appear to possess unique kin-discrimination
mechanisms, assisting them in inferring the relatedness of a child. Findings from Platek et al’s.
(2002) "hypothetical investment" study and Burch and Gallup’s (2000) examination of fathers
indicate that facial resemblance serves as a valuable indicator of relatedness for males. Males
who perceive facial resemblance in a child appear to invest more in the child than males who
perceive little facial resemblance with the child. In the current research, I extended this line of
reasoning by examining favoritism from the perspective of the child. Specifically, I expected
participants' perceptions regarding degree of physical resemblance between themselves and
parent (father and mother, respectively) to be more strongly associated with paternal than
maternal favoritism. Furthermore, I expected those who reported a greater degree of paternal
physical resemblance to more often report receiving paternal favoritism. I did not expect a
significant correlation between degree of maternal physical resemblance and maternal
favoritism.
Offspring Ability to Convert Parental Care into Fitness
One’s reproductive success is arguably the most critical measure of one’s fitness.
Survival, for example, contributes to fitness only as a necessary precondition for mating and
child rearing. Parental investment is associated with an offspring’s later reproductive success,
because offspring are unlikely to survive and less likely to thrive and be reproductively
successful without receiving many forms of investment from parents. However, children within
the same family are not equally likely to convert a parent’s investment into fitness benefits for
the parent via their later reproductive success. In other words, children, based on their unique
personal characteristics, vary regarding their potential reproductive success.
Certain aspects of children, such as their health, personality, and intelligence might
influence their ability to convert parental investment into fitness gains for the parent. Stated
differently, certain children are more likely to survive and be reproductively successful based on
the characteristics (e.g., health, physical attractiveness) they possess. Investment of limited,
valuable resources in children who are unlikely to survive or be reproductively successful comes
at a substantial cost to the parent. However, investment in children who are most likely to
capitalize on the investment (i.e., translate investment into fitness benefits for the parents) often
represents an optimal investment strategy for parents. Therefore, selection would have favored
adaptations in parents that result in greater parental investment (favoritism) in children who are
more likely to convert investment into fitness benefits for the parent(s) (Buss, 2008).
Health. Health of the child appears to be a primary factor associated with a child’s ability
to convert investment into fitness benefits for the parent (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Children with
congenital abnormalities are severely compromised regarding reproductive success, because they
are less likely to survive childhood and reach sexual maturity. Compared to children with
congenital abnormalities, “healthy” children are more likely to survive beyond childhood and
early adolescence, reach sexual maturity, find suitable mating opportunities, and be
reproductively successful. Consequently, compared to children with congenital abnormalities,
healthy children are more likely to benefit from parental investment and translate the investment
into fitness benefits for the parent.
Along similar lines, the literature on mate preferences suggests that healthy individuals,
compared to less healthy individuals, are more likely to be more desired as a mate and ultimately
be more reproductively successful. Cross culturally, both men and women consider health to be
an important and highly desired trait in a mate. In an international sample, both men and women
ranked health fourth most important among a list of 13 traits that may characterize a long-term
mate (Buss, 1989). Individuals might desire healthy mates because healthy mates are less likely
to transfer communicable diseases or genes associated with poor health to offspring (Buss,
Abbott, Angleitner, Asherian, Biaggio, & 45 other co-authors, 1990). Healthy mates are also
desirable because, compared to unhealthy individuals, they are more likely to be able to provide
adaptive benefits such as food and protection over an extended time period. Healthy mates are
also less likely to impose costs in the form of being a drain of resources (e.g., time, care,
attention). Because being in good health is highly desired by both sexes regarding mates, healthy
individuals can afford to be more selective in their mate choices and, through the process of
assortative mating (see Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005), might therefore attract highly
desirable mates. Thus, health status serves as an important indicator of potential reproductive
success. Therefore, from a fitness perspective, it is typically more beneficial for parents to
allocate resources to healthier children, as these children are more likely to capitalize on the
resource investment via survival and reproductive success 6 .
Studies examining the relationship between a child’s health and parental care indicate
that healthier children are, indeed, more likely to receive parental investment than less healthy
children (Daly & Wilson, 1988; Mann, 1992). Several researchers have demonstrated that
premature infants and children with health problems receive less attention and affection from
parents (Baratt, Roach, & Leavitt, 1996; Hagen, 1999; Mann, 1992). Mann (1992) examined
maternal responses to twins who were born prematurely. Her results indicated that mothers
kissed, held, soothed, talked to, and played with the “healthier” twin significantly more so than
with the other child. Furthermore, Mann found that the different maternal responses received by
the twins increased over time and that when the infants were eight months old, all mothers in the
study directed more positive maternal behaviors towards the healthier twin.
In a study examining hypothetical willingness to adopt, Volk, Lukjanczuk, and Quinsey
(2005) found that participants reported a significantly lower likelihood of "adopting" children
whose faces were digitally altered to simulate cues of low body weight (an indicator of poor
health), than children whose faces were not digitally altered. Research also demonstrates that
children with congenital abnormalities are often institutionalized, wherein they are never or
rarely visited 7 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1978), and that children with congenital
6
Parents might not be fully aware of the reasons behind their resource allocation decisions. Many parents would
deny intentionally allocating fewer resources to a child just because the child is sick. Evolved psychological
mechanisms that become activated by the context of an unhealthy child occur rapidly, outside of one’s awareness
and are most likely mediated by affect (e.g., feeling more frustrated by an unhealthy child).
7
The 1976 United States Census found that roughly 12% (16,000) of institutionalized children were never visited by
parents and, an additional 22% (30,000) were visited by parents only once a year or less.
abnormalities are more likely to be abused than are children without any abnormalities (Daly &
Wilson, 1988).
This body of research on children’s health and its relationship with parenting behaviors is
important and compelling. However, this research (e.g., Mann, 1992) has typically treated health
status of a child in a dichotomous manner, in which people are categorized as being either
healthy or unhealthy. Moreover, this research has focused on the tail ends of the health-status
distribution, as it has compared the treatment of healthy children with noticeably and often
severely unhealthy children. In the current research, I measured participant's health on a
continuous rather than a dichotomous scale. Doing so allowed health status to be measured in a
manner that more accurately reflects the manner in which health status is distributed among the
general population. Furthermore, treating health status on a continuum allowed me to examine
the potentially more subtle role of a child's health status as a predictor of how that child is treated
by his/her parents. Additionally, because I examined the full range of health outcomes
(unhealthy to healthy) my study demonstrated a good degree of ecological and external validity.
Moreover, the current research differed from previous research on this topic because I examined
the relationship between a child's health and his/her self-reports regarding parental favoritism,
which, to date, had not been done.
In sum, it is typically more beneficial for parents to invest in children who are likely to
translate the investment into fitness benefits for the parent (via later reproductive success).
Research suggests that health is a primary factor associated with a child’s ability to convert
investment into fitness benefits for the parent (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Children without health
problems are more likely to survive childhood and adolescence, thus reaching their sexual
maturity, than are children with health concerns. Additionally, health is a desirable trait in a
mate. Consequently, healthy individuals are, on average, more likely to be reproductively
successful than are less healthy individuals. Therefore, parents are expected to invest more in
healthier children, because these children are more likely to be reproductively successful. For
these reasons, I expected healthier children to be more likely to report having been favored by
their parents.
Social competitiveness. Compared with other mammals, humans possess a
disproportionately large brain (relative to body mass), as well as a long developmental period.
Geary and Flinn (2001) argue that there is an association between brain size, length of
developmental period, and an organism’s social network. They cogently argue that one function
of a lengthy developmental period is to allow offspring to learn the complexities of social life
and to refine strategies that are necessary to enhance one’s status and, therefore, one’s
reproductive success. Essentially, Geary and Flinn argue that individuals need to be socially
competitive (i.e., possess characteristics likely to elevate one’s hierarchical position within a
group) in order to be reproductively successful.
All known human groups are characterized by social hierarchies (Lund, Tamnes,
Moestue, Buss, & Vollrath, 2007), wherein people are ranked according to their ability or status.
Specific characteristics are valued within each type of social hierarchy. For example, intelligence
is valued in academia; athleticism is valued in sports. Individuals who possess the characteristics
that are valued within their social niche will rise in status within the hierarchy, whereas those
lacking these characteristics will find themselves relegated to positions of lower status. Status is
important because one’s hierarchical position is related to how one is treated by others. For
example, individuals higher in status are treated with more respect and deference, and they
obtain better food, larger territory, and, most importantly for the purposes of this study, have
access to more desirable mates (Buss, 2007). In other words, a number of benefits are available
to individuals who hold high status within the hierarchy. It appears that a host of characteristics
that vary amongst individuals besides health, namely those associated with social
competitiveness, might strongly influence an individual’s reproductive success.
However, the socially competitive characteristics associated with reproductive success
differ somewhat between the sexes due to differences in the reproductive biology of men and
women and the different reproductive adaptive problems faced by men and women. For
example, unlike men, women have a finite number of gametes and a limited time period of
fertility. Because of the differences in their reproductive biology (e.g., number and size of
gametes, internal gestation in women), males and females have faced different adaptive problems
regarding mating and reproduction. Consequently, males and females have evolved different
psychological mechanisms that, on average, demonstrated effectiveness in helping to solve these
adaptive problems and increase one’s reproductive success. Therefore, certain characteristics
associated with social competitiveness that might increase one’s reproductive success, are likely
to differ in importance between the sexes as well. My examination of mate preferences, an
important class of evolved psychological mechanisms, will further elucidate this point.
Characteristics associated with male reproductive success. Pregnancy is an extremely
costly process for women. The processes involved in pregnancy (e.g., internal gestation) require
women to initially provide a substantial number of resources to the fetus. Following birth,
offspring require a substantial number of resources (e.g., food, shelter, protection) in order to
survive. Females without a committed male partner to help provide protection, food, and other
important resources during and following pregnancy would have children who would be unlikely
to survive. Thus, for females an important adaptive problem they experienced was finding a mate
who was willing and able to assist in resource provisioning (e.g., providing shelter, protection
etc). Through selection pressures, mechanisms that assisted females in identifying males able to
acquire and willing to share resources evolved. Consequently, females seek and prefer long-term
mates who have the ability and willingness to provide resources (Buss, 1989; Buss & Schmitt,
1993).
Buss’s (1989) massive cross-cultural examination of mating preferences across 37
cultures demonstrated that women around the world, more so than men, prefer mates with high
social status and good earning potential. Within the same study women rated ambition and
industriousness as highly desirable traits in long-term male partners (Buss, 1989). In another
study, Li, Kenrick, Bailey, and Linsenmeier (2002) demonstrated that for many women,
intelligence in a mate is considered a “necessary” trait. 8 In other words, males needed to reach an
intelligence threshold before women will even consider their standing on other characteristics
related to mate selection.
Intelligence, ambition, and industriousness predict social status and earning potential
(Kyl-Heku & Buss, 1996). Males who possess these traits are more likely to rise in social status
and possess greater earning potential. Males with higher earning potentials are more likely to be
able to provide resources, and thus are more likely to be perceived as desirable mates by women.
Therefore, it appears that intelligent males who are ambitious and industrious are more likely to
be reproductively successful than males lacking these characteristics (Evans & Brase, 2007).
8 Li et al. (2002) asked participants to design their ideal marriage partner. Participants were allotted a particular
budget (e.g., 100 mate dollars) and were instructed to assign a percentile level for each identified trait. Each decile
level corresponded to a number level (e.g., 80th percentile = 8 mate dollars). From this, Li et al. were able to
categorize mate preferences of the participants as being either a “necessity” or a “luxury.” “Necessity” traits were
traits an individual must possess in order to even be considered as a mate. “Luxury” traits were not necessarily
needed in order to still be considered as a mate.
In sum, because of the physical burdens imposed on women by pregnancy, securing
resources was a more profound adaptive problem for women than men. Consequently,
mechanisms evolved in women resulting in women preferring long-term mates who are willing
and able to provide resources. Men, who possess traits like intelligence, ambition, and
industriousness, are preferred by women because these traits indicate a male’s ability to acquire
and provide resources. Therefore, males who possess these preferred traits are more likely to be
reproductively successful than individuals who lack these characteristics. In the current research,
I expected parents to favor male children who possessed the traits (e.g., intelligence, ambition)
associated with social competitiveness among males, because these traits are indicators of a male
child's later reproductive success.
There is some existing support for a relationship between child intelligence, ambition,
and industriousness and parental favoritism (Kiracofe, 1992; Zervas & Sherman, 1994). Kiracofe
(1992) examined the relationship between child-perceived favoritism and the development of
psychosocial characteristics (e.g., self-esteem). Participants in this study were 417 individuals,
ranging in age from 14 to 66, who were currently receiving Adlerian-focused therapy. As part of
their treatment, participants were asked to provide a description of each of their siblings, to rate
each sibling on a list of characteristics (e.g., intelligence), and to answer a series of questions
regarding sibling inter-relationships within their family. One question in particular asked
participants if they believed that either parent had a favorite. Results indicated that siblings who
were perceived to be most intelligent, perceived to have the highest standards of achievement,
received the best grades, and were perceived to be the hardest worker were perceived to be
favored by the father. Results also indicated that mothers, too, were perceived as favoring the
child who was reported as being most intelligent and had the highest standards of achievement.
Thus, according to participants’ reporting on parental behaviors, it appears that parents are more
likely to favor children who are intelligent and industrious/ambitious.
Along similar lines, Zervas and Sherman (1994) investigated the relationship between
self-esteem and participants’ perceptions of parental favoritism. Participants in this study were
91 college students with a mean age of 18.5 years, who had at least one biological sibling and
lived in a home consisting of two biological parents who were currently living together.
Participants completed a self-esteem questionnaire, a demographic sheet, and a favoritism
questionnaire that consisted of six items. Questionnaire items included, “Do you think your
mother/father has a favorite? and “If so, who?”. Based on responses, participants were divided
into three categories: favored (participant was favored by at least one parent), non-favored
(neither parent favored the participant and at least one parent favored a sibling of the participant)
or no favoritism (neither parent favored any child). Participants who reported a belief that one or
both parents had a favorite were then asked to circle from a list of 65 adjectives (e.g.,
intelligence, sense of humor) what they believed were possible reasons for that parent’s
favoritism. Relevant to the theoretical framework of the current study, intelligence was the
reason most commonly circled by participants, with 44% of participants circling this item. Thus,
as reported from the perspective of adult children, intelligence appeared to be a primary reason
for which they or their sibling was favored.
Neither Kiracofe (1992) or Zervas and Sherman (1994) examined the relationships
between intelligence and industriousness/ambition and parental favoritism separately for male
and female participants. This lack of attention to potential sex differences by both sets of
researchers might have occurred because Kiracofe worked from an Adlerian framework, which
offers no theoretical reason for why a child's sex may influence parental favoritism. Additionally,
Zervas and Sherman simply investigated the general relationship between favoritism and self-
esteem and did not appear to have a basis on which to predict a different pattern of results for
male and female participants. In the current research, sex differences in the predictors of
parental favoritism were a central focus.
In the current research, I argued that, from a fitness perspective, traits such as
intelligence, ambition, and industriousness are more important characteristics for males to
possess than females, because these traits are more strongly associated with a male’s
reproductive success. Therefore, I expected males who reported possessing these traits to a
higher degree than a sibling to more often report being favored by parents. I did not expect these
traits to predict parental favoritism for female participants because these traits are not as strongly
associated with a female’s reproductive success.
Characteristics associated with female reproductive success. As noted, in the domain of
mating, men and women have faced different adaptive problems. Therefore, males have evolved
a different set of psychological mechanisms in the form of mate preferences than have females. I
now review the characteristics that men desire in long-term mates, how these characteristics are
associated with female reproductive success, and how they may be associated with parental
treatment.
Males, unlike females, have a continually replenishing supply of gametes (i.e., sperm
cells) and thus are capable of reproducing throughout most of their adult life. Furthermore,
fertilization and gestation of offspring occur internally to women, not men. For these reasons,
over evolutionary history, male reproductive success has hinged primarily on the ability to
identify and attract female mates who are fertile and able to bear children. Males who
successfully identified and attracted fertile mates were more likely to produce offspring and were
thus more likely to pass their genes on to future generations. Males who were less successful in
identifying and attracting fertile mates were less likely to produce offspring and pass their genes
on to future generations. Thus, through selection pressures, mechanisms that assisted males in
identifying and mating with fertile females evolved.
However, males cannot directly observe and assess a woman’s fertility. Instead, they
infer a woman’s fertility indirectly via a host of visual and behavioral cues. A woman’s age is the
most important determinant of conception. Fertility is steeply age-graded in women, with peak
fertility occurring between the ages of 20 - 28 and then gradually declining after approximately
age 35 (Maheshwan, Hamilton, & Bhatacharya, 2008). Consistent with this line of reasoning,
cross-cultural research indicates that males generally prefer younger women.
More important for the current study, research also indicates that men prefer women who
demonstrate cues associated with fertility (Buss, 1989), such as physical beauty (Evans & Brase,
2007), clear, smooth skin, full lips, and a bouncy gait (Symons, 1995) and a specific waist-to-hip
ratio (Singh, 1993a). Essentially, physical features that are considered attractive are those that are
correlated with youth, good health, and fertility. Moreover, men generally view physical beauty
as a “necessary” requirement when they are considering various women as a potential mate (Li et
al., 2002). In other words, women might need to reach a certain attractiveness threshold before
men will even consider their other characteristics in a context of mate selection. Thus, it appears
that physically attractive females are more likely to be reproductively successful than females
lacking these characteristics, because these characteristics are highly desired by men (Evans &
Brase, 2007).
In sum, identifying, attracting, and mating with fertile female mates constituted a set of
important adaptive problems for men. Consequently, mechanisms evolved in men that result in
men preferring long-term mates who are fertile, as indexed, in part, by cues of physical beauty.
Men prefer characteristics in women associated with physical beauty because these
characteristics serve as a proxy for a women’s fertility. Therefore, physically beautiful women,
(and young girls who show the signs of later developing such features) are more likely to be
reproductively successful than less attractive women (and young girls who seem less likely to
develop attractive features). Consequently, parents might be expected to favor female children
who are physically attractive, because physical attractiveness is an indicator of a female child's
later reproductive success.
Research has demonstrated a link between child attractiveness and parental favoritism.
For example, laboratory studies have shown that mothers pay more attention to and play more
often with attractive infants than unattractive infants (Langlois, Ritter, Casey, & Sawin, 1995).
Another study showed that mothers of infants with craniofacial abnormalities, compared to
mothers of infants without craniofacial abnormalities, smiled less, vocalized to less, and were
generally less responsive to their children (Barden, Ford, Jensen, Rogers-Salyer, & Salyer,
1989). Langlois et al. (1995) found that mothers with an unattractive child were more likely to
view the child as interfering with her life than were mothers with attractive children.
Furthermore, adults generally treat attractive children less harshly (Langlois, Ritter, Casey, &
Swain, 1995). For example, Elder, Van Nguyen, and Caspi (1985) found that fathers were more
punitive toward their unattractive daughters than toward their attractive daughter following a job
loss. Overall, these findings suggest that parents tend to favor children, especially female
children, who are physically attractive.
In sum, characteristics such as intelligence, ambition, industriousness, and physical
attractiveness are associated with increased potential for reproductive success for those who
possess them. In particular, intelligence, ambition, and industriousness are associated with a
male’s reproductive success because these characteristics tend to be preferred by females
regarding male mates. Physical attractiveness is associated with a female’s reproductive success
because these set of characteristics tend to be preferred by males regarding female mates.
Therefore, I expected parents to invest more in (favor) children who possess these characteristics
because these children are more likely to translate parental investment into fitness benefits for
the parent(s).
The Present Study
Evolutionary psychologists have identified two contexts that appear to influence
psychological mechanisms associated with parenting 9 . These contexts include the genetic
relatedness between offspring and parent, and the ability of offspring to convert parental
investment into fitness benefits for the parent. In my study, I tested several theoretically-derived
hypotheses regarding the genetic relatedness between parent and offspring, specifically the
association between parental certainty and favoritism, and the ability of offspring to convert
parental investment into fitness benefits for the parent as predictors of parental favoritism.
I defined parental favoritism as child-participant-reported systematic bias by a parent(s)
that is manifested financially (e.g., gives us money) and psychologically (e.g., proud of things
we’ve done) in the direction of a particular offspring. I measured perceptions of parental
favoritism with the Differential Parent Treatment Scale on the Sibling Inventory of Differential
Experience (SIDE; Daniels & Plomin, 1985). This scale was designed to assess the extent to
which a parent(s) favor or punish one sibling more than the other(s). I used this scale to assess
9
A third context, alternative usage of resources (e.g., mating pursuits), will not be examined in my study because no
predictions relevant to parental favoritism may be offered for this context.
parental favoritism because it is one of the few scales that can specifically assess differential
parental treatment. Previous researchers either coded mother and child observations (Brody,
Stoneman, & Burke, 1987), simply asked participants, “Who is your mother/father’s favorite)
(Harris & Howard, 2001; Kiracofe, 1992; Zervas & Sherman, 1994), or interviewed mothers
about their relationship with their children (Suitor & Pillemer, 2007). The SIDE allowed for
assessment of both maternal and paternal favoritism from the perspective of the child across a
number of facets inherent to the parent-child relationship (support, pride, discipline, etc.). Thus,
it more fully assesses parental favoritism than brief observations, and, compared to interviewing
the parents, it is not as subject to social desirability concerns. Furthermore, I created and added
several new items, especially regarding issues of financial assistance, in order to more fully
assess parental favoritism.
Participants completed a SIDE for each biological parent, as well as completed a physical
resemblance scale (self with parent) for each parent. The resemblance scale was designed for the
current research. Participants also completed a measure regarding their physical health, and a
measure of social competitiveness, namely intelligence, ambition/industriousness, and physical
attractiveness. All measures were based on self-perception and were relative in nature, in that
participants compared themselves to a sibling on all of these characteristics. These constructs
were assessed using a collection of previously established items and scales, items from the
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; http://ipip.ori.org/), and some items designed
originally for the purposes of the current study.

Hypotheses
H1: I expected paternal favoritism to be reported by participants as more common,
intense, and obvious than maternal favoritism. I expect mothers to invest in children in a
more equitable manner than fathers.
Mothers, unlike fathers, are certain regarding their genetic relatedness to
offspring. In other words, mothers know without a doubt that all their children
share 50% of their genes. Fathers, on the other hand, face the problem of paternal
uncertainty. For these reasons, from a fitness perspective, mothers benefit more
than fathers from investing their valuable and finite resources relatively equally
across their offspring. Fathers might benefit, from a fitness perspective, from
favoring certain children over other children.
H2: I expected participants who, compared to a sibling, reported a greater degree of
physical resemblance with their putative biological father to more often report receiving
paternal favoritism than participants who reported a lower degree of facial resemblance
with their father. I did not expect a significant correlation between physical resemblance
with biological mother and maternal favoritism.
Fathers are not certain of their genetic relatedness to a child due to conditions
such as internal fertilization and gestation in women, as well as the threat of
cuckoldry. Consequently, males do not know with certainty whether putative
offspring share 50% of their genes. Due to the adaptive problems of cuckoldry
and investment of resources in a child with whom they share no genetic
relatedness, psychological mechanisms evolved in males that on average, helped
males avoid the costs associated cuckoldry. One such mechanism in males is a
kin-discrimination mechanism that is sensitive to the degree of facial resemblance
between themselves and a child. For males, physical resemblance to the child
functions as an indicator of genetic relatedness. Thus, males who perceive a facial
resemblance to offspring are more certain of genetic relatedness than those who
perceive no resemblance, and as such are expected to invest in the offspring.
Because females did not face the adaptive problems associated with maternal
uncertainty they would not have evolved mechanisms associated with determining
which children are or are not genetically related to them and therefore parenting
behaviors would not be factors associated with parental certainty (e.g., physical
resemblance).
H3: I expected participants (of both sexes) who, compared to a sibling, reported being
relatively healthier to be more likely to report receiving parental favoritism than
individuals who reported being less healthy.
An offspring’s ability to convert parental investment into fitness benefits for the
parent is expected to be of primary importance regarding a parent’s “decision” to
invest in a child. Parents will tend to invest more in children who are likely to
translate the investment into fitness benefits for them. Reproductive success is
arguably the most critical measure of one’s fitness. Individuals who possess traits,
such as health, that are desired by mates tend to be more reproductively successful
than individuals who do not possess the desired traits. Health is a highly desired
trait in mates for both men and women. Therefore, healthier individuals are
expected to be more reproductively successful than less healthy individuals.
Parents are expected to invest more and favor healthier children because health is
associated with reproductive success and offspring reproductive success
ultimately translates into fitness benefits for parents.
H4: I expected that male participants who, compared to a sibling, reported having greater
intelligence to be more likely to report being favored by both mothers and fathers. I did
not expect a significant relationship between female participants reporting of intelligence
and their reporting of parental favoritism.
Females prefer to mate with men who are intelligent. Therefore, males who
possess this trait are more likely to be reproductively successful than males who
do not have this trait. Due to the increased potential reproductive success of these
offspring, parents are expected to invest more and favor the son who is more
intelligent. Because intelligence is more associated with a male’s, rather than a
female’s reproductive success, I did not expect a significant relationship with
females reporting of intelligence and their reporting of parental favoritism.
H5: I expected that male participants who, compared to a sibling, reported having greater
ambition/industriousness to be more likely to report being favored by both mothers and
fathers. I did not expect a significant relationship between female participants reporting
of ambition/industriousness and their reporting of parental favoritism.
Females prefer to mate with men who are ambitious/industrious. Therefore, males
who possess this trait are more likely to be reproductively successful than males
who do not have this trait. Due to the increased potential reproductive success of
these offspring, parents are expected to invest more and favor the son who is more
ambitious/industrious. Because ambition/industriousness is more associated with
a male’s, rather than a female’s reproductive success, I did not expect a

significant relationship with females reporting of ambition/industriousness and
their reporting of parental favoritism.
H6: I expected that female participants who, compared to a sibling, reported being more
physically attractive to be more likely to report being favored by both mothers and
fathers. I did not expect a significant relationship between male participants reporting of
physical attractiveness and their reporting of parental favoritism.
Males prefer to mate with physically attractive females. Therefore, physically
attractive females are more likely to be reproductively successful than less
attractive females. Due to the increased potential reproductive success of these
offspring, parents are expected to invest more in and favor physically attractive
daughters. Because physical attractiveness is more associated with female’s rather
than male’s reproductive success, I did not expect a significant a relationship
between males reporting being physically attractive and their reporting of parental
favoritism.
METHOD
Participants
Undergraduate students attending a university in Northwest Ohio (n = 451) participated
in the study. Students from psychology classes were recruited through Experimetrix, an online
website where students can select from a number of experiments currently being conducted.
Participants were required to have at least one fully-biological sibling and to have lived with
both biological parents for at least 17 years. All students received course credit for participating.
Two hundred and eighty-eight students participated during the Fall Semester (November
– December), and 163 participated at the beginning of the Spring Semester (January – February).
Of these 451 participants, 418 students (93%) completed the study in its entirety. There were
more female (66%) than male participants (34%). Eighty-eight percent of participants were
White; 7% were Black; 2.5% were multi-racial; 1% were Latino/a; and, 1.5% indicated an ethnic
identity of “Other.” Participants averaged 19.2 years of age (SD = 2.1), ranging in age from 18
(which was the modal age, n = 158,) to 43 (n = 1). Regarding socioeconomic status, 3% reported
combined family income of $20,000 or less, 7% reported income ranging from $20,001 -
$40,000, 12% reported income ranging from $40,001 - $60,000, 13% reported income ranging
from $60,001 - $80,000, 15% reported income ranging from $80,001 - $100,000, 20% reported
income of over $100,000, and 30% reported not knowing their parents' income.
Approximately half (53%) of participants reported having just one fully-biological sibling
(the rest reported having more than one fully-biological sibling). Thirty-six per cent of the data
comes from a female participant reporting about herself and a male sibling; 31% comes from a
female participant reporting about herself and a sister; 19% comes from a male participant
reporting about himself and a brother; and 14% comes from a male participant reporting about
himself and a sister. Thus, half of the data comes from same-sex sibling pairs, and half comes
from mixed-sex sibling pairs. The average age of participants’ sibling was 19.3 years of age (SD
= 4.6, mode = 17 years of age), ranging in age from 5 to 45. The participant was the older sibling
in 50% of the cases; the sibling was older than the participant in 48% of the cases, and
participant and sibling were the same age in 2% of the cases. In 68% of the cases participants
were within three years of age of their sibling; in 24% of the cases participants were within four
to six years of their sibling, and in 8% of cases there was an age difference between participant
and sibling of seven years or more.
Materials and Measures
Online questionnaires. All materials were completed on-line through surveymonkey.com.
Surveymonkey is a software program that allows researchers to design web-based surveys.
Informed consent. Participants signed up for a study concerned with family dynamics.
They were informed that they would be asked to provide demographic information about
themselves (e.g., age, sex), as well as complete several personality and behavioral measures
about themselves and other family members (e.g., a sibling, mother, father; See Appendix A).
Participants were informed that participation was voluntary, that there were no foreseeable risks
associated with participation, and that they could withdraw at any time without penalty. The
contact information of the primary researcher and his faculty advisor was provided to
participants. Participants were instructed that clicking on a “YES” link indicated their consent.
Instructions. Participants were instructed to compare themselves to the same fully-
biological sibling for all questions (See Appendix B). Participants with more than one fully
biological sibling were instructed to compare themselves to the fully biological sibling who was
closest in age. Participants with biological siblings equidistant to them in age (e.g., one sibling
who is 2 years older and one who is 2 years younger) were instructed to report on the sibling
with whom they most closely associate.
Differential parental treatment sub-scale of the Sibling Inventory of Differential
Experience (SIDE). Participants completed a modified version of the Differential Parental
Treatment subscale of the Sibling Inventory of Differential Experience (SIDE; Daniels, 1986;
See Appendix C) for each biological parent. This subscale assesses whether a parent favors or
punishes one child more than another. The original SIDE subscale included 9 items, and it
assessed a child's perceptions of his or her social-affective experiences with a parent (e.g., parent
enjoyed doing things with us). I removed one item, the “has favored” item, because this item
represents the global construct of interest and a similar item, to be described, was used to help
assess the validity of the SIDE measure.
To allow for an assessment of parental favoritism expressed through additional (e.g.,
financial) means I created and added 12 items (has disciplined, given money, bought things for,
given freedom over actions, enjoyed talking with, given what was requested, done favors for,
done things with, been supportive of, criticized, listened to the opinions of, respected). Thus, the
modified scale contained 20 items.
Each set of 20 items was completed twice, once in reference to the mother and once in
reference to the father. For each item (e.g., has been strict with), participants selected an option
from a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = In general, my mother/father has been much more this way
towards my sibling than me, 2 = In general, my mother/father has been somewhat more this way
towards my sibling than me, 3 = In general, my mother/father has been the same towards my
sibling and me, 4 = In general, my mother/father has been somewhat more this way towards me
than my sibling , 5 = In general, my mother/father has been much more this way towards me than
my sibling. For 15 of the 20 items (e.g., has given money) higher scores indicated favoritism in
the direction of the participant. For five items (e.g., has been strict with, has punished for
misbehavior, has blamed for what another family member did, has disciplined, has criticized)
higher scores indicated favoritism in the direction of a sibling. Prior to analysis, these five items
were reverse-scored, so that for all items higher scores indicated favoritism in the direction of the
participant. The 20 items comprising the maternal favoritism scale were internally consistent
(Cronbach's α = .86), as were the 20 items comprising the paternal favoritism scale (Cronbach's α
= .88). Therefore, I averaged the 20 items from each scale to form a maternal and paternal
favoritism composite index.
Forced-choice and obviousness parental favoritism items. On a separate page,
participants were asked twice, once in reference to each parent, about their general perception of
parental favoritism (See Appendix D). For each parent participants selected one of three response
options (1 = My mother/father has favored me over my sibling, 2 = My mother/father has
favored my sibling over me, 3 = My mother/father has not favored me or my sibling).
Participants who indicated favoritism in either direction also reported the “obviousness” of the
favoritism on a Likert-type scale (1 = My mother’s/father’s favoritism was very subtle, 7 = My
mother’s/father’s favoritism was very obvious).
To help assess the validity of the maternal and paternal SIDE composite indices, I
submitted the maternal and paternal favoritism composite indices to a one-way ANOVA using
the target of favoritism (participant, sibling, no one), as identified on the single-item measure, as
a quasi-independent variable. Results indicated significant differences on the maternal SIDE
composite index between the groups, F(2, 422) = 111.70, p = .00. Follow-up t-tests indicated
significant differences between all groups, all p’s = .00. Participants who indicated on the forced-
choice item that their mother favored them, scored higher on the maternal SIDE composite index
(M = 3.31, SD = .38) than those who indicated no maternal favoritism (M = 3.01, SD = .23), as
well as those who indicated maternal favoritism in the direction of the sibling (M = 2.59, SD =
.49).
Results indicated significant differences on the paternal SIDE composite index between
the groups, F(2, 423) = 104.40, p = .00. Follow-up t-tests indicated significant differences
between all groups, all p’s = .000. Participants who indicated on the forced-choice item that their
father favored them, scored higher on the paternal SIDE composite index (M = 3.37, SD = .40)
than those who indicated no paternal favoritism (M = 3.02, SD = .25), as well as those who
indicated paternal favoritism in the direction of the sibling (M = 2.62, SD = .48). Together, these
findings suggest that the maternal and paternal SIDE composite indices were measuring
perceptions of parental favoritism.
Relative physical resemblance to parents. Participants completed a perceived physical
resemblance scale for each parent (See Appendix E). These scales were created originally for the
current research and consisted of six items. Four items asked participants to indicate the degree
to which they believed that they, relative to a sibling, physically resembled a parent on specific
facial features (e.g., Whose eyes/hair/nose/mouth more closely resembles your
mother’s/father’s?).
For each item, participants selected one of five response options (1 = My sibling is much
more similar to my mother/father than I am, 2 = My sibling is somewhat more similar to my
mother/father than I am, 3 = My sibling and I are equally similar to my mother/father, 4 = I am
somewhat more similar to my mother/father than my sibling, 5 = I am much more similar to my

mother/father than my sibling). Higher numbers indicate that the participant perceived him- or
herself to be more physically similar to his/her parent than the sibling.
The fifth item asked participants about their overall facial resemblance to the respective
parent (Overall, whose face more closely resembles your mother’s/father’s?). The sixth item
asked participants how much they believed they physically resembled each parent overall,
ostensibly on all features including and in additional to facial features (Overall, who more
physically resembles your mother/father?). Response options were: 1 = My sibling much more
physically resembles my mother/father, 2 = My sibling somewhat more physically resembles my
mother/father, 3 = My sibling and I physically resemble my mother/father equally, 4 = I
physically resemble my mother/father somewhat more than does my sibling 5 = I physically
resemble my mother/father much more than does my sibling). This item was added to allow for a
more complete assessment of physical resemblance between parent and child. These six physical
resemblance items were averaged to form two relative physical resemblance composite indices
(Cronbach's α = .82 for maternal resemblance and Cronbach's α = .85 for paternal resemblance).
Relative Health. Participants completed a five-item health scale designed to assess
whether the participant or his or her sibling was perceived to be healthier (See Appendix F).
Scale items were borrowed from the General Health Scale on the Short Form - 36 Health Survey
(see Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). Items were modified in order to allow for a comparison
between the participant and his/her sibling. The first four items included: I seem to get sick more
often than does my sibling; I seem to suffer from aches/pains more often than does my sibling; I
seem to visit a doctor or health center more often than does my sibling; and, I seem to take
medication for illnesses more often than my sibling.

For each item, participants selected one of five response options (1 = Definitely False, 2=
Somewhat False, 3 = Neither True nor False, 4 = Somewhat True, 5 = Definitely True). The first
four items were reverse-coded so that higher scores always indicated that participants perceived
themselves to be healthier than their sibling.
I added a fifth item that asked participants their perception of their overall health
(Overall, I seem to be healthier than my sibling). Participants selected one of five response
options (1 = Definitely False, 2= Somewhat False, 3 = Neither True nor False, 4 = Somewhat
True, 5 = Definitely True). These five items were averaged to form a relative health composite
index (Cronbach's α = .82).
Relative social competitiveness. I was interested in the following characteristics of social
competitiveness: intelligence, ambition/industriousness, and physical attractiveness. To measure
these facets of social competitiveness I borrowed and modified items from the on-line
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; http://ipip.ori.org/). The IPIP website consists of over
2,000 items (e.g., work hard, use difficult words) that cover many facets of the Big-Five factor
structure (Goldberg, 1999) 10 . The IPIP was developed in response to the perception that
personality assessment has progressed at a slow pace due to the fact that many personality
inventories are proprietary instruments, and thus not readily subjected to comparative validity
studies (Goldberg, 1999).
10
Regarding the IPIP’s development, the IPIP’s original 1,252 items hoped to cover many facets of the Big-Five
factor structure (Goldberg, 1999). The original items, 360 trait-descriptive adjectives and 525 person-descriptive
adjectives, were administered to an adult community sample. Participants also completed a number of commercial,
empirically demonstrated personality inventories (e.g., NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised). IPIP items were
correlated with items from the proprietary personality instruments believed to measure similar constructs. Results
indicated that the average reliability coefficients for the IPIP scales were at least as high as the values found on the
proprietary instruments, such as the NEO-PI-R (See http://ipip.ori.org/ for a detailed description of scale
construction).
Through its availability on-line, the IPIP allows for continual development and
refinement of personality inventories found in the public domain. The IPIP website includes
information on the psychometric characteristics of the current set of IPIP scales, keys for scoring
the current set of scales, and the current total set of IPIP items (Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan,
Ashton, Cloninger, & Gough, 2006). The IPIP web site individually lists a number of constructs
(e.g., ambition, intelligence) that researchers might assess. These items are similar but not
identical to items from proprietary instruments measuring similar constructs.
Relative intelligence. Participants completed an 8-item measure designed to assess
whether the participant or his or her sibling was perceived to be more intelligent (e.g., compared
to my sibling, I have a richer vocabulary, am more likely to solve complex problems; see
Appendix G). These items, selected from the IPIP, were designed to assess intellect in a manner
similar to how intellect is conceptualized as part of the Openness scale of the NEO-PI-R 11 (Costa
& McRae, 1992).
For each item, participants selected one of five response options (1 = Definitely False, 2
= Somewhat False, 3 = Neither True nor False, 4 = Somewhat True, 5 = Definitely True). Higher
numbers indicate that participants perceived themselves to be more intelligent than their sibling.
Reliability analysis indicated that the eight items were internally consistent (Cronbach's α = .89).
Therefore, I averaged the items to create a relative intelligence composite index.
Relative ambition and industriousness. Participants completed a 17-item measure
designed to assess whether participants perceived themselves or their sibling to be more
ambitious/industrious (e.g., compared to my sibling, I am more likely to succeed; See Appendix
11The NEO-PI-R is one of the most prominent and best-researched personality measures (De Fruyt, Aluja, Garcia,
Rolland, & Jung, 2006).
H). Eight items were borrowed and modified from items similar to achievement-striving items
found in the NEO-PI-R (Costa &McRae, 1992; e.g., Plunge into tasks with all my heart). Eight
items were borrowed and modified from items similar to the industriousness items from the Six
Factor Personality Questionnaire 12 (6FPQ; Jackson, Paunonen, & Tremblay, 2000; e.g., Put work
above pleasure). I created one item (Compared to my sibling, I am more ambitious).
numbers indicate that participants perceived themselves to be more ambitious/industrious than
their sibling. Reliability analysis indicated that the 17 items were internally consistent
(Cronbach's α = .93). Therefore, I averaged them to create a relative ambition/industriousness
composite index.
Relative physical attractiveness. Participants completed a 6-item measure designed to
assess whether participants perceived themselves or their sibling to be more physically attractive
(e.g., I like my body more than does my sibling, I like to show off my body more than does my
sibling; See Appendix I). These items were borrowed and modified from the IPIP. Specifically,
these items were designed to be similar to attractiveness items found on the Personal Attributes
Survey. Items were modified so that each item allowed for a relative comparison between
participants and a sibling.
12 The 6FPQ provides a measure of six dimensions of personality: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Independence,
Openness to Experience, Methodicalness, and Industriousness. The Industriousness subscale consists of three facet
scales: Achievement, Endurance, and Seriousness. The 6FPQ demonstrates solid psychometric properties with
internal consistency reliability ranging from .54 to .84 (Jackson, Paunonen, & Tremblay, 2000).
numbers indicate that the participants perceived themselves to be more physically attractive than
their sibling. Reliability analysis indicated that the six items were internally consistent
(Cronbach's α = .87). Therefore, I averaged the 6 items to create a relative physical attractiveness
composite index.
Demographics. Participants indicated their age, sex, race, height, and weight, waist-hip-
ratio (WHR), the sex of their sibling, the age of their sibling, their GPA, as well as their parent’s
yearly household income (See Appendix J). Additionally, participants’ body mass indices (BMI)
were calculated.
Post-study questionnaire. The post-study questionnaire consisted of two items (See
Appendix K). The first item asked participants to write in their own words what they believed
the study’s purpose was. This way, I could assess the degree to which participants became aware
of my hypotheses. The second item asked participants to provide any comments/feedback they
might have regarding the study. This question was designed to help identify problems or issues
with the study that were not recognized prior to the start of data collection.
Debriefing. The on-line debriefing form informed participants that the study investigated
parental favoritism from an evolutionary perspective (See Appendix L). The debriefing sheet
described my hypotheses. The sheet also included a reference related to the study’s topic, as well
as contact information of the primary researcher. The page also contained contact information for
counseling services within the area that were readily available to participants should the
completion of the study have triggered any emotional distress.
Questionnaire order. Participants completed the surveys in one of two orders.
Participants were assigned to an order based on the first letter of their last name (Order 1 was
completed by those whose last name began with a letter A – L; Order 2 was completed by those
with last names beginning with a letter M - Z). Order 1 was as follows: maternal SIDE, relative
health, relative intelligence, relative ambition/industriousness, relative physical attractiveness,
paternal SIDE, relative maternal physical resemblance, and relative paternal physical
resemblance. Order 2 was as follows: paternal SIDE, relative health, relative intelligence,
relative ambition/industriousness, relative physical attractiveness, maternal SIDE, relative
paternal physical resemblance, and relative maternal physical resemblance. Demographics and
the post-study questionnaire were completed last by participants in both Order 1 and 2.
Procedure
Participants registered for the study on-line through Experimetrix. The title of the
experiment was “Thoughts on Myself and My Family.” Participants were informed that the
purpose of the study was to obtain a better understanding of people’s personal attributes, as well
as their family relationships. Although accurate, this statement was intentionally vague in order
to minimize demand characteristics. Furthermore, conducting the survey on-line might have
reduced social desirability because participants could complete the questionnaire in the privacy
of their home without being directly observed by the researcher who would be reviewing his/her
answers, thus fostering a sense of anonymity and privacy.
From the Experimetrix synopsis, students were directed to a website. At this site,
participants were instructed to click one of two possible links based upon the first letter in their
last name. Participants with last names starting with the letters A – L selected one link, whereas
participants with last names starting with the letters M – Z, selected a different link. Links
directed participants to their respective surveys which varied only in their order of appearance.
Participants were then directed to the informed consent page. The informed consent
highlighted that there were no right or wrong answers for the questions, that the researchers were
interested only in the participant’s opinions, and that all answers were anonymous and
confidential. After reading the informed consent sheet, participants could either click the “NO”
button if they did not wish to participate in the study whereupon they were directed to a page
thanking them for their initial interest, or the “YES” button indicating participation consent.
Upon participation consent, all participants were directed to the “instructions” webpage.
Here, participants were instructed that for all questions they were to refer to the same, fully-
biological sibling throughout the entire survey. Participants with more than one fully biological
sibling were instructed to select the fully biological sibling who was closest to them in age. If
more than one equidistant in age fully biological sibling existed, participants were instructed to
select the sibling with whom they most interacted. After reading the instructions, participants
then indicated whether they had one or more than one fully biological sibling. Next, siblings
reported the age and sex of the sibling they were to use for comparison purposes. Participants
then completed the measures in the order that corresponded with their last name.
Debriefing. Following study completion, the participants were directed to a webpage for
debriefing. On average, participated completed the survey in 17 minutes.

RESULTS
Overview
I was interested in examining whether paternal favoritism occurs more frequently and to
a greater degree than maternal favoritism, as reported by college-student participants. I was also
interested in examining hypotheses regarding child characteristics (physical health, intelligence,
ambition/industriousness, physical attractiveness, maternal and paternal physical resemblance)
that might be associated with parental favoritism. My primary outcome measures were maternal
and paternal favoritism. First, I report descriptive statistics pertaining to my measures.
Specifically, I examine the prevalence of parental favoritism as reported by participants, as well
as conduct analyses to determine whether certain variables (e.g., sibling sex) are generally
associated with parental favoritism, despite not being predicted. Second, I report results that
pertain to my hypotheses. Lastly, exploratory analyses are located in the Appendix.
Counterbalancing. As noted, participants completed the various surveys in one of two
orders. I performed a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with Order serving as the
independent variable, on the six predictor variables (relative health, relative intelligence, relative
ambition/industriousness, relative attractiveness, relative maternal and paternal resemblance) and
the two outcome variables (maternal and paternal favoritism) in order to assess potential order
effects. Results indicate no order effects, all p’s > .05. Thus, the Order variable is not included in
subsequent analyses.
Descriptive Statistics
Parental favoritism. In order to get a general idea of how common maternal and paternal
favoritism were within this sample, I reviewed participants’ responses on the forced-choice item
(Check the statement that is most true for you: My mother/father favored me over my sibling,
My mother/father favored my sibling over me, My mother/favored has not favored me or my
sibling). Forty two percent of participants reported experiencing paternal favoritism (with 24%
reporting that their father favored them, and 18% reporting that their father favored their sibling);
38% of participants reported experiencing maternal favoritism (with 21% of participants
reporting that their mother favored them, and 17% reporting that their mother favored their
sibling; See Table 1, e.g., for details regarding participant sex).
At first blush, such numbers might seem low if one compares to the rate obtained by
Suitor et al., 2006 who reported a favoritism rate of 92%. However, the current study’s reported
prevalence of parental favoritism falls within the range found in previous studies. Furthermore,
this percentage does not present a full picture regarding parental favoritism. In order to obtain a
fuller picture, I calculated the overall percentage of participants who indicated that at least one
parent displayed favoritism. Overall, 57% of participants indicated that at least one of their
parents displayed favoritism. This rate is more in accordance with those found in the extant
parental favoritism literature.
In cases where participants reported maternal (n = 162) or paternal favoritism (n = 179), I
assessed the level of obviousness of the favoritism (1 = Very Subtle, 7 = Very Obvious). As
noted in Table 1, participants reported that both fathers (M = 3.56, SD = 1.75) and mothers (M =
3.46, SD = 1.54) manifested favoritism in a moderate manner. Again, casual review of these data
may not present a full picture regarding the obviousness of parental favoritism. For this scale, a
score of four reflects the midpoint between a parent being very subtle or being very obvious
regarding favoritism displays. Thus, scores ranging from 1 to 3 on the item indicate subtle
favoritism, whereas scores ranging from 5 to 7 indicate obvious favoritism. Using these ranges as
cutoffs for dichotomizing the scale data, it appears that paternal favoritism, when it was reported,
was described as being rather obvious (scores of 5 -7 on the scale) 33% of the time. When
maternal favoritism was reported it was described as rather obvious 27% of the time. Thus,
among those who reported the presence of maternal or parental favoritism, the favoritism was
obvious approximately one-third of the time.
Possible Correlates of Parental Favoritism
Sex differences and dyad composition effects. To assess whether participant or sibling sex
were associated with favoritism, I performed a series of 2 (Participant Sex: male, female) X 2
(Sibling Sex: male, female) ANOVAs with Maternal and Paternal SIDE composite indices
serving as the dependent variables. The SIDE composite indices are relative measures (i.e.,
participant compared to a sibling), wherein scores greater than three indicate favoritism in the
direction of the sibling and scores below three indicate favoritism in the direction of the sibling.
Because these effects (participant sex and dyad composition) were not predicted I used the more
conservative alpha level of .01 to interpret these findings. Any effects involving participant or
sibling sex that were significant at the p < .01 level were controlled for in subsequent analyses.
Regarding the maternal favoritism composite index, there was no main effect of sibling
sex, F(1, 420) = 4.87, p = .03. Furthermore, there was no main effect for participant sex, F(1,
420) = 3.25, p = .07; nor was there a Participant Sex by Sibling Sex interaction, F(1, 420) = .07,
p = .79. As for the paternal favoritism composite index, there was no main effect for sibling sex,
F(1, 421) = .09, p = .77, participant sex, F(1, 421) = 1.66, p = .20; nor was there a significant
Participant Sex by Sibling Sex interaction, F(1, 421) = .11, p = .74.
I also explored whether participant or sibling sex might be associated with relative health,
relative intelligence, relative ambition/industriousness, relative physical attractiveness, and
relative physical resemblance. Thus, I performed a series of 2 (Participant Sex: male, female) X
2 (Sibling Sex: male, female) ANOVAs with health, intelligence, ambition/industriousness,
physical attractiveness, and physical resemblance serving as the dependent variables.
Results indicated that, overall, male participants reported being healthier (M = 3.36, SD =
.87) than their sibling more so than female participants (M = 2.93, SD = .85), F(1, 421) = 28.85,
p = .00. Overall, participants also reported being significantly healthier than their sisters (M =
3.21, SD = .91), as compared to their brothers (M = 2.97, SD = .84), F(1, 421) = 11.25, p = .00.
There was no Participant Sex x Sibling Sex significant interaction regarding health, F(1, 421) =
2.39, p = .12 (See Table 2). Based on these results, I controlled for participant and sibling sex in
subsequent analyses examining health.
Regarding relative intelligence, overall, males (M = 3.57, SD = .82) reported being more
intelligent than their siblings more so than females (M = 3.32, SD = .84), F(1, 421) = 8.53, p =
.00. There was no main effect for sibling sex, F(1, 421) = 2.68, p = .10, nor was there a
significant Participant Sex by Sibling Sex interaction regarding relative intelligence, F(1, 421) =
.66, p = .42 (See Table 3). Therefore, I controlled for Participant Sex in subsequent analyses
examining relative intelligence.
For relative ambition/industriousness, there was no main effect for participant sex, F(1,
421) = 5.94, p = .02 nor was there a main effect for sibling sex, F(1, 421) = 6.09, p = .01.
Additionally, there was no Participant Sex by Sibling Sex interaction, F(1, 421) = .33, p = .57.
Regarding relative physical attractiveness, no significant effects were obtained regarding
physical attractiveness, all p’s > .01.
No significant effects were obtained regarding relative maternal resemblance, all p’s >
.01. As for paternal resemblance, results indicated no main effect for participant sex, F(1, 411) =
3.90, p = .05, sibling sex, F(1, 411) = 4.95, p = .03 nor was there a Participant Sex by Sibling
Sex significant interaction regarding relative paternal resemblance, F(1, 411) = .821, p = .37.
Number of fully biological siblings. As noted earlier, 53% of participants possessed only
one fully biological sibling, whereas the remaining 47% possessed more than one fully biological
sibling and were, therefore, instructed to select one sibling for comparison purposes. I conducted
a series of independent samples t-tests comparing participants who had only one fully biological
sibling with those who had multiple fully biological siblings on my outcome (maternal SIDE and
paternal SIDE) and predictor variables (relative health, relative intelligence, relative
ambition/industriousness, relative physical attractiveness, relative maternal resemblance, and
relative paternal resemblance) with number of fully biological siblings serving as a quasi-
independent variable. Results indicated no differences between the groups on any of these
variables, all p’s > .01. Thus, this variable is not included in subsequent analyses.
Sibling hierarchy. Because I asked participants to report their age as well as their sibling's
age, I was able to classify each participant as the older or younger sibling of the dyad. After
doing so, I performed a series of independent samples t-tests 13 on my outcome (maternal SIDE
and paternal SIDE) and predictor variables (relative health, relative intelligence, relative
ambition/industriousness, relative physical attractiveness, relative maternal resemblance, and
relative paternal resemblance) with older or younger sibling status serving as the quasi-
independent variable (See Table 4). Results indicated that older siblings (M = 3.61, SD = .77)
reported greater intelligence than their siblings compared to younger siblings (M = 3.19, SD =
.86), t(401) = 5.25, p = .00. Older siblings (M = 3.55, SD = .59) also reported being more
13
In only seven cases were participants and sibling the same age. As such, they were not included in these analyses.
ambitious/industrious than their siblings compared to younger siblings (M = 3.23, SD = .73),
t(401) = 4.89, p = .00. Lastly, younger siblings reported being more physically attractive (M =
3.21, SD = .87) than their sibling compared to older siblings (M = 2.91, SD = .81), t(401) = -3.67,
p = .00. Therefore, I controlled for sibling hierarchy in subsequent analyses examining relative
intelligence, relative ambition/industriousness, and relative physical attractiveness.
Age gap between siblings. Because I asked participants to report their age as well as their
sibling's age, I was able to categorize the sibling dyads based upon gaps in ages between
participants and their siblings. After doing so, I performed a series of one-way ANOVAs to
examine participants’ responses on my outcome and predictor measures with sibling age gap
serving as the quasi-independent variable (within three years, 4 – 6 years, 7 – 9 years, over 10
years 14 ). Results indicated no significant differences on my outcome or predictor measures based
upon age gap, all p’s > .01.
Summary. A majority (57%) of participants reported the presence of some form of
parental favoritism (maternal or paternal). Furthermore, such favoritism was manifested in a
rather obvious manner nearly 33% of the time. I conducted analyses to determine whether certain
variables (e.g., sibling sex) were generally associated with parental favoritism, despite not being
predicted. Several main effects for nominal variables that were not originally expected to be
associated with favoritism were identified. Specifically, main effects for participant sex and
sibling sex were found regarding health. Male participants reported greater health than female
participants and participants reported being healthier than female siblings, as compared to male
siblings. Additionally, a main effect for sibling hierarchy was found regarding relative
14
Previous literature notes greater conflict between siblings when the age gap is three years or less (Dunn &
McGuire, 1992).
intelligence, relative ambition/industriousness, and relative physical attractiveness. In the cases
of relative intelligence and relative ambition/industriousness, participants who were older
siblings reported greater possession of intelligence and ambition/industriousness than did
participants who represented younger siblings. In the case of physical attractiveness, participants
who were younger siblings reported being more physically attractive than did participants who
represented older siblings. Additionally, there was a main effect for participant sex regarding
relative intelligence, wherein male participants reported greater intelligence than did female
participants. Therefore, I controlled for these variables in subsequent analyses.
Primary Analyses
Maternal versus paternal favoritism. For Hypothesis 1, I predicted that participants
would report greater favoritism by fathers than by mothers. To test this hypothesis, I first re-
coded items comprising the SIDE scales, because original items reflected both the presence and
direction of favoritism (toward self or sibling). For my first hypothesis, I was only interested
originally in the presence of favoritism; direction of favoritism (toward self or sibling) was of no
relevance.
I re-coded all favoritism items from the original five-item response set (1 = In general,
my mother/father has been much more this way towards my sibling than me, 2 = In general, my
mother/father has been somewhat more this way towards my sibling than me, 3 = In general, my
mother/father has been the same way towards my sibling and me, 4 = In general, my
mother/father has been somewhat more this way towards me than my sibling, 5 = In general, my
mother/father has been much more this way towards me than my sibling), to a three-item
response set (1 = no favoritism, 2 = some favoritism, 3 = a lot of favoritism). In other words,
items originally scored as either a one or five (high favoritism to either sibling or participant)
were re-coded as a score of three (high favoritism present); items scored as either two or four
(some favoritism to either sibling or participant) were re-coded as a score of two (some
favoritism present); and items scored as three (no favoritism) were re-coded as one (no
favoritism present).
Additionally, I created maternal SIDE and paternal SIDE composite indices following
item re-coding, which I will refer to as Re-coded SIDEs in order to avoid confusion with the
original SIDE measures that were used for my remaining hypotheses. (Note that re-coding the
scales in the aforementioned manner also prevented the exclusion of cases where favoritism
existed but would not be detected if scale items were averaged. For example, a parent could
strongly favor the participant on 10 items (a score of 5 on each item), as well as strongly favor
the participant’s sibling on 10 items (a score of 1 on each item). Averaging these items would
result in a score of three indicating no favoritism towards either sibling or participant on the
original scale. However, in this hypothetical situation, it appears that this parent manifests
substantial displays of favoritism. In order for such data not to be lost, I re-coded items so that
the total degree of favoritism, regardless of direction, could be assessed.)
I examined Hypothesis 1 in several ways. First, I tested the hypothesis by conducting a
paired-samples t-test comparing the newly created maternal favoritism and paternal favoritism
Re-coded SIDE composite indices. Additionally, and with the purpose of fully analyzing the
data, I performed a series of paired-samples t-test comparing each item on the Re-coded maternal
SIDE composite index with the corresponding item on the Re-coded paternal SIDE composite
index. Lastly, I compared participants reporting of favoritism between mothers and fathers on the
forced-choice item, as well as on the obviousness item using paired samples t-test analyses.
First, I compared the overall maternal Re-coded SIDE composite index 15 with the overall
Re-coded paternal SIDE composite index using a paired-samples t-test. Contrary to expectations,
the result suggested that participants report equal favoritism by mothers (M = 1.42, SD = .32)
and fathers (M = 1.43, SD = .36), t(425) = -.97, p = .33.
Comparisons of individual items on the Re-coded maternal and paternal SIDE composite
indices identified specific areas wherein one parent appeared to manifest favoritism more than
the other parent (See Table 5). Participants reported greater maternal versus paternal favoritism
on the dimension of punishing the children for misbehavior, t(425) = 3.91, p = .00. However,
participants reported greater paternal versus maternal favoritism on the dimensions of interest
shown in children, t(425) = -4.52, p = .00, doing things with children, t(425) = -3.71, p = .00, and
protecting children, t(425) = -2.26, p = .02. Thus, fathers showed greater favoritism in more
specific areas (e.g., shown interest) than did mothers. Furthermore, a casual inspection of the
overall pattern of means suggests that fathers received higher favoritism scores than mothers on
13 of the 20 items comprising the overall Re-coded SIDE composite indices.
To further examine Hypothesis 1, I examined participants’ responses to the forced-choice
item (My mother/father favored: me, my sibling, or neither of us) using a series of paired-
samples t-test. Results indicated that participants reported similar frequencies of maternal and
paternal favoritism directed toward themselves (21% versus 24%) and their sibling (17% versus
18%). Furthermore, there was also no difference regarding maternal versus paternal equal
treatment of the siblings (58% versus 62%), all p’s > .05.
15
For exploratory purposes, identical analyses were conducted on original SIDE composite indices (See Appendix
N and Table 15).
Next, I examined potential differences between mothers and fathers regarding the
obviousness of parental favoritism. Results from a paired-samples t-test indicated that when
participants reported that a parent did display favoritism towards a particular child, mothers (M =
3.47, SD = 1.50) and fathers (M = 3.64, SD = 1.76) did not differ in terms of its obviousness,
t(103) = -1.02, p = .31. However, the means were in the expected direction, with higher scores
for fathers than mothers. Overall, minimal support was found for Hypothesis 1 in that
participants reported three specific areas wherein fathers displayed significantly greater
favoritism than did mothers.
Physical resemblance and favoritism. For Hypothesis 2, I predicted a positive
correlational relationship between relative physical/facial resemblance to one’s father (relative to
sibling) and paternal favoritism (relative to sibling). No relationship was expected to exist
between relative maternal physical/facial resemblance and maternal favoritism.
To test this hypothesis, I performed a bivariate correlation of relative paternal
resemblance and paternal favoritism. As expected, there was a significant, positive correlation
between the relative paternal physical/facial resemblance composite index and the original
paternal SIDE composite index, r(414) = .11, p = .02. Participants who reported looking more
like their father than their sibling were also more likely to report being favored by their father.
To examine this hypothesis more closely, I correlated relative paternal physical
resemblance with each of the individual items on the original paternal SIDE. By doing so, I was
able to identify the specific areas wherein fathers manifested favoritism towards the children
who shared a greater resemblance to them. Participants reported that fathers manifested
favoritism towards the children with a greater shared resemblance in the areas of (a) pride, (b)
enjoying doing things together, (c) freedom over one’s actions, (d) giving what was requested,
(e) doing favors for, (f) being supportive, g) listening, and h) respecting, all p’s < .05 (See Table
6).
In the second part of Hypothesis 2, I predicted that no relationship would exist between
relative maternal physical/facial resemblance and maternal favoritism. To examine this
prediction, I performed a bivariate correlation between reported relative maternal physical
resemblance and maternal favoritism as assessed by the original maternal SIDE composite index
score. As expected, relative maternal resemblance and maternal favoritism were not significantly
correlated, r(424) = .06, p = .25. In other words, no relationship existed between participants'
self-perceived greater resemblance to their mother, relative to their sibling, and receiving
maternal favoritism. As before, I correlated relative maternal physical resemblance with each of
the individual items on the original maternal SIDE, in order to identify any specific domains
wherein relative maternal resemblance correlated with maternal favoritism. Results indicated
three specific areas wherein mothers manifested favoritism towards children who shared a
greater resemblance: (a) pride, (b) enjoying doing things together, and (c) doing things with (See
Table 6). Overall, relative maternal resemblance did not predict maternal favoritism. Therefore,
Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Health. For Hypothesis 3, I predicted that participants claiming to be healthier than their
sibling would also be more likely to report receiving favoritism from their mother and father. To
test this hypothesis, I performed partial correlations, controlling for participant sex and sibling
sex (as indicated by earlier ANOVA analyses) between the relative physical health composite
index score and the original SIDE composite indices (maternal and paternal).
The partial correlation between the relative physical health composite scores and the
original maternal SIDE composite index did not reach significance, r(420) = -.07, p = .17.
Similarly, the partial correlation between relative physical health composite scores and the
paternal SIDE composite index was not significant, r(421) = .04, p = .40. Thus, it appears that
self-perceived relative health was not associated with maternal or paternal favoritism.
Despite the lack of significant results involving the original SIDE composite indices, I
correlated the relative physical health composite index with each of the individual items on the
SIDEs to identify any specific areas wherein physical health predicted parental favoritism.
Unexpectedly, mothers appeared to display favoritism towards less healthy children regarding (a)
enjoying doing things with, (b) being sensitive to, (c) giving money to, (d) buying things for, and
(e) doing things with, all p’s < .05. Fathers appeared to favor less healthy children in the area of
discipline. However, in support of the hypothesis, fathers manifested favoritism towards the
healthier child in the areas of (a) pride, (b) doing things with, (c) listening to, and (d) respecting,
all p’s < .05 (See Table 7). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported with fathers
appearing to favor healthier children on several dimensions but interestingly, mothers appearing
to favor less healthy children on several dimensions.
Social competitiveness. In the remaining hypotheses I made predictions regarding the
correlations between specific aspects of social competitiveness (intelligence,
ambition/industriousness, and physical attractiveness) and parental favoritism. For these
characteristics, I made sex-differentiated predictions, in that the relationships between these
predictors and parental favoritism would vary depending on participant sex.
For Hypothesis 4, I expected that male participants who reported being more intelligent
than their sibling to report being the recipient of parental favoritism. I did not expect such a
relationship regarding female participants. To test this hypothesis, I performed separate

correlations for male and female participants between original maternal and paternal SIDE
indices and the relative intelligence composite index.
I performed a partial correlation between original SIDE composite indices and the
relative intelligence composite index, controlling for sibling hierarchy 16 (older or younger).
There was no significant correlation between the relative intelligence composite index, as
reported by male participants, and the maternal favoritism composite index, r(132) = .12, p = .17.
Additionally, there was not a significant correlation between the relative intelligence composite
index and the original paternal favoritism composite index, r(132) = -.04, p = .65, after
conducting a partial correlation controlling for sibling hierarchy.
In the second part of this hypothesis I predicted that no significant correlation would be
obtained between female participants’ relative intelligence and parental favoritism. Results,
contrary to expectation, revealed a significant correlation between daughter's relative intelligence
and maternal favoritism, r(267) = .13, p = .03. In other words, mothers favored more intelligent
daughters. There was not a significant correlation between daughters' relative intelligence and
paternal favoritism, r(267) = .11, p = .10, after conducting a partial correlation controlling for
sibling hierarchy. Thus, findings were mixed with intelligence for female participants being
associated with maternal favoritism but not paternal favoritism.
To more fully explore the data, I ran correlations between the relative intelligence
composite indices and each item on the original maternal and paternal SIDEs. Mothers displayed
favoritism towards more intelligent sons in the areas of (a) pride, (b) enjoyment in talking with,
16
A main effect for participant sex had been found as well. Due to making specific predictions based upon
participant sex, I could not control for participant sex for these analyses. However, in Appendix N, I control for
participant sex by running bivariate correlations comparing only same-sex dyads.
and (c) listening to opinions, all p’s < .05. Fathers showed favoritism towards less intelligent
sons regarding sensitivity to thoughts and feelings, p = .02 (See Table 8). Mothers showed
favoritism toward more intelligent daughters in the areas of (a) pride, (b) enjoyment in talking
with, (c) giving what was requested, (d) doing favors for, (e) doing things with, (f) being
supportive, (g) listening to the opinion of, and (h) respect, all p’s < .05. Fathers favored more
intelligent daughters in the areas of (a) pride and (b) being supportive of, and (c) listening to
opinions, all p’s < .05 (See Table 9). Thus, it appears that for female participants, greater
intelligence compared to a sibling was associated with parental favoritism more so than was the
case for male participants. Therefore, the data did not support my hypothesis.
For Hypothesis 5, I expected that male participants who reported being more
ambitious/industrious than their sibling to also report being the recipient of parental favoritism. I
did not expect such a relationship regarding female participants. To test this hypothesis, I
performed separate correlations for male and female participants between original maternal and
paternal SIDE composite indices and the ambition/industriousness composite index.
I performed a partial correlation controlling for sibling hierarchy 17 (older or younger).
There was not a significant correlation between relative male ambition/industriousness and
maternal favoritism, r(134) = .03, p = .77. Additionally, there was no correlation between
ambition/industriousness and paternal favoritism, r(134) = .12, p = .16, after conducting a partial
correlation controlling for sibling hierarchy.
17
A main effect for participant sex had been found as well. Due to making specific predictions based upon
participant sex, I could not control for participant sex for these analyses. However, in Appendix N, I control for
participant sex by running bivariate correlations comparing only same-sex dyads.
In order to more fully examine the data, I correlated the ambition/industriousness
composite index with each original maternal and paternal SIDE item. Mothers favored more
ambitious/industrious sons in the areas of (a) pride, (b) listening to opinions, and (c) respecting,
all p’s < .05. Additionally, mothers favored less ambitious/industrious sons in the area of
sensitivity to feelings and thoughts, p < .05. Fathers favored more ambitious/industrious sons in
the areas of (a) pride, (b) enjoyment in talking with, and (c) respect, all p’s < .05 (See Table 10).
Therefore, the data did not support my hypothesis because ambition/industriousness was not
associated with parental favoritism for male participants.
The second part of my hypothesis consisted of the prediction that no significant
correlation existed between female participants’ relative ambition/industriousness and parental
favoritism. Analyses indicated that there was no significant correlation between
ambition/industriousness and maternal favoritism, r(269) = .11, p = .06. Additionally, there was
no significant correlation between relative ambition/industriousness and paternal favoritism,
r(269) = .08, p = .20 after conducting a partial correlation controlling for sibling hierarchy.
In order to more fully examine the data, I correlated the relative ambition/industriousness
composite index with each original maternal and paternal SIDE item. Mothers showed favoritism
toward more ambitious/industrious daughters in the areas of (a) pride, (b) enjoyed doing things
with, (c) showing interest in, (d) enjoying talking with, (e) doing favors for, (f) doing things
with, (g) being supportive, (h) listening to opinions, and (i) respecting, all p’s < .05. Fathers
showed favoritism toward more ambitious/industrious daughters in the areas of (a) pride, (b)
being supportive, (c) listening to opinions, and (d) respecting, all p’s < .05 (See Table 11). Thus,
it appears that for female participants, greater ambition/industriousness compared to a sibling

was associated with parental favoritism more so than was the case for male participants.
Therefore, my hypothesis was not supported.
For my sixth and final hypothesis, I expected that female participants who reported being
physically more attractive than their sibling would also report being the recipient of parental
favoritism. I did not expect such a relationship regarding male participants. To test this
hypothesis, I performed separate correlations for male and female participants between original
maternal and paternal SIDE composite indices and the relative physical attractiveness composite
index.
I performed a partial correlation between SIDEs and relative physical attractiveness,
controlling for sibling hierarchy 18 (older or younger), as indicated by earlier analyses. There was
not a significant correlation between relative female attractiveness and maternal favoritism,
r(269) = .03, p = .62. Additionally, there was no correlation between relative attractiveness, and
paternal favoritism, r(269) = .07, p = .23, after conducting a partial correlation controlling for
sibling hierarchy.
In order to more fully examine the data, I correlated relative physical attractiveness with
each original maternal and paternal SIDE item. As seen in Table 12, both mothers and fathers
displayed favoritism towards physically more attractive daughters in the areas of a) giving
money to and b) buying things for, all p’s < .05. Fathers also showed favoritism in the area of
enjoying doing things with, p = .04.
18
Exploratory analyses found in Appendix N, examine the association of physical attractiveness and parental
favoritism when looking at only same-sex sibling dyads. Such examinations eliminate potential confounds that
might exist in mixed-pair sibling dyads.
The second part of my hypothesis consisted of the prediction that no significant
correlation existed between male participants’ relative physical attractiveness and parental
favoritism. There was not a significant correlation between relative physical attractiveness and
maternal favoritism, r(134) = -.06, p = .48, nor for paternal favoritism, r(134) = .06, p = .51, after
conducting a partial correlation controlling for sibling hierarchy.
In order to more fully examine the data, I correlated physical attractiveness with each
original maternal and paternal SIDE item. Mothers showed favoritism towards less physically
attractive sons in the areas of a) strictness, b) punishing, and c) disciplining, whereas fathers
showed favoritism towards less physically attractive sons in the area of respect, all p’s < .05 (See
Table 13). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was partially supported. Mothers and fathers appear to favor
physically more attractive female participants on several dimensions, whereas both mothers and
fathers appear to favor less attractive male participants on several dimensions.
Summary and Conclusions
Overall, mixed findings occurred with my hypotheses being supported, partially
supported, as well as not supported. Paternal resemblance data demonstrated strongest support
for my hypotheses. As expected, it appeared that the child who was identified as striking a
greater facial/physical resemblance to the father also tended to be identified as the recipient of
paternal favoritism. Additionally, and as I predicted, there was no significant correlation between
maternal facial/physical resemblance and being identified as the recipient of maternal favoritism.
Although participants reported that mothers and fathers displayed favoritism at
approximately equal rates, participants reported a significant difference between mothers and
fathers in specific areas comprising parental favoritism. In fact, and as expected, participants
reported that fathers significantly manifested favoritism in more areas than mothers. Specifically,
fathers displayed favoritism to a greater degree than mothers in the areas of (a) showing interest
in children, (b) doing things with children, and (c) protecting children. Participants also reported
that mothers demonstrated favoritism to a greater degree than fathers regarding the punishment
of children.
Analyses of the socially competitive characteristics provided the least support for my
hypotheses. Partial support for my hypothesis regarding relative health was reached with fathers
demonstrating greater favoritism towards healthier children on several dimensions. However,
mothers were found to favor less healthy children on several dimensions, and there was no
overall significant correlation between health and parental favoritism. Similar findings occurred
regarding relative physical attractiveness, wherein no significant correlations were reached
between relative physical attractiveness and parental favoritism, however, both mothers and
fathers showed favoritism towards physically more attractive female children across several
dimensions.
Results regarding the association of relative intelligence and relative
ambition/industriousness with parental favoritism did not support my hypotheses. No overall
correlations between either male participants’ relative intelligence or ambition/industriousness
with parental favoritism were reached (See Table 14 for correlations between all measures).
Furthermore, both mothers and fathers displayed greater favoritism towards more intelligent
and/or more ambitious/industrious female participants than more intelligent and/or more
ambitious/industrious male participants across several dimensions.

DISCUSSION
Parental favoritism is a prevalent phenomenon that is reported by both parents and
children (Harris & Howard, 2001; Suitor & Pillemer, 2007). Despite its prevalence, limited
research has examined potential predictors of parental favoritism. Evolutionary psychologists
have identified two contexts that appear to influence psychological mechanisms associated with
parenting. These contexts include the genetic relatedness between offspring and parent, which is
associated with parental certainty/uncertainty, and the ability of offspring to convert parental
investment into fitness benefits for the parent (e.g., reproductive success). From these identified
contexts, I tested several theoretically-derived hypotheses to identify possible predictors of
parental favoritism. Specifically, I examined whether characteristics believed to be associated
with paternal uncertainty or reproductive success correlated with parental favoritism.
First, I review the major findings from the study and discuss some implications of the
findings. Next, I offer possible explanations for results that were not consistent with my
hypotheses. In the final section, I highlight some of the study’s limitations, and make
recommendations for future studies.
Support for hypotheses. The strongest support for my hypotheses comes from finding a
significant correlation between paternal resemblance and paternal favoritism. Individuals,
whether they be male or female, who purported to share a greater paternal facial resemblance
(relative to their sibling) also tended to be identified as the recipient of paternal favoritism. As
expected, no correlation, however, was obtained between maternal resemblance and maternal
favoritism. Paternal favoritism appeared to be manifested through both psychological (e.g.,
respects us) and financial (e.g., buys us things) means. Evolutionary psychologists posit that
males have developed kin-discrimination mechanisms because they have helped to solve the
adaptive problem of cuckoldry. Thus, it appears that physical resemblance plays a unique role for
fathers regarding their parental responses to putative offspring.
Obtaining a relationship between paternal resemblance and paternal favoritism extends
previous research on this topic and contributes to this literature in an important manner. Previous
studies, relying on hypothetical situations, have demonstrated that males might utilize physical
resemblance as a kin-discrimination mechanism (Platek et al., 2002). In Platek et al.’s (2002)
study, participants were asked to assume the role of a caregiver and make judgments on children
who were depicted in photos; participants were not actual mothers or fathers. Thus, one must
project findings from this study towards expected behavior of male participants once they in fact
become fathers. No such "leap of faith" is required for my results because my data were collected
in a more ecologically valid manner, in that actual children reported the behaviors of their actual
parents (i.e., the study contained no hypothetical elements). Additionally, the current research
complements the few studies wherein ecological validity is less of a concern (Burch and Gallup,
2000). In this study, fathers’ relationships with their children were assessed via one question
(quality of the father-child relationship). The current research presents a more comprehensive
assessment of parenting behaviors because I assessed a wider range of parental responses.
Moreover, the Burch & Gallup study relied on a very circumscribed and potentially atypical
sample of men enrolled in a domestic violence treatment program. My sample in contrast is
likely to have produced results that are more generalizable. Lastly, the current research is one of
the few, if not the only, to examine both maternal and paternal physical resemblance in an
ecologically valid manner.
Clinical implications exist regarding the finding that fathers tend to favor children who
more closely resemble them. Differential parental treatment is a commonly discussed matter
during psychotherapy (Harris & Howard, 1985). The perception of unfair treatment from parents
appears to impact one’s psychological development and well-being. For example, non-favored
children report greater feelings of anger and depression (Altus, 1970; Elicker, England, &
Sroufe, 1992; Gecas, 1971; Harris & Howard, 1985). Additionally, the non-favored status has
been associated with problems relating to self-esteem and self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965; Ross,
Dalton, & Milgram, 1980; Sears, 1970). Paternal favoritism, in particular, has been associated
with the non-favored child more likely to view oneself as being incompetent and boring (Harris
& Howard, 1985). Specific to males, paternal absence has been associated with greater risk
taking and higher mortality rates in adulthood (Geary, 2000). A non-favored status for daughters
regarding the father has been associated with a number of costs as well including greater mistrust
of others (Erikson, 1998; Fuori, 2005).
Knowledge of the relationship between paternal resemblance and paternal favoritism
might aid in the clinical treatment of non-favored individuals seeking therapy. Mental health
professionals who are aware of the correlation between resemblance and favoritism can pursue
this line of questioning in treatment. From the clinical discussion and exploration of this topic,
clients may develop insight into some underlying contributing factors towards their feelings of
mistrust, lowered self-esteem, etc. noted in the research examining the consequences of
favoritism. Insight is believed by many to serve a crucial role regarding the change process
(Carey, Carey, Stalker, Mullan, Murray, & Spratt, 2007).
Hypotheses that were not supported. In general, my prediction that fathers would
manifest more favoritism than mothers was not strongly supported. Due to the severe paucity of
research examining paternal favoritism, such a finding cannot be contrasted with the previous
literature. Thus, my study is one of the few to specifically examine fathers and compare their
parenting behaviors to those of mothers. Although results pertaining to this hypothesis were not
overwhelmingly consistent, the current study did indicate that certain differences might exist
between mothers and fathers regarding their parenting behaviors when one examines specific
behaviors. For example, fathers were shown to demonstrate more favoritism than mothers in
several activities: showing interest in children, protecting children, and engaging in activities
with children. In addition, mothers were shown to display more favoritism than fathers regarding
punishing children. Such findings suggest that parenting behaviors might be rather circumscribed
with specific behaviors being relegated to either mothers or fathers, and thus each parent
manifests favoritism through different avenues. Consequently, a strength of this study is that I
examined favoritism as a multi-faceted, complex construct rather than as a general or uni-
dimensional one.
Viewing parental favoritism as a multi-faceted, rather than uni-dimensional construct
holds numerous implications for future research. Previous research typically viewed favoritism
as uni-dimensional (Suitor et al., 2006). Because the current study’s findings appear to
demonstrate that parental favoritism is a complex construct comprised of numerous behaviors,
some of which appear to be more relevant for a particular parent (mother or father), viewing
favoritism in a uni-dimensional or general way strongly handicaps one’s ability to state that
favoritism in fact, was assessed. In fact, it appears more prudent, as well as might result in
potentially greater findings, if future studies highlight parental favoritism’s complex nature by
developing novel measures wherein favoritism is not assessed by composite scores or uni-
dimensional measures but rather is assessed across several dimensions.
Overall, my predictions regarding the roles of relative health, relative intelligence,
relative ambition/industriousness, and relative physical attractiveness were not strongly

supported by the data. The lack of strong support for the hypothesis that healthy children would
be favored is particularly surprising because previous studies demonstrate that health appears to
influence parental treatment (Baratt, Roach, & Leavitt, 1996; Hagen, 1999; Mann, 1992). A
potential reason why findings were not supportive might be the fact that limited differences on
health existed between participants and siblings. The data show that on average, participants
indicated equitable health with siblings. Therefore, it would be unlikely for health to serve as a
correlate of parental favoritism because no differences existed between the two groups
(participant and sibling). In the previous studies wherein health was shown to be a predictor of
favoritism, rather drastic health differences existed between siblings (e.g., one sibling has a
congenital abnormality whereas the other does not). Such drastic differences might explain why
findings indicated health to be a predictor of parental favoritism because it was a much more
salient issue.
A priori, I expected participants and siblings to be relatively healthy, in part because it is
unlikely for individuals with severely compromised health (e.g., cerebral palsy) to attend college.
Therefore I felt my study offered potentially unique contributions in that I could assess rather
subtle influences of health regarding parental favoritism. However, I might have used a measure
that was not sensitive enough to measure subtle health differences. The current study’s health
measure consisted of only a few general items, thus reducing my likelihood of assessing subtle
health differences. Future studies might wish to develop a more comprehensive health measure
in order to more effectively assess for potential health differences, especially if participants are
likely to be relatively healthy.
A second unexpected finding on the topic of health included several findings
demonstrating both mothers and fathers favoring less healthy children on certain parenting
dimensions (e.g., enjoy doing things with). At first blush, this finding is unexpected due to its
counterintuitive nature. It would seem counterproductive for a parent to invest limited resources
in a child who might not reach sexual maturity and be reproductively successful. However,
recent research indicates that when resources are plentiful, parents tend to invest more in less
healthy children as compared to healthier children (Beaulieu & Bugental, 2008; Bugental &
Beaulieu, 2003). The logic is that parents with abundant resources can afford to invest a greater
amount of resources in a child with lower reproductive, compared to a healthier (i.e., higher
reproductive value) child because the parent still has an adequate amount of resources remaining
to invest in other children. In so doing, the reproductive value of healthy children is not
compromised and the parent might receive an added reproductive success benefit in aiding a
reproductively compromised child in reaching a status wherein reproductive success is possible.
Thus, the parent now has a greater number of children who are reproductively successful than a
parent who invests all resources in healthy children, neglecting the health-compromised children
(Beaulieu & Bugental, 2008). Thus, one reason for the current study’s finding of parents
favoring less healthy children is that these children are from families where the parents have the
luxury of investing greater resources in less healthy children without compromising the
reproductive success of the healthier children. In fact, 20% of participants reported family
incomes of over $100,000. Families with this much earning power might have enough resources
to be able to invest more heavily in less healthy children without compromising the reproductive
success of healthier children. Therefore, my study provides added support to the theory being
posed by Bugental and Beaulieu.
Previous studies indicate that intelligence and ambition/industriousness are associated
with parental favoritism. The current literature reinforced, as well as made such findings more
precise, because I examined sex differences whereas the previous literature had not. Both
mothers and fathers were reported to favor the more intelligent and more ambitious/industrious
daughter across more domains than was true for sons. Such a finding was not expected because I
believed that intelligence and ambition/industriousness were more closely associated with male,
rather than female, reproductive success.
Review of the mate preferences literature might shed light on why parents appeared to
favor the more intelligent daughter. Buss et al.’s (1990) cross-cultural study examining mate
preferences found that males rated intelligence in females as a desirable trait. Specifically, males
ranked intelligence second in their listing of desirable mate characteristics. As such, It would
appear that intelligence might be associated with female reproductive success. Taking this into
account, it is then not unexpected for parents to favor more intelligent daughters because
intelligence is associated with female reproductive success.
However, intelligence was also highly ranked as a desirable mate characteristic for males
(Buss et al., 1990). Therefore, it remains uncertain why the intelligence of males was not
associated with maternal or paternal favoritism. Regarding male reproductive success, stronger
correlates than intelligence or ambition/industriousness might exist. Based upon evolutionary
theory, I held the belief that intelligence correlated with resource acquisition, which then
correlated with male reproductive success. Therefore, women find intelligent, ambitious males to
be desirable mates because such traits are associated with a male’s ability to acquire important
resources. With my findings indicating that male intelligence did not significantly correlate with
favoritism, it is possible that stronger correlates for male reproduce exist. In other words,
additional characteristics exist that are more predictive of a male’s ability to achieve dominance,
high social status, and thus, greater resource acquisition.

Research indicates that “toughness” and athleticism are associated with social status for
males (Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006). As noted earlier, people of higher social status are treated
with more respect and deference, obtain better food, larger territory, and have access to more
desirable mates (Buss, 2007). It is possible that factors such as “toughness” and athleticism are
more predictive of male reproductive success than is intelligence. Additionally, characteristics
associated with “toughness,” such as physical strength and height might also serve as better
correlates for male reproductive success. Therefore, inclusion of these characteristics in the
current study might have produced more robust findings than utilizing intelligence and
ambition/industriousness as predictors for social status and male reproductive success.
Several reasons exist for why my physical attractiveness predictions were not supported.
First, my relative attractiveness measure might have poorly assessed physical attractiveness. Few
in-depth, self-report attractiveness measures seemingly exist. The majority of studies examining
physical attractiveness appear to utilize rating groups, wherein a number of individuals examine
photographs and then an attractiveness score for the photographed individual is determined
(Brown, Cash, & Noles, 1986; Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, & Wu, 1995; Mathes,
Brenna, Haugen, & Rice, 1985). My study solely relied on self-report. The fact that the majority
of studies assessing physical attractiveness do not use self-report, suggests that self-report is a
less ideal measure.
BMI, an objective measure, might have served as a better measure for physical
attractiveness. Recent research indicates that BMI is a significant predictor of attractiveness
(Cornelissen, Tovee, & Bateson, 2009). Thus, using BMI to assess physical attractiveness seems
promising, and the BMI’s reported by participants might be accurate, objective predictors of
attractiveness. Unfortunately, participants were not asked to report the BMI’s of their respective
sibling. This failure rendered the current study’s author unable to compare participants’ BMI’s
with those of their siblings’. Therefore, BMI could not be utilized as a measure for physical
attractiveness. Due to the recent evidence that BMI serves as a measure for physical
attractiveness, it is recommended that future studies utilize this measure.
Besides the specific speculations I have offered to explain a lack of support for several of
my hypotheses, several global reasons exist for why I did not achieve all expected findings. First,
my study relied on self-report. A plethora of social psychology research has repeatedly
demonstrated that a majority of people tend to view themselves as better than average (Alicke &
Govorun, 2005; Taylor and Brown, 1988). The current study does not appear to be immune from
the “better-than-average” effect. For example, 66% of participants reported being more
intelligent than their sibling; compared to only 28% of participants indicating that their sibling
was more intelligent. Sixty-two percent reported being more ambitious/industrious than their
sibling; compared to only 23% who reported that their sibling was more ambitious/industrious.
Differences remained consistent regarding physical attractiveness but were less drastic. Thus,
one must review the self-report findings skeptically, especially for factors deemed socially
desirable (e.g., intelligence, physical attractiveness).
Two specific methodological changes could be implemented to address the problem of
the “better-than-average” effect. First, future studies might wish to seek corroborating evidence.
For example, the current study would have benefited by also obtaining data from participants’
parents, as well as from their compared-to sibling. Inclusion of these two parties would have
allowed me to compare responses across parties, therefore allowing me to assess the veracity of
self-report data from participants. For example, the case where both parents and both children
(participant and compared-to sibling) indicate child X as being more intelligent is more
compelling than when only the participant self-identifies as being more intelligent, whereas
parental and sibling report indicate otherwise.
Second, future studies should include more objective measures than those utilized by the
current study. For example, intelligence could be determined via standardized intelligence
measures (e.g., Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition). Regarding attractiveness,
participants could provide photos of themselves and their siblings. Photos would be rated by a
panel of independent raters, thus establishing a more “objective” determination of attractiveness.
Usage of more objective measures reduces bias, as well as would allow for the researcher to
reach greater confidence regarding the veracity of reporting.
Concluding remarks. I wish to end the discussion highlighting the strengths of the current
study. First, my study viewed parental favoritism as a complex construct and as such, I made
efforts to assess its complexities. Typically, studies define parental favoritism in a rather narrow
manner such as simply asking participants if their parents displayed favoritism (Zervas & Martin,
1994 ) or asking parents if they felt emotionally closer to a particular child (Suitor, Sechrist,
Steinhour, & Pillemer, 2006). By measuring favoritism across a range of psychological and
financial areas, I was able to move beyond simply reporting prevalence rates. Second, I included
fathers in the study. The majority of studies focus solely on mothers, thus ignoring 50% of the
parent dyad. Additionally, I generated theoretically-driven hypotheses of potential correlates of
parental favoritism. Many studies attempt to identify such correlates post-hoc (Zervas &
Sherman, 1994). By generating theoretically-driven hypotheses, my findings, particularly those
regarding paternal resemblance are more compelling than in the cases where such findings are
simply “discovered” upon the study’s completion. Finally, the current study’s findings regarding
paternal resemblance, the favoring of less healthy children, and sex differences offer additional
avenues for future studies to examine, as well as demonstrates the potentially valuable
contribution to the literature that can be made by applying evolutionary-based theories towards
unexplained, yet highly salient phenomenon such as parental favoritism.

REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. & Heggestadt, E. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for
overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219 – 245.
Adler, A. (1932). What life should mean to you. A Porter (Ed.). London: George Allen and
Uwin.
Adler-Baeder, F. (2006). What do we know about the physical abuse of stepchildren? A review
of the literature. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44(3), 67 – 81.
Alicke, M., Smith, R., & Klotz, M. (1986). Judgments of physical attractiveness: The role of
faces and bodies: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 381 – 389.
Alicke, M. & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. In M.D. Alicke, D.A.
Dunning, & J.I. Krueger (Eds.), The self in social judgment (pp. 85 – 106). New York:
Psychology Press.
Alley, T. & Scully, K. (1994). The impact of actual and perceived changes in body weight on
women’s physical attractiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(4), 535 – 542.
Anderson, K., Kaplan, H., Lancaster, J. (1999). Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers
I: Reports from Albuquerque men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 405 – 431.
Anderson, K., Kaplan, H., Lancaster, J. (1999). Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers
II: Reports by Xhosa high school students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 433 –
451.
Ashwell, M., Cole, T., & Dixon, A. (1985). Obesity: New insight into the anthropometric
classification of fat distribution shown by computed tomography. British Medical
Journal, 290, 1692 – 1694.

Baker, R. & Bellis, M. (1995). Human Sperm Competition. London: Chapman & Hall.
Baker, L. & Daniels, D. (1990). Nonshared environmental influences and personality
differences in adult twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 103 – 110.
Baratt, M., Roach, M., & Leavitt, L. (1996). The impact of low-risk prematurity on maternal
behavior and toddler outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19,
581-602.
Barden, R., Ford, M., Jensen, A., Rogers-Salyer, M., & Salyer, K. (1989). Effects of
craniofacial deformity in infancy on the quality of mother-infant interactions. Child
Development, 60, 819-824.
Beaulieu, D. & Bugental, D. (2008). Contingent parental investment: An evolutionary
framework for understanding early interaction between mothers and children. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 29, 249 – 255.
Bell, D. (2001). Evolution of parental caregiving. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
5(3), 216 – 229.
Bjorklund, D. & Shackelord, T. (1999). Differences in parental investment contribute to
important differences between men and women. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 8(3), 86 – 90.
Bjorklund, D. & Yunger, J. (2001). Evolutionary developmental psychology: A useful
framework for evaluating the evolution of parenting. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1,
63 – 66.
Brackbill, Y., Kitch, D., & Noffsinger, W. (1988). The perfect child (from an elderly parent’s
point of view). Journal of Aging Studies, 2, 243 – 254.

Bredart, S. & French, R. (1999). Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers? A
failure to replicate Christenfeld and Hill. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 129 – 135.
Brody, G. & Burke, M. (1994). Sibling relationships and their association with parental
differential treatment. In E. M. Hetherington, D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.). Separate
social worlds of siblings: The impact of nonshared environment on development (pp. 129
– 142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brody, G., Stoneman, Z., & Burke, M. (1987). Child temperaments, maternal differential
behavior, and sibling relationships. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 354 – 362.
Brown, T., Cash, T., & Noles, S. (1986). Perceptions of physical attractiveness among college
students: Selected determinants and methodological matters. Journal of Social
Psychology, 126(3), 305 – 317.
Bugental, D. & Beaulieu, D. (2003). A bio-social cognitive approach to understanding and
promoting the outcomes of children with medical and physical disorders. In R. Kail (Ed.),
Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 31, 229 – 258). New York: Academic
Press.
Burch, R. & Gallup, G. (2000). Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family violence.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 429 – 435.
Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing
in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Buss, D., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., & 45 other co-authors. (1990).
International preferences in selecting mates. A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 21, 5 – 47.
Buss, D., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies: An evolutionary perspective on human
mating. Psychological Review, 2, 204 – 232.
Carey, T., Carey, M., Stalker, K., Mullan, R, Murray, L., & Spratt, M. (2007). Psychological
change from the inside looking out: A qualitative investigation. Counseling and
Psychotherapy Research, 7(3), 178 – 187.
Chalfant, D. (1994). Birth order, perceived parental favoritism, and feelings toward parents.
Individual Psychology, 50, 53 – 57.
Clutton-Brock, T. & Vincent, A. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of
males and females. Science, 351, 58-60.
Collette, F., Van der Linden, M., Delfiore, G., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., & Salmon, E. (1999).
The functional anatomy of inhibition processes investigated with the Hayling task.
Neuroimage, 14, 258-267.
Cornelissen, P., Tovee, M., & Bateson, M. (2009). Patterns of subcutaneous fat deposition and
the relationship between body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio: Implications for models
of physical attractiveness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 256, 343 – 350.
Cornell, D. & Grossberg, I. (1987). Family environment and personality adjustment in gifted
program children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 59 – 64.
Costa, P. & McRae, R (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-
PI-R) and NEO five-factor-inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Cox, C., Dupont, E., Whitehead, G., Ebert, M., Nguyen, K, Peltz, E., Peckham, D., Cantor, A,
Reintgen, D. (2002). Age and body mass index may increase the chance of failure in
sentinel lymph node biopsy for women with breast cancer. Breast Journal, 8(2), 88 -91.
Crase, S., Foss, C., Colbert, K. (1981). Children’s self-concept and perception of parents’
behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 108, 297 – 303.
Crouter, A., Manke, B., & McHale, S. (1995). The family context of gender intensification in
early adolescence. Child Development, 66, 317 – 329.
Cunningham, M., Roberts, A., Barbee, A., Druen, P., & Wu, C. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty
are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural
perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(2), 261 – 279.
Daniels, D., Dunn, J., Furstenberg, F., & Plomin, R. (1985). Environmental differences within
the family and adjustment differences within pairs of adolescent siblings. Child
Development, 56, 764 – 774.
Daniels, D., & Plomin, R. (1985). Differential experience of siblings in the same family.
Developmental Psychology, 21, 747 – 760.
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1982). Whom are newborn babies said to resemble? Ethology and
Sociobiology, 3, 69 -78.
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1990). Is parent – offspring conflict sex linked? Freudian and
Darwinian models. Journal of Personality, 58, 163 – 189.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, England: Oxford Univerity Press.
De Fruyt, F., Aluja, A., Garcia, L., Rolland, J., & Jung, S. (2006). Positive presentation
management and intelligence and the personality differentiation by intellignece
hypothesis in job applicants. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2),
101 – 112.
Despres, J., Prudhomme, D., Pouliot, M., Tremblay, A., & Bouchard, C. (1991). Estimation of
deep abdominal adipose-tissue accumulation from simple anthropometric measurements
in men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 54, 471 – 477.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285 – 290.
Duberman, L. (1975). The reconstituted family. A study of remarried couples and their
children. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Dunn, J. & McGuire, S. (1992). Sibling and peer relationships in childhood. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 67-106.
Dunn, J. & Plomin, R. (1991). Why are siblings so different? The significance of differences in
sibling experiences within the family. Family Processes, 30, 271-283.
Eagly, A., Makhijani, M., Ashmore, R., & Longo, L. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…:
A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.
Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109 -128.
Elder, G., Van Nguyen, T., & Caspi, A. (1985). Linking family hardship to children’s lives.
Child Development, 56, 361-375.

Essock-Vitale, S. & Mcguire, M. (1988). What 70 million years hath wrought: Sexual histories
and reproductive success of a random sample of American women. In L. Betzig, M.
Borgerhoff Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian
perspective (pp. 221-235). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, K. & Brase, G. (2007). Assessing sex differences and similarities in mate preferences:
Above and beyond demand characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
24(5), 781-791.
Fan, J., Dai, W., Liu, F., & Wu, J. (2005). Visual perception of male body attractiveness.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 219 – 226.
Fisher, R. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fisher, M. & Voracek, M. (2006). The shape of beauty: determinants of female physical
attractiveness. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 5(2), 190 – 194.
Flinn, M., Quinlan, R., Decker, S., Turner, M., & England, B. (1996). Male-female differences
in effects of parental absence on glucocorticoid stress response. Human Nature, 7, 125-
162.
Freud, S. (1970). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Geary, D. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55 – 77.
Geary, D. & Flinn, M. (2001). Evolution of parental behavior and the human family.
Parenting: Science and Practice 1, 5 – 61.
Gecas, V. (1971). Parental behavior and dimensions of adolescent self-evaluation. Sociometry,
34(4), 466 – 482.

Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &
F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, 7, (pp. 7 – 28). Tilburg, The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Goldberg, L., Johnson, J., Eber, H., Hogan, R., Ashton, M., Cloninger, R., & Gough, H. (2006).
The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality
measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84 – 96.
Gross, M. (2005). The evolution of parental care. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 80, 37 –
45.
Grych, J. (2001). On the origins of fathering: Implications of evolutionary perspective for
understanding links among marriage, divorce, and men’s parenting. Parenting: Science
and Practice, 1, 67 – 70.
Hagen, E. (1999). The functions of postpartum depression. Evolution and Human Behavior,
20, 325-359.
Hamilton, W. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. I and II. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 7, 1 – 52.
Harris, I. & Howard, K. (2001). Correlates of perceived parental favoritism. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 146, 45 – 56.
Hart, S., Carrington, H., Tronick, E., & Carroll, S. (2004). When infants lose exclusive
maternal attention: Is it jealousy? Infancy, 6(1), 57-78.
Henss, R. (1995). Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness. Replication and extension. Personality
and Individual Differences, 19, 479 – 488.

Henss, R. (2000). Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic
stimuli and methodological considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
501 – 513.
Hill, K. & Hurtado, A. (1996). Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging
people. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Howell, D. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
International Personality Item Pool: A Scientifc Collaboratory for the Development of
Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences
(http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.
Jackson, D., Paunonen, S., & Tremblay, P. (2000). Six Factor Personality Questionnaire. Port
Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Jenkinson, C., Coulter, A., & Wright, L. (1993). The SF – 36 Health Survey Questionnaire:
Normative data from a large random sample of working age adults. British Medical
Journal, 306, 1435 – 1440.
Keenan, J., Nelson, A., O’Connor, M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2001). Self-recognition and the
right hemisphere. Nature, 409, 305.
Kiracofe, N. (1992). Child-perceived parental favoritism and self-reported personal
characteristics. Individual Psychology, 48(3), 350 – 356.
Kiracofe, N. & Kiracofe, H. (1990). Child-perceived parental favoritism and birth order.
Individual Psychology, 46, 74 – 81.
Korchmaros, J. & Kenny, D. (2001). Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic
relatedness on altruism. Psychological Science, 12(3), 262 – 265.

Kyl-Heku, L., & Buss, D. (1996). Tactics as units of analysis in personality psychology: An
illustration using tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences,
21, 497-517.
Lamb, M. & Elster, A. (1985). Adolescent mother-infant-father relationships. Developmental
Psychology, 21, 768-773.
Langlois, J., Ritter, J., Casey, R., & Sawin, D. (1995). Infant attractiveness predicts maternal
behaviors and attitudes. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 464-472.
Leibel, R., Edens, N., Fried, S. (1989). Physiologic basis for the control of body fat distribution
in humans. Annual Reviews of Nutrition, 9, 417 – 443.
Lund, C., Tamnes, C., Moestue, C., Buss, D., & Vollrath, M. (2007). Tactics of hierarchy
negotiation. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 25 – 44.
MacDonald, K. (1993). Parent-child play: An evolutionary perspective. In K. MacDonald
(Ed.), Parent-child play: Descriptions and implications (pp. 113-143). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Maheshwan, A., Hamilton, M., & Bhattacherya, S. (2008). Effect of female age on the diagnostic
categories of infertility. Human Reproduction, 23(3), 538 – 542.
Mann, J. (1992). Nurturance of negligence: Maternal psychology and behavioral preference
among preterm twins. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind
(pp. 367-390). New York: Oxford University Press.
Markey, C., Tinsley, B., Ericksen, A., Ozer, D., & Markey. (2002). Preadolescent’s perception of
female’s body size and shape: evolutionary and social learning perspective. Journal of
Youth and Adolescents, 31, 137 – 147.

Marti, B., Tuomilehto, J., Saloman, V., Kartovaara, L., Korhonen, H., & Pietinen. (1991). Body
fat distribution in the Finnish population: Environmental determinants and predictive
power for cardiovascular risk factor levels. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 45, 131 – 137.
Mathes, E., Brennan, S., Haugen, P., & Rice, H. (1985). Ratings of physical attractiveness as a
function of age. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(2), 157 – 169.
McHale, S. & Pawletko, T. (1992). Differential treatment of siblings in two family contexts.
Child Development, 63, 68 – 81.
McLain, D., Setters, D., Moulton, M., & Pratt, A. (2000). Ascription of resemblance of
newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evolution and Human Behavior 21, 11 – 23.
Nielsen, L. (2007). College daughters’ relationships with their fathers: A 15 year study.
College Study Journal, 41, 112 – 121.
Myers, S. (2004). Religion and intergenerational assistance: Distinct differences by adult
children’s gender and parent’s marital status. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 67 –89.
Nevid, J. (1984). Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction. Sex Roles, 11, 401 – 411.
Newman, J. (1996). The more the merrier? Effects of family size and sibling spacing on
sibling relationships. Childcare Health Development, 22, 285-302.
Pagel, M. (1997). Desperately concealing father: A theory of parent – infant resemblance.
Animal Behavior, 53, 973 – 981.
Pallone, N. & Hennessy, J. (1989 - 1993). Review of the SF – 36 Health Survey. Located in
Mental Measurements Yearbook Database.

Perusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the
relationship at proximate and ultimate levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267-
322.
Platek, S., Burch, R., Panyavin, I., Wasserman, B., Gallup, G. (2002). Reactions to children’s
faces: Resemblance affects males more than females. Evolution and Human Behavior,
23, 159 -166.
Platek, S., Keenan, J., & Mohamed, F. (2005). Sex differences in the neural correlates of child
facial resemblance: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 25, 1336 – 1344.
Platek, S. & Shackelford, T. (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary
perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics. Cambridge University Press.
Pleck, J. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M.E. Lamb
(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66-103). New York: Wiley.
Price, G. (1970). Selection and covariance. Nature, 227, 520-521.
Puhl, R. & Boland, F. (2001). Predicting female physical attractiveness. Psychology, Evolution,
and Gender, 3, 27 – 46.
Read, J., Quinn, R., & Hoefer, M. (1987). Measuring overall health: An evaluation of three
important approaches. Journal of Chronic Diseases(Supp.), 75 – 215.
Reid, A. (1997). Locality or class. Spatial and social differentials in infant and child mortality
in England and Wales, 1895-1911. In C.A. Corsini and P.P. Viazzo (Eds.), The decline of
infant and child mortality (pp. 129-154). The Hague, the Netherlands: martinus Nijhoff.
Rogers, R., Rammani, N., Mackay, C., Wilson, J., Jezzard, Pl, Carter, C., Smith, S. (2002).
Distinct portions of anterior cingulated cortex and medial prefrontal cortex are activated
by reward processing in separable phases of decision-making cognition. Biological
Psychiatry, 55, 594-602.
Sapolsky, R. (1986). Glucocorticoid toxicity in the hippocampus: Reversal by supplementation
with brain fuels. Journal of Neuroscience, 6, 2240-2244.
Sears, R. (1970). A treatment of worth. Contemporary Psychology, 14, 146 – 147.
Shackelford, T. & Goetz, A. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 47 – 50.
Shackelford, T., Schmitt, D., & Buss, D. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate
preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447 – 458.
Singh, D. (1993a). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip
ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293 – 307.
Singh, D. (1993b). Body shape and women’s attractiveness. The critical role of waist-to-hip
ratio. Human Nature, 4, 297 – 321.
Singh, D. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role
of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(6), 1089 – 1101.
Singh, S. & Randall, P. (2007). Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-hip ratio
(WHR) and women’s attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 329 –
340.
Suitor, J. & Pillemer, K. (2000). Did mom really love you best? Developmental histories,
status transitions, and parental favoritism in later life families. Motivation and Emotion,
24(2), 105 – 120.
Suitor, J. & Pillemer, K. (2006). Choosing daughters: Exploring why mothers favor adult
daughters over sons. Sociological Perspectives, 49(2), 139 – 160.
Suitor, J. & Pillemer, K. (2007). Mothers’ Favoritism in Later Life. The role of children’s birth
order. Research on Aging, 29, 32-55.
Suitor, J., Sechrist, J., Steinhour, M., & Pillemer, K. (2006). “I’m sure she chose me!” Accuracy
of children’s report of mother’s favoritism in later life families. Family Relations, 55, 526
– 538.
Swami, V., Miller, R., Furnham, A., Penke, L., Tovee, M. (2008). The influence of men’s sexual
strategies on perceptions of women’s bodily attractiveness, health, and fertility.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 98 – 107.
Swami, V., Smith, J., Tsiokris, A., Georgiades, C., Sangareau, Y., Tovee, M., & Furnham, A.
(2007). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece: A cross-cultural study. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 15 – 26.
Swami, V. & Tovee, M. (2008). The muscular male: A comparison of the physical attractiveness
preferences of gay and heterosexual men. International Journal of Men’s Health, 7, 59 –
71.
Taylor, P. & Glenn, N. (1976). The utility of education and attractiveness for females’ status
attainment through marriage. American Sociological Review, 41, 484-498.
Taylor, S. & Brown, J. (1988). Illusions and well-being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193 – 210.

Tooley, G., Karakis, M., Stokes, M., & Ozanne-Smith, J. (2006). Generalizing the Cinderella
effect to unintentional childhood fatalities. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 224-230.
Tovee, M. & Cornelissen. (2001). Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness
in front-view and profile. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 391 – 402.
Tovee, M., Mason, S., Emery, J., McClusky, S., & Cohen-Tovee, E. (1997). Super models: Stick
insects or hour glasses. The Lancet, 350, 1474 – 1475.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual
selection and the descent of man: 1871 – 1971 (pp. 136 – 179). Chicago: Aldine.
Trivers, R. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249 – 264.
Updergraff, K., McHale, S., Crouter, A., & Kupanoff, K. (2001). Parents’ involvement in
adolescents’ peer relationships: A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ roles. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 63, 655 – 668.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1978). 1976 survey of institutionalized persons: A study of
persons receiving long-term care. Current population reports. (Special Studies Series P –
23, No. 69). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vaillancourt, T. & Hymel, S. (2005). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex
and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 486 – 495.
Volk, A., Lukjanczuk, J., & Quinsey, V. (2005). Influence of infant and child facial cues of
low body weight on adults’ ratings of adoption preferences, cuteness, and health. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 26(5), 459-469.
Ware, J. & Sherbourne, C. (1992). The MOS36-item short-form health survey (SF – 36).
Medical Care, 30(6), 473 – 483.

Wilson, J., Tripp, D., & Boland, F. (2005). The relative contributions of waist-to-hip ratio and
body mass index to judgments of attractiveness. Sexualities, Evolution, and Gender, 7(3),
245 – 267.
Zervas, L. & Sherman, M. (1994). The relationship between perceived parental favoritism and
self-esteem. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 25 – 33.

APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORM
Department of Psychology
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0228
Bowling Green State University Phone: (419) 372-2301
FAX: (419) 372-6013
Web Page:http//www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/
Thoughts on Myself and My Family Fall, 2008

My name is Anthony Lauricella and I am the primary investigator for this study being conducted
at Bowling Green State University. You are invited to be in a research study on family
relationships. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this study. This study is my
Dissertation Project for the Psychology department. In this study, I am interested in better
understanding personal attributes of people, as well as their family relationships.
You will also be asked to provide some demographic information about (e.g., age, sex) yourself,
and answer some questions about yourself (e.g. your personality, work habits).
• Before the study begins, there are several things for you to note:
1. There are no right or wrong answers for the questionnaires used in this study. I am
interested solely in your personal opinions. The information you provide will
remain anonymous and others will not know of the answers you provided.
2. There are no known risks associated with you participating in this study.
3. Taking part in this study is your choice. If at any time during the study you would like to
quit for any reason please tell the experimenter. You will experience no penalty should
you decide not to participate or quit. Your participation in this study is expected to take
about 30 - 45 minutes.
4. You will receive 1 research credit for participating in this study. Your credit will be
noted on the experimetrix website which you can access at
http://www.experimetrix.com/bgsu/.
5. At the end of the study you will be given information about what I am trying to learn by
conducting this study. You will also receive information about how you may obtain the
results of this study when they are available.
6. I hope that by participating in this research you are able to gain an increased
understanding of psychological theory and how theory testing is conducted.
7. If you have any questions or comments concerning this research you should
contact Anthony Lauricella at 419-308-5578 or alauric@bgsu.edu, or my advisor Dr.
Anne Gordon at 419- 372-8161 or akg@bgsu.edu. Additionally, if you have any
questions about the conduct of this study or any concerns about your rights as a
research participant, you may contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Review Board
at 419-372-7716 or hsrb@bgnet.bgsu.edu.
If what is going to be asked of you is clear and you agree to voluntarily participate in
this study please click on the “OK” button to indicate your informed consent.
• If you wish to decline from participating in this study please click on the “NO” button
and close the webpage.
APPENDIX B
INSTRUCTIONS
You will now be asked a series of questions. Some questions will ask you about how you and a
fully-biological brother or sister were treated by your parent(s). Other questions will ask about
features, such as your personality and your behaviors.
For ALL questions, we would like you to compare yourself to the same fully-biological sibling.
In this context, a fully-biological sibling refers to a brother or sister who has the same biological
mother and biological father as you. As you answer the questions throughout the survey, please
respond to each question by comparing yourself to the same sibling for the entirety of the study.
Finally, please do NOT compare yourself to a step-, half-, or adopted sibling. For this phase of
this research, we are only interested in the relationship between fully-biological siblings.
For those of you with more than one sibling, we would like you to answer every question on
every survey in reference to the one fully-biological sibling who is CLOSEST to you in age. For
example, if you are 18 and you have a brother who is 10 (an 8-year age difference) and a sister
who is 20 (a 2-year age difference), you will answer every question in reference to yourself and
your 20-year-old sibling, because that sibling is the one who is closer to you in age. If you are 18
and you have a brother who is 13 (a 5-year difference) and one who is 23 (also a 5-year
difference), think about which sibling you spent more time at home with and answer the
questions in reference to yourself and that sibling.
Remember: It is important that for all of the questions, you compare yourself to one sibling and
that you compare yourself to the same sibling for all questions.
1. Check the statement that is true for you.
I have one full sibling.
I have more than one full sibling.
2. Type in the age of your full sibling.
3. My fully biological sibling is:
male
female
APPENDIX C
SIBLING INVNTORY OF DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCE (SIDE)
This questionnaire is to be completed in reference to your BIOLOGICAL MOTHER/FATHER.

It is not to be completed for stepmothers/fathers or for adoptive mothers/fathers. This
questionnaire is designed to ask you how similarly or differently your mother/father has
generally treated you and your fully biological sibling (brother or sister). For each item below,
compare yourself to your sibling during the time when you were growing up and living at home
and indicate which response most closely matches your opinion. If you have more than one full
sibling, please compare yourself with the sibling who is closest to you in age.
1 = In general, my mother/father has been much more this way towards my brother/sister than
me.
2 = In general, my mother/father has been somewhat more this way towards my brother/sister
than me.
3 = In general, my mother/father has been the same towards my brother/sister and me.
4 = In general, my mother/father has been somewhat more this way towards me than my
brother/sister.
5 = In general, my mother/father has been much more this way towards me than my
brother/sister.
1) Has been 1 2 3 4 5
strict with
2) Has been 1 2 3 4 5
proud of
3) Has enjoyed 1 2 3 4 5
doing things
together
4) Has been 1 2 3 4 5
sensitive to
thoughts and
feelings
5) Has 1 2 3 4 5
punished for
misbehavior
6) Has shown 1 2 3 4 5
interest in
7) Has blamed 1 2 3 4 5
for what
another family
member did
8) Has 1 2 3 4 5
protected
9) Has 1 2 3 4 5
disciplined
10) Has given 1 2 3 4 5
money
11) Has bought 1 2 3 4 5
things for
12) Has given 1 2 3 4 5
us freedom
over actions
13) Has 1 2 3 4 5
enjoyed talking
with
14) Has given 1 2 3 4 5
what was
requested
15) Has done 1 2 3 4 5
favors for
16) Has done 1 2 3 4 5
things with
17) Has been 1 2 3 4 5

supportive of
18) Has 1 2 3 4 5
criticized
19) Has 1 2 3 4 5
listened to the
opinions of
20) Has 1 2 3 4 5
respected
APPENDIX D
FORCED-CHOICE ITEM AND OBVIOUSNESS ITEM
1. Check the one that is most true for you.
My mother/father has favored me over my sibling.
My mother/father has favored my sibling over me.
My mother/father has not favored my sibling or me.
2. To what extent was your mother’s/father’s favoring of you or your sibling subtle or obvious.
1 = My mother’s/father’s favoritism was very subtle.
7 = My mother’s/father’s favoritism was very obvious.

APPENDIX E
RESEMBLANCE SCALE
For the following items record how similar you are with your father/mother when comparing
yourself to your brother/sister. In other words, for the following characteristics who looks more
like your mother/father, you or your sibling.
1 = My sibling is much more similar to my mother/father than I am.
2 = My sibling is somewhat more similar to my mother/father than I am.
3 = My sibling and I are equally similar to my mother/father.
4 = I am somewhat more similar to my mother/father than my sibling.
5 = I am much more similar to my mother/father than my sibling.
1. Whose eyes more 1 2 3 4 5

closely resemble your
mother’s/father’s
eyes?
2. Whose hair color 1 2 3 4 5
and texture more
closely resembles your
mother’s/father’s hair?
3. Whose nose more 1 2 3 4 5
closely resembles your
nose?
4. Whose mouth more 1 2 3 4 5
resembles your
mouth?
5. Overall, whose face
more closely
resembles your
mother’s/father’s face?
1= My sibling much more physically resembles my mother/father.
2= My sibling somewhat more physically resembles my mother/father.
3 = My sibling and I physically resemble my mother/father equally.
4 = I physically resemble my mother/father somewhat more than does my sibling.
5 = I physically resemble my mother/father much more than does my sibling.
6. Overall, who more physically 1 2 3 4 5

resembles your mother/father?
APPENDIX F
GENERAL HEALTH
This questionnaire is designed to ask you how similar or different you and your sibling (brother
or sister) are in terms of general health. For each item below, compare yourself to your sibling
and indicate which response most closely matches your opinion.
Remember that you are to compare yourself to the same sibling that you used for the previous
questions.
Definitely Somewhat Neither True Somewhat Definitely

False False nor False True True
1. I seem to get 1 2 3 4 5
sick more often
than does my
sibling.
2. I seem to 1 2 3 4 5
suffer from
aches/pain more
often than does
my sibling.
3. I seem to visit 1 2 3 4 5
a doctor or
health center
more often than
does my sibling.
4. I seem to take 1 2 3 4 5
medication for
illnesses more
often than my
sibling.
5. Overall, I 1 2 3 4 5
seem to be
healthier than
my sibling.
APPENDIX G
INTELLIGENCE MEASURE
On the following pages, there are phrases that describe people's behavior. Please use the rating
scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you, in comparison to your
sibling.
Respond to each item as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Try to
respond to the items as honestly as possible, and please read each statement carefully.
questions.

1. Compared to 1 2 3 4 5
my sibling, I have
a richer
vocabulary
my sibling, I have
less difficulty
understanding
abstract ideas.
my sibling, I can
better remember a
lot of information.
my sibling, I am
more likely to
have
philosophical
discussions.
my sibling, I am
more likely to
enjoy reading
challenging
material.
my sibling, I am
more interested in
abstract ideas.
my sibling, I am
more likely to
solve complex
problems.
my sibling, I am
more intelligent.
APPENDIX H
AMBITION/INDUSTRIOUSNESS MEASURE
sibling.
questions.

1. Compared to my 1 2 3 4 5
sibling, I work
harder.
sibling, I am more
likely to turn plans
into actions.
sibling, I put more
time and effort into
my work.
sibling, I do more
than what’s
expected of me.
sibling, I set higher
standards for myself
and others.
sibling, I am less
likely to do just
enough work to get
by.
sibling, I am more
likely to plunge into
tasks with all my
heart.
sibling, I am more
motivated to
succeed.
sibling, I place
more pressure on
myself to get things
done.
my sibling, I have a
faster pace to my
life.
my sibling, I am
more likely to put
work above
pleasure.
my sibling, I have
less extra time on
my hands.
my sibling, work is
a more important
part of my life.
my sibling, I am
more likely to
complete tasks
successfully.
my sibling, I have
more things to do.
my sibling, I am
more ambitious.
my sibling, I am a
harder work.
APPENDIX I
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS MEASURE
sibling.
questions.

True True nor False False False
1. I am 1 2 3 4 5
considered more
attractive than
my sibling.
2. I like my 1 2 3 4 5
body more than
does my sibling.
3. I have a more 1 2 3 4 5
pleasing body
type than my
sibling.
4. I like to show 1 2 3 4 5
off my body
more than does
my sibling.
5. I like to look 1 2 3 4 5
at myself in the
mirror more
than does my
sibling.
6. I am 1 2 3 4 5
physically more
attractive than
my sibling.
APPENDIX J
DEMOGRAPHICS FORM
1. Please enter your current age.
2. I am a ______ male ______female
3. Please enter your race.
4. Please indicate your height in feet and inches.
5. Please write down your weight in pounds.
6. My current GPA or best estimate is:
If you have no GPA, please record your high school GPA.
7. My family’s yearly household income is:
$0 – 20,000
$20,000 – 40,000
$40,000 – 60,000
$60,000 – 80,000
$80,000 – 100,000
over $100,000
I don’t know
APPENDIX K
POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
On the following lines, please describe in your own words, what you believe to have been
the purpose(s) of this study.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Please describe any additional comments regarding anything that was asked of you during your
participation in this study. Any feedback you provide may be very helpful in terms of how we
design future experiments.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX L
DEBRIEFING FORM
Department of Psychology
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0228
Bowling Green State University Phone: (419) 372-2301
FAX: (419) 372-6013
Web Page:http//www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/
THOUGHTS ON MYSELF AND MY FAMILY Fall 2008
Thank you for participating in this study!
Research suggests that parental favoritism is a very common phenomenon. This study was
designed to examine whether certain characteristics (e.g., ambition) influence the likelihood of
being favored by a parent(s). This research is important in that the results may lead to further
understanding of parental favoritism.
All participants completed the same questionnaires as you did. The numerous questionnaires
assessed your beliefs about your intelligence, ambition, industriousness, health, physical
attractiveness, and parental relations.
The theory behind this study is based on evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists
posit that certain contexts, such as genetic relatedness between parent and child and specific
characteristics related to fitness that are possessed by children may influence parenting
behaviors. Due to natural selection pressures, we believed that parents would be more likely to
favor children who possessed certain characteristics (e.g., ambition) that are likely to maximize
their ability to survive, thrive, and be reproductively successful (pass their genes on to future
generations).
• If you are interested in learning more about this topic, you may wish to read:
Geary, D. & Flinn, M. (2001). Evolution of parental behavior and the human family.
Parenting: Science and Practice 1, 5 – 61.
• If you are interested in learning the results of this study when they are available or have
any questions about this research, please contact:
Anthony Lauricella
alauric@bgnet.bgsu.edu
(419) 308-5578
Sometimes reflecting on one’s personal characteristics or relationship with family triggers

sensitive emotional material. If upon completing this survey, you find yourself experiencing
some form of emotional distress, a number of existing psychological service agencies are
available to assist you in further coping/exploring these issues. Some recommended agencies
include:
1) The Bowling Green State University Counseling Center

Location: 422 Saddlemire at North Conklin
Phone: 419 372 2081
Walk in hours are Monday – Thursday from 2:00 – 3:30 pm.
Or you can schedule an appointment
Regular hours: Mondays 8:00 am to 7:00 pm
Tuesday – Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Services are free for students
2)Psychological Services Center

Location: Psychology Building, Suite 300
Phone: 419 372 2540
Must call to schedule an appointment
Office hours are Monday, Thursday, and Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Tuesday and Wednesdays 8:00 am to 8:00 pm
Services are free for students
3)Psychological Resources Ltd.

Bowling Green Location: 970 W. Wooster St., Suite 124 Located in the Medical Building by
the Wood County Hospital
Phone: 419 352 6666
Toledo Location: 4841 Monroe Street, Suite 100

Phone: 419 475 0881
Must call to schedule an appointment.

Insurance may cover part of services
APPENDIX M
EXPERIMETRIX ANNOUNCEMENT
MUST BE 18 OR OLDER, HAVE TWO CURRENTLY MARRIED BIOLOGICAL PARENTS,

AND HAVE AT LEAST ONE FULLY BIOLOGICAL SIBLING (BROTHER OR SISTER) TO
PARTICIPATE.
This study examines characteristics about yourself and your family. If you decide to participate,
you will be asked to complete nine short questionnaires. I anticipate that it will take
approximately 30 - 45 minutes for most people to complete this study. Please note that your
answers will be anonymous. You will receive 1.0 research credits for this study.
APPENDIX N
EXPLORATORY ANALYSES
Maternal versus Paternal Favoritism
To further examine for differences between maternal favoritism and paternal favoritism, I
performed exploratory analyses (paired samples t-tests) by examining individual items on the
Original-coded maternal and Original-coded paternal SIDE composite indices. Similar to my
earlier analyses performed on Re-coded SIDE composite indices, results identified specific areas
wherein one parent appears to manifest favoritism more than the other parent (See Table 15).
Exploratory analyses indicated that mothers displayed greater favoritism than fathers in the areas
of (a) criticizing, (b) punishing, (c) enjoy talking with, (d) being strict with, (e) blaming for what
another family member did, and (f) doing things with, all p’s < .05. Fathers displayed greater
favoritism than mothers in the areas of (a) protecting and (b) giving money to. Thus, exploratory
analyses further demonstrated that mothers and fathers appear to manifest favoritism in unique
areas.
Sociocompetitive characteristics.
As noted earlier, I expected sex differences between children to exist regarding parental
favoritism and the possession of intelligence, ambition/industriousness, and physical
attractiveness. To more fully explore these hypotheses, I performed partial correlations,
controlling for sibling hierarchy, between parental SIDE composite indices and each construct
(relative intelligence, relative ambition/industriousness, relative physical attractiveness) between
the two same-sex sibling dyads (brothers and sisters). I believe such analyses allow for a “purer”
examination of the association of each construct with parental favoritism because comparison of
same-sex dyads allows for a “tighter” comparison than is true regarding comparison of mixed-
sibling dyads since both participant and sibling sex are controlled in same-sex sibling dyads.
Regarding relative intelligence and in the case of brothers (male participant-male sibling),
there was no significant correlation between relative intelligence and either maternal or paternal
favoritism after running a partial correlation controlling for sibling hierarchy, all p’s > .05.
However, mothers show favoritism towards the more intelligent son in the areas of (a) pride and
(b) listening to the opinion of, all p’s < .05. Fathers did not show favoritism towards the more
intelligent son in any area, all p’s > .05.
In the case of sisters, however, both mothers and fathers show favoritism towards the
more intelligent daughter, all p’s < .05. Specifically, mothers show favoritism in the areas of (a)
pride, (b) freedom over one’s actions, (c) enjoy talking with, (d) granting requests, (e) doing
favors for, (f) doing things with, (g) being supportive, (h) listening to opinions, and (i)
respecting. Fathers show favoritism in the areas of (a) pride, (b) freedom over one’s actions, (c)
enjoy talking with, (d) granting requests, (e) listening to opinions, and (f) respecting. Thus, it
would appear that both mothers and fathers favor the more intelligent daughter more so than the
more intelligent son.
In the case of brothers regarding relative ambition/industriousness, there was no
significant correlation between relative ambition/industriousness and either maternal or paternal
favoritism, all p’s > .05. However, mothers show favoritism towards the more
ambitious/industrious son in the areas of (a) pride and (b) listening to opinions, all p’s < .05.
Additionally, mothers show favoritism towards the less ambitious/industrious son in the areas of
(a) buying things for and (b) sensitivity towards thoughts and feelings, all p’s < .05. Fathers did
not show favoritism towards the more ambitious/industrious son in any area, all p’s > .05.
In the case of sisters, however, both mothers and fathers show favoritism towards the
more ambitious/industrious daughter, all p’s < .05. Specifically, mothers show favoritism in the
areas of (a) discipline, (b) pride, (c) enjoying doing things with, (d) showing interest in, (e)
freedom over one’s actions, (f) enjoy talking with, (g) granting requests, (h) doing favors for, (i)
doing things with, (j) support, (k) respect, and (l) listening to opinions, all p’s < .05. Fathers
show favoritism towards the more ambitious/industrious daughter in the areas of (a) pride, (b)
freedom over one’s actions, (c) enjoy talking with, (d) support, (e) listening to opinions, (f)
respecting, all p’s < .05. Thus, it would appear that both mothers and fathers favor the more
ambitious/industrious daughter more so than the more ambitious/industrious son.
Lastly, neither mothers nor fathers show favoritism towards the more attractive daughter,
in the case of sisters, all p’s > .05. However, mothers showed favoritism towards the more
attractive daughter in the areas of (a) giving money to, (b) freedom over one’s actions, and (c)
listening to opinions, all p’s < .05. Fathers did not favor the more attractive daughter in any area,
all p’s > .05.
In the case of brothers, neither mothers nor fathers show favoritism towards the more
attractive son, p’s > .05. However, mothers show favoritism towards the more attractive son in
the areas of (a) protection and (b) listening to opinions. Fathers show favoritism towards the less
attractive son in the area of respect, p’s = .03.
Summary
These findings corroborate, as well as deepen the original findings. It appears that
mothers and fathers manifest favoritism towards children in circumscribed areas. Additionally,
intelligence and ambition/industriousness appear to be more related to favoritism towards
daughters than sons, especially in the case of same-sex sibling dyads (brothers and sisters).
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations on Outcome Measures as a Function of Participant Sex
Males Females Total

(n = 145) (n = 280) (n = 425)
Forced-Choice Paternal Favoritism Item
Self favored 23% 25% 24%
Sibling Favored 20% 16% 18%
No favoritism 57% 59% 58%
Forced-Choice Maternal Favoritism Item
Self favored 26% 18% 21%
Sibling Favored 14% 19% 17%
No favoritism 60% 63% 62%
Maternal Favoritism Obviousness Item 3.41 (1.31) 3.49 (1.66) 3.46 (1.54)
Paternal Favoritism Obviousness Item 3.38 (1.77) 3.65 (.92) 3.56 (1.75)
Note. Obviousness ranges from 1 (very subtle) to 7 (very obvious).

Table 2.
Means and Standard Deviations of Physical Health Composite Index as a Function of
Participant Sex and Sibling Sex
_________________________________________________________________
Sex of Participant
Male Female Row Means

____________________________________________________________________
Sex of Sibling
Male 3.19 (.84) 2.86 (.83) 2.97 (.84)**
Female 3.62 (.86) 3.01 (.87) 3.21 (.91)**
Column Means 3.36 (.87)** 2.93 (.85)**
______________________________________________________________________
Note. ** p < .01.
Table 3.
Means and Standard Deviations of Intelligence Composite Index as a Function of Participant
Sex and Sibling Sex
_________________________________________________________________
Sex of Participant
Male Female Row Means

____________________________________________________________________
Sex of Sibling
Male 3.60 (.84) 3.42 (.81) 3.48 (.82)
Female 3.53 (.79) 3.21 (.86) 3.30 (.85)
Column Means 3.57 (.82)** 3.32 (.84)**
______________________________________________________________________
Note. ** p < .01.
Table 4.
Means and Standard Deviations on Dependent Measures as a Function of Sibling Hierarchy
Participant is Older Sibling Participant is Younger Sibling

(df = 204 – 207) (df = 190 – 196)
Maternal Favoritism 2.97 (.36) 3.04 (.38)

Paternal Favoritism 3.01 (.40) 3.09 (.43)
Health 3.13 (.86) 3.02 (.92)
Intelligence 3.61 (.78)** 3.19 (.86)**
Ambition/Industriousness 3.55 (.59)** 3.23 (.73)**
Physical Attractiveness 2.91 (.81)** 3.21 (.87)**
Maternal Resemblance 2.99 (.87) 3.02 (.89)
Paternal Resemblance 3.11 (.91) 3.05 (.94)
Note. ** p < .01.
Table 5.
Means and Standard Deviations of Re-coded SIDEs as a Function of Parental Sex
Maternal Favoritism Paternal Favoritism P
Has punished for 1.76 (.69) 1.60 (.70) .00**

misbehavior
Has shown interest in 1.24 (.51) 1.39 (.61) .00**
Has done things with 1.38 (.57) 1.51 (.67) .00**
Has protected 1.34 (.59) 1.42 (.65) .02*
Has bought things for 1.44 (.59) 1.38 (.62) .07
Has given freedom 1.65 (.66) 1.59 (.65) .08
over actions
Has done favors for 1.24 (.49) 1.29 (.54) .09
Has respected 1.15 (.40) 1.18 (.46) .14
Has enjoyed doing 1.53 (.61) 1.58 (.68) .15
things together
Has blamed for what 1.39 (.60) 1.35 (.57) .19
another family
member did
Has been supportive 1.19 (.45) 1.21 (.48) .31
of
Has given what was 1.27 (.52) 1.30 (.54) .35
requested
Has disciplined 1.49 (.61) 1.52 (.66) .52
Has given money 1.55 (.66) 1.53 (.69) .58
Has been strict with 1.76 (.69) 1.78 (.73) .69
Has listened to the 1.24 (.47) 1.25 (.52) .74
opinions of
Has enjoyed talking 1.48 (.63) 1.47 (.64) .76
with
Has criticized 1.41 (.59) 1.42 (.62) .89
Has been proud of 1.42 (.60) 1.47 (.63) .167
Has been sensitive to 1.41 (.59) 1.41 (.58) 1.000
thoughts and feelings
Overall 1.42 (.32) 1.43 (.36) .33
Note. Items in italics were reverse-coded so that higher score always indicated favoritism. Scores
ranged from 1 = no favoritism to 3 = high favoritism. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Table 6.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Physical Resemblance and Original SIDE Items
Maternal Resemblance Paternal Resemblance
Has been strict with .03 -.03

Has been proud of .10* .14**
Has enjoyed doing things .18** .13*
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts -.02 .02
and feelings
Has punished for misbehavior .03 -.01
Has shown interest in .01 .05
Has blamed for what another .03 -.01
family member did
Has protected .05 .02
Has disciplined -.03 -.03
Has given money -.02 .07
Has bought things for .03 .04
Has given freedom over actions -.04 .12*
Has enjoyed talking with .09 .04
Has given what was requested -.03 .15**
Has done favors for .03 .17*
Has done things with .10* .09
Has been supportive of .09 .12*
Has criticized .03 .00
Has listened to the opinions of .02 .13**
Has respected -.09 .22*
Overall Favoritism .06 .11*
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
Table 7.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Physical Health and Original Maternal and Paternal
SIDE Items
Maternal Paternal

Has been proud of .02 .15**
Has enjoyed doing things -.11* .03
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts -.16** -.09
and feelings
Has shown interest in .00 .08
Has blamed for what another -.02 .01
family member did
Has protected -.05 .02
Has disciplined -.01 -.11*
Has given money -.11* .00
Has bought things for -.11* .03
Has given freedom over actions -.01 .00
Has enjoyed talking with -.05 .09
Has given what was requested -.07 .01
Has done favors for -.06 .02
Has done things with -.10* .10*
Has been supportive of .02 .09
Has listened to the opinions of .04 .10*
Has respected .05 .11*
Overall Favoritism -.07 .04
Table 8.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Male Participants’ Intelligence and Original Maternal
and Paternal SIDE Items
Maternal Paternal
Has been strict with .00 .02

Has been proud of .21* .09
Has enjoyed doing things .14 -.05
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts -.12 -.20*
and feelings
Has shown interest in -.04 -.08
Has blamed for what another -.05 -.09
family member did
Has protected .04 -.09
Has disciplined .00 -.12
Has given money .05 .02
Has bought things for -.08 -.05
Has given freedom over actions .14 .09
Has enjoyed talking with .19* .10
Has given what was requested .05 -.01
Has done favors for .04 -.05
Has done things with .03 -.02
Has been supportive of -.02 -.01
Has criticized .12 -.07
Has listened to the opinions of .38** .15
Has respected .13 .11
Overall Favoritism .12 -.04
Table 9.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Female Participants’ Intelligence and Original
Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items
Maternal Paternal
Has been strict with -.08 .00

Has been proud of .27** .23**
Has enjoyed doing things .02 -.02
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts .03 .04
and feelings
Has punished for misbehavior -.08 .06
Has shown interest in .10 -.02
Has blamed for what another .04 -.03
family member did
Has disciplined .05 .07
Has enjoyed talking with .15* .09
Has given what was requested .17** .08
Has done favors for .17** .03
Has done things with .13* .00
Has been supportive of .18** .15*
Has listened to the opinions of .18** .20**
Has respected .16* .12
Overall Favoritism .13* .10
Table 10.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Male Participants’ Ambition/Industriousness and
Original Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items
Maternal Paternal

Has been proud of .31** .20*
Has enjoyed doing things -.02 .02
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts -.18* .01
and feelings
Has shown interest in -.03 .06
Has blamed for what another -.06 -.03
family member did
Has disciplined -.06 -.07
Has given money -.06 -.04
Has enjoyed talking with .09 .17*
Has done things with .02 .13
Has listened to the opinions of .27** .16
Has respected .23** .22*
Overall Favoritism .03 .12
Table 11.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Female Participants’ Ambition/Industriousness and
Maternal Paternal

Has been proud of .28** .24**
Has enjoyed doing things .15* .02
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts .06 .01
and feelings
Has shown interest in .15* -.03
family member did
Has given money -.07 -.01
Has enjoyed talking with .17** .05
Has given what was requested .07 .02
Has done favors for .15* .04
Has done things with .18** -.06
Has been supportive of .17** .14*
Has listened to the opinions of .12* .21**
Has respected .21** .14*
Table 12.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Female Participants’ Physical Attractiveness and
Maternal Paternal

Has been proud of -.01 .06
Has enjoyed doing things -.06 .12*
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts -.08 -.06
and feelings
Has punished for misbehavior .04 .02
family member did
Has given money .14* .18**
Has bought things for .18** .14*
Has given freedom over actions .03 -.01
Has enjoyed talking with -.04 .00
Has given what was requested .02 .02
Has listened to the opinions of .05 .06
Has respected .00 .03
Table 13.
Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Male Participants’ Physical Attractiveness and
Maternal Paternal
Has been strict with -.23** .03

Has been proud of .03 -.08
Has enjoyed doing things .07 .10
together
Has been sensitive to thoughts -.02 .04
and feelings
Has punished for misbehavior -.23** -.01
Has blamed for what another .04 .12
family member did
Has disciplined -.21* -.06
Has enjoyed talking with .08 .12
Has done favors for -.02 -.14
Has listened to the opinions of .13 -.16
Has respected -.03 -.26**
Overall Favoritism -.06 .06
Table 14.
Bivariate Correlations Between Outcome and Predictor Variables across all Participants
Maternal Paternal Physical Intelligence Ambition Physical

Favoritism Favoritism Health Attractiveness
Maternal -
Favoritism
Paternal .22** -
Favoritism
Physical -.06 .03 -

Health
Intelligence .11* .03 .12* -
Ambition .05 .06 .06 .49** -
Physical .02 .08 .97 .00 .03 -

Attractiveness
Maternal .06 -.02 -.07 -.06 -.09 .02

Resemblance
Paternal .04 .11* .12* .09 .05 -.06

Resemblance

Table 15.
Means and Standard Deviations of Original SIDE Items as a Function of Parental Sex
Maternal Favoritism Paternal Favoritism P
Has criticized 2.86 (.71) 3.01 (.75) .00**

Has punished for 2.81 (1.01) 2.97 (.92) .01*
misbehavior
Has protected 2.98 (.68) 3.11 (.76) .01*
Has been strict with 2.81 (1.01) 2.96 (1.07) .02*
Has enjoyed doing 3.21 (.78) 3.07 (.89) .02*
things together
Has blamed for what 2.86 (.70) 2.95 (.67) .02*
another family
member did
Has given money 3.05 (.85) 3.15 (.85) .02*
Has enjoyed talking 3.25 (.75) 3.12 (.78) .02*
with
Has disciplined 2.91 (.78) 2.99 (.84) .06
Has done things with 3.10 (.68) 3.00 (.85) .07
Has been sensitive to 2.97 (.72) 3.04 (.71) .08
thoughts and feelings
Has done favors for 2.99 (.54) 3.04 (.61) .18
Has given what was 2.97 (.58) 3.02 (.62) .23
requested
Has given freedom 2.99 (.92) 3.04 (.88) .26
over actions
Has been supportive 3.03 (.49) 3.00 (.52) .38
of
Has bought things for 3.09 (.73) 3.12 (.71) .53
Has shown interest in 2.98 (.57) 2.97 (.73) .74
Has been proud of 3.12 (.72) 3.11 (.77) .79
Has respected 3.03 (.42) 3.04 (.50) .93
Has listened to the 3.07 (.53) 3.07 (.57) 1.00
opinions of
Items in italics were reverse-coded so that higher score always indicated favoritism. Scores
ranged from 1 = sibling strongly favored to 5 = participant strongly favored.
* p < .05
** p < .01

Why Do Mommy and Daddy Love You More

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Do Mommy and Daddy Love You More

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHY DO MOMMY AND DADDY LOVE YOU MORE?

Anthony Michael Lauricella, Ph.D.

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green

Gordon, Anne K., Advisor

Anne K. Gordon, Advisor

mothers. Contrary to predictions, health, offspring intelligence, ambition, and physical

were not obtained, and makes recommendations for future research.

In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey.

AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE OF PARENTAL CARE....................................... 4

Genetic Relatedness to Offspring .............................................................................. 6

Paternal certainty ........................................................................................... 7

OFFSPRING ABILITY TO CONVERT PARENTAL CARE INTO FITNESS.................. 13

Characteristics associated with male reproductive success ....................................... 18

Characteristics associated with female reproductive success .................................... 22

THE PRESENT STUDY ....................................................................................................... 25

Materials and Measures ............................................................................................. 32

Informed consent ........................................................................................... 32

Differential parental treatment sub-scale of the Sibling Inventory of Differential

Experience (SIDE) ......................................................................................... 33

Forced-choice and obviousness parental favoritism items ............................ 34

Relative physical resemblance to parents ...................................................... 35

Relative health ............................................................................................... 36

Relative social competitiveness ..................................................................... 37

Relative ambition and industriousness........................................................... 38

Relative physical attractiveness ..................................................................... 39

Post-study questionnaire ................................................................................ 40

Parental favoritism ......................................................................................... 43

Possible Correlates of Parental Favoritism ................................................................ 45

Sex differences and dyad composition effects............................................... 45

Number of fully biological siblings ............................................................... 47

Age gap between siblings .............................................................................. 48

Primary Analyses ....................................................................................................... 49

Maternal versus paternal favoritism............................................................... 49

Physical resemblance and favoritism............................................................. 52

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 59

Support for hypotheses .............................................................................................. 61

Hypotheses that were not supported .......................................................................... 63

Concluding remarks ................................................................................................... 70

APPENDIX A. CONSENT FORM ....................................................................................... 88

APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTIONS ......................................................................................... 90

APPENDIX C. SIBLING INVENTORY OF DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCE (SIDE)..... 91

APPENDIX D. FORCED-CHOICE AND OBVIOUSNESS ITEM..................................... 94

APPENDIX E. RESEMBLANCE SCALE ........................................................................... 95

APPENDIX F. GENERAL HEALTH................................................................................... 97

APPENDIX G. INTELLIGENCE MEASURE .................................................................... 98

APPENDIX H. AMBITION/INDUSTRIOUSNESS MEASURE ........................................ 100

APPENDIX I. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS MEASURE............................................ 102

APPENDIX J. DEMOGRAPHICS FORM ........................................................................... 103

APPENDIX K. POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE........................................... 104

APPENDIX L. DEBRIEFING FORM .................................................................................. 105

APPENDIX M. EXPERIMETRIX ANNOUNCEMENT ..................................................... 107

APPENDIX N. EXPLORATORY ANALYSES................................................................... 108

1 Means and Standard Deviations on Outcome Measures as a Function of Participant Sex

2 Means and Standard Deviations of Physical Health Composite Index as a Function of

Participant Sex and Sibling Sex................................................................................. 112

3 Means and Standard Deviations of Intelligence Composite Index as a Function of

Participant Sex and Sibling Sex................................................................................. 113

4 Means and Standard Deviations on Dependent Measures as a Function of Sibling

Hierarchy ............................................................................................................ 114

Paternal SIDE Items................................................................................................... 117

8 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Male Participants’ Intelligence and Original

Maternal and Paternal SIDE Items ............................................................................ 118

9 Pearson’s Correlational Values Between Female Participants’ Intelligence and Original