Most parents cling to the comforting fiction that they love their children equally, but new research suggests this is a myth that may be doing more harm than good. Dr. Cara Goodwin dismantles the universal parental platitude with a startling statistic: nearly three-quarters of mothers and seven in ten fathers admit to giving preferential treatment to one child. This isn't just a confession of human fallibility; it is a critical examination of how unconscious bias shapes family dynamics and long-term mental health.
The Myth of Equal Love
Goodwin, a licensed psychologist and the author of Parenting Translator, immediately challenges the reader's self-perception. "I don't have a favorite child— I love you all equally is something all parents of more than one child have been programmed to say," she writes. She argues that this programmed response often masks a reality that is far more nuanced and, frankly, more honest. The core of her argument is that differential treatment is not inherently toxic; it becomes dangerous only when it calcifies into a consistent pattern of favoritism.
She distinguishes between temporary, situational preferences and deep-seated bias. Who wouldn't prefer playing a board game with a calm ten-year-old over negotiating sock-wearing with a toddler? Goodwin notes, "Of course, differential treatment is very normal and understandable." This framing is effective because it removes the immediate shame that prevents parents from addressing the issue. However, the line between "normal" and "harmful" is thin. Goodwin warns that these brief periods must not become a "consistent pattern of favoritism," a distinction that requires constant self-monitoring from parents who are often too exhausted to notice their own drift.
The favorite child is not necessarily more loved by the parent. Researchers define favoritism as a family dynamic in which either parents show a consistent pattern of preferential treatment in any of the following areas: affection, less conflict, more resources, and more autonomy.
The High Cost of Being the "Non-Favorite"
The stakes of this dynamic are higher than most parents realize. Goodwin synthesizes longitudinal data to show that being the non-favorite child is not merely an annoyance but a predictor of serious life outcomes. She writes, "Research finds that being the non-favorite child is not just an annoyance but is associated with worse outcomes in children." The evidence points to a cascade of negative effects: increased mental health concerns, behavioral problems, and struggles with self-regulation.
The impact extends well into adulthood. Goodwin highlights that adult children who perceive maternal favoritism report higher levels of depression and even signs of narcissism. This is a sobering revelation that shifts the conversation from childhood squabbles to lifelong psychological scars. While critics might argue that correlation does not equal causation—perhaps children with pre-existing behavioral issues are simply harder to parent and thus receive less attention—Goodwin points to longitudinal studies suggesting the reverse is also true. As children experience less favoritism over time, they are more likely to develop behavior problems, suggesting the parental dynamic actively contributes to the child's struggles.
The Burden of Being the Favorite
Surprisingly, the "winner" of this dynamic is not immune to damage. Goodwin challenges the assumption that being the favorite is a net positive. "There is some evidence that the preferred child may struggle in adulthood due to feeling too much pressure," she explains. The favored child often bears the burden of caretaking as parents age and may suffer from a worse relationship with their parents if the favoritism becomes extreme.
This insight is crucial for parents who think they are doing their "best" child a favor by showering them with extra resources. Goodwin notes that favoritism "spells bad news for the sibling relationship," creating a toxic mix of guilt for the favored and jealousy for the unfavored. The damage to sibling bonds often persists into adulthood, driven not by current treatment but by the "memory of favoritism in childhood." This reframes the issue from a parenting strategy to a long-term relational debt that siblings pay for decades.
Who Gets Favored and Why?
Goodwin identifies clear, predictable patterns in who receives preferential treatment, offering parents a checklist of their own unconscious biases. "Parents tend to favor younger siblings over older siblings," she writes, noting that while younger children often get more affection and leniency, older siblings are granted more autonomy. This differential treatment often persists into adulthood, creating friction when all siblings are equally capable.
The data also reveals a gendered dimension: "Parents tend to report that they slightly favor daughters over sons," potentially because girls are perceived as easier to parent with less aggression. Furthermore, parents gravitate toward "easier" children—those who are conscientious and agreeable—and those who share their own values. Goodwin astutely observes that "achievements determine whether you are favored" is a myth; it is about alignment and ease, not merit. This is a vital distinction for parents who pride themselves on rewarding effort, as it suggests their bias may be rooted in comfort rather than objective assessment.
Fair is not equal: In other words, you can provide fair treatment without providing equal treatment.
Breaking the Cycle
The article concludes with actionable strategies, moving from diagnosis to prescription. Goodwin urges parents to engage in "open communication," validating children's feelings even when the differential treatment is justified. She advises explaining the "why" behind the rules, noting that when children understand the reasoning—such as why a baby doesn't go to school—they are more likely to perceive the treatment as fair.
A key takeaway is the need to interrupt the "vicious cycle" with the most challenging child. Goodwin writes, "Stop this cycle dead in its tracks by making a conscious effort to give your most 'difficult' child a lot of positive attention for what they do right." This requires a deliberate shift away from natural instincts. She also warns against labeling children, such as calling one the "smart one" and another the "athletic one," as these labels can be perceived as signs of favoritism and create unnecessary pressure. If a consistent preference cannot be managed, she recommends seeking family therapy, framing it not as a failure but as a proactive step to protect the children's future.
Bottom Line
Dr. Cara Goodwin's analysis is a necessary corrective to the toxic positivity of "equal love," replacing it with a more honest framework of "fair treatment" based on individual needs. While the article leans heavily on correlational data that cannot definitively prove causation in every case, its practical advice on communication and self-awareness offers a robust path forward. The strongest part of the argument is its ability to destigmatize the existence of favoritism while rigorously detailing its consequences; the biggest vulnerability is the difficulty of implementing these changes in the chaos of daily parenting, a gap that may require more than just a newsletter to bridge.