Cinderella Effect: What Is It And How Does It Describe Relationships With Children?
Generally parents love their children above all else. But is the same true if they are stepchildren rather than genetic children?
This question has generated decades of intense debate and studies. Let’s see what the Cinderella effect has to say about it and if there is a clear answer to the question we raise or, on the contrary, experts must continue investigating.
Starting in the 70s of the 20th century, a series of researchers began to ask the pertinent question of whether fathers and mothers behaved the same with both their biological children and their stepchildren, that is, the offspring of their partners. In fact, their studies not only looked for a subtle difference in treatment, but went much further and investigated whether child abuse, and even filicide, was more frequent in these cases.
As a result of this issue, the term Cinderella effect was coined, which would consist of a phenomenon whereby both stepfathers and stepmothers would show a tendency towards worse treatment towards stepchildren compared to their natural children Not only that, but in some cases, the difference in treatment would be so significant that the relationship with the stepchildren could be classified as abuse.
Obviously, the authors who maintain that the Cinderella effect exists do not claim that it occurs in all cases and therefore all stepfathers and stepmothers are inherently abusive, far from it. What they suggest is that there is a greater tendency for abuse between stepfathers and stepchildren than between fathers and biological children. But is it really like that? Does the Cinderella effect exist or is there no data to support it?
The truth is that the debate is open. To do this we have to take a look at the main studies that have been carried out on this issue, both by authors in favor of the existence of the Cinderella effect, and by those who are against it. Only then can we draw some conclusions about it.
The position in favor of the existence of the Cinderella effect began with the research of Canadian authors, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly They have collected their conclusions in a volume entitled The Truth about Cinderella, a Darwinian approach to parental love. These psychologists have dedicated many years to studying the variables that underlie domestic violence, especially that which occurs between parents and children.
Among all the conclusions they have reached throughout their research, there is one that is especially devastating and at the same time is the one that supports the Cinderella effect. Wilson and Daly They conclude that the greatest risk factor that their studies have found to predict child abuse is none other than the coexistence between stepchildren and stepfather or stepmother
Of course, this statement is not without controversy and other authors have tried to deny it, but we will see that later. According to studies by Daly and Wilson, the cases of infanticide recorded by male stepfathers with respect to their stepchildren are no less than 100 times higher than those that occur between fathers and biological children. It seems like a really scandalous amount, but it needs to be analyzed in more depth.
The key is that in reality infanticide by a male parent is a very isolated phenomenon, so although there is this enormous disproportion between the two typologies, it does not mean that it is a crime that occurs frequently. Even so, it still seems shocking how powerful this supposed Cinderella effect would be, even in the most serious cases of abuse, such as those that lead to death.
The key, therefore, would not be in the absolute figures, which, as we have seen, are actually very low The details that would support the Cinderella effect would have more to do with the relative proportions between both cases and the significant difference that we found between them. This is where the crux of the matter lies.
Why does this psychological phenomenon occur?
We have described what the Cinderella effect consists of and we have also reviewed the arguments of the main authors who affirm that this phenomenon exists. Now We are going to investigate the hypothetical biological and psychological causes of this matter Here an issue comes into play that may be controversial, but it is also true that biology does not understand controversies.
In that sense, from an evolutionary point of view and leaving aside for a moment everything related to ethics and the social constructs that human society has created for many generations, the biological cost of raising a child who does not share one’s own genes, it is excessive. Because? Because the individual would be dedicating all the resources at his disposal to safeguard the existence of a creature that does not carry his genes and therefore will not perpetuate them
This statement may seem very shocking but let us remember that we are analyzing the question of the Cinderella effect from a purely biological prism, without any veneer of morality that allows us to make a value judgment about it. Through the argument of biology, Some researchers affirm that in the cases of a stepmother or stepfather and stepson, it could be more complicated to generate an attachment bond which, with some exceptions, occurs between parents and biological children.
Other authors analyze it from the point of view of economics, which in reality, when talking about resources and the distribution made of them, connects with both biology and psychology. Thus, the economist Gary Becker designed an algorithm to predict what type of human couples had a higher divorce rate, considering variables such as previous marriages and children and also whether the woman is of reproductive age.
According to this algorithm, what Becker affirms is that Couples with children in common are less likely to divorce than those who have biological children from only one of the parties In some way the Cinderella effect could be acting in this case, since the bond between parents and stepchildren would be occurring with a lower intensity than in the case of marriages with biological children of both.
Position against the Cinderella effect
We have delved into some of the bases that some authors use to justify the existence of the Cinderella effect, but we still need to listen to the other side. And there are many researchers who, on the contrary, maintain that this phenomenon does not actually exist or its effect is much smaller than what authors such as Wilson and Daly have stated in their work.
This is the case, for example, of David Buller. This is an American philosopher who criticizes the research of these two authors and maintains that the conclusions they have reached are not valid since they have a series of biases that invalidate the results. In this sense, Buller affirms that the biggest problem with the studies carried out is that They are based on a series of official documents that have been transcribed by officials without clear guidelines to collect the necessary data.
For his part, Hans Temrin has dedicated several years of his career to carrying out work that demonstrates that Wilson and Daly’s studies reached wrong conclusions and therefore the Cinderella effect cannot exist as such. However, author Steve Stewart-Williams, a disciple of these researchers, states in his work, The ape who understood the universethat it is Temrin who makes methodological errors in his work and that is why he has not been able to replicate the results.
So does the Cinderella effect really exist?
After a review of the positions of the two opposing blocks of authors regarding the existence or not of the Cinderella effect, we can get an idea of ​​how complicated it is to lean in one direction or the other. This is a complex and also very controversial phenomenon that undoubtedly requires more studies that allow obtaining the necessary information to be able to answer the question without a doubt.
Therefore and until then, knowing whether there is a Cinderella effect or not will depend on the validity that we grant to one study or another, since today it remains a completely open topic.
