Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Impacts of Parental Favoritism on the Personality and

Sibling Relationship of the Students of Nueva Ecija
University of Science and Technology,
San Isidro Campus
Angelo R. Santos1
1
College of Management and Business Technology, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology,
San Isidro Campus, Philippines

Abstract:- Parental favoritism is when one or both of their parent. Parents are expected to spend their limited
parents display consistent favoritism toward one child resources among their children appropriately to enhance
over another. This study aims to evaluate the impacts of parental fitness (2). However, kids may be selected to demand
parental favoritism on the personality and sibling more resources than parents are selected to offer (3), resulting
relationship of the students of the Nueva Ecija University in family conflict over the distribution of parental investment.
of Science and Technology, San Isidro Campus. The study
used a descriptive research design that used a survey Family Resource Group (2018) defines parental
questionnaire to solicit data on the socio-demographic favoritism. According to them, parental favoritism is when
profile of respondents and to determine the respondents' one or both parents display consistent favoritism toward one
perception about parental favoritism and its impact on child over another (4). It can include more time spent together,
their personality and sibling relationship. Analysis of the less discipline, and more privileges. (5 and 6) shown that most
resulting survey data included descriptive statistics such mothers and fathers favor some of their children over others in
as frequencies, percentage, mean and correlation. The terms of closeness, confiding, and provision of support. This
study consisted of 89 students from Nueva Ecija set of findings is consistent with earlier studies of parental
University of Science and Technology, San Isidro favoritism in later life (7). (8) states that one reason for this is
Campus. The majority of them or, 53 (59.55%) were that parents should invest more in needier offspring. It only
male, many or 27 (30.34%) had 2 siblings and most or 38 means that the offspring who do beg more receive more food
(42.70%) were the eldest. Regarding their perception of or resources from their parents.
parental favoritism, they agreed that parental favoritism
negatively affects an individual in mental, social, and Although the assumption that parents should treat their
emotional aspects. Furthermore, parental favoritism also children equally is widely held, treating children differently
affects their relationship with their siblings. Last, the may reflect appropriate, sensitive parenting that is adjusted to
different variables have a significant relationship with each child’s needs and characteristics (9). Receiving less
their perception about parental favoritism. For the favorable treatment than a sibling (e.g., being the object of
conclusions, the impacts of parental favoritism on more parental control and less affection) is positively
children’s personality and sibling relationships have been associated with externalizing behavior, aggression, depressed
a significant issue in different fields, sectors, and even in mood, anxiety, and low self-esteem (10 and 11). It is also
the students' academics. Therefore, it is not a good related to greater conflict and less affection between siblings
decision to have parental favoritism on the family because (12).
of its effects on an individual.
Children’s perceptions of favoritism have been shown to
Keywords:- Parental Favoritism, Personalilty, Sibling play an important role in the relationships between sibling
Relationship. relations. People are most likely to display negative behavioral
reactions when they feel a disjunction between what they
I. INTRODUCTION receive and what they think they deserve. Given this,
irrespective of whether the child is favored or disfavored,
Sibling relationships are among the longest-lasting in the perceived unfair treatment from parents may lead to
family. These bonds are formed in early life and last into old maladjustment because it represents a disadvantage or benefits
age. Sibling relationships are typically defined as emotionally that the child feels are unwarranted (13). Like the students'
ambivalent since they are characterized by warmth and academic performance, which may affect by different factors
siblings' engagement in each other's life, as well as conflict like the medium of instruction used and the impacts of the
and rivalry (1). Unfortunately, numerous factors affect the pandemic in school set-up (14 and 15), it is crucial to fix this
harmonious bond between or among the siblings. One of the matter. With this, the researchers want to determine the
reasons for the destruction of sibling relationships is because

IJISRT21JUN286 www.ijisrt.com 86
Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
possible impacts of parental favoritism on an individual's Research Instrument
personality and their relationship with their siblings. This section was composed of four parts—first, the
survey questionnaire for the respondent's profile. Second, the
 Objectives perception of the respondent’s about parental favoritism.
This study aims to evaluate the impacts of parental Last, the impacts of parental favoritism on their personality
favoritism to the personality and sibling relationship of the and sibling relationship in terms of their mental, social and
students of the Nueva Ecija University of Science and emotional. For the perception and impacts of parental
Technology, San Isidro Campus. favoritism, a five–point scale was used to indicate the degree
of agreement on the item statements.
Specifically, the researchers desire to gain answers on
the following objectives: Scale Verbal Interpretation
1. Describe the profile of the respondents in terms of their 5 Strongly Agree
sex, number of siblings and birth order. 4 Agree
2. Determine the perceptions of the respondents about 3 Slightly Agree
parental favoritism? 2 Slightly Disagree
3. Determine the impacts of parental favoritism to the 1 Strongly Disagree
respondents’ personality in terms of their mental, social
and emotional aspect. Data Gathering and Procedure
4. Determine the impacts of parental favoritism in sibling The first step in the data collection process was to ask
relationship? permission from the Director of Nueva Ecija University of
5. Evaluate the relationship between the profile of the Science and Technology, San Isidro Campus. After the
respondents and their perception about parental favoritism? approval, the researcher administered the survey
questionnaire through the use of the Google Form. Before the
II. METHODOLOGY actual administration of the test to the respondent, expert
validation and pilot testing were done.
Research Design
The study used a descriptive research design that used a Ethical Consideration
survey questionnaire to solicit data on the socio-demographic Permission was sought from the Director of the
profile of respondents and to determine the respondents' Campus. Informed consent was given first before the
perception about parental favoritism and its impact on their respondent answer the questionnaire. Sufficient time was
personality and sibling relationship. Analysis of the resulting given to ask questions, the anonymity of the subjects and
survey data included descriptive statistics such as frequencies, confidentiality of information was maintained.
percentage, mean and correlation.
Methods of Data Analysis
Locale of the Study The following statistical methods were used:
This study was conducted at Nueva Ecija University of 1. Frequency counts, mean and percentage were utilized to
Science and Technology, San Isidro Campus located at describe students' socio-demographic profile and determine
barangay Poblacion, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during School the perception and impacts of parental favoritism on the
Year 2020 – 2021. personality and sibling relationship of the respondents.

Respondents of the Study To compute for the weighted mean, each value must be
The study respondents were the high school and college multiplied by its weight. Products should then be added to
students of Nueva Ecija University of Science and obtain the total value. Total weight should also be computed
Technology, San Isidro Campus in School Year 2020-2021. by adding all the weights. The total value is then divided by
total weight.
Sampling and Sampling Procedure
The study respondents were the high school and college Ratings Score Interval Verbal Interpretation
students of Nueva Ecija University of Science and 5 4.20-5.00 Strongly Agree
Technology, San Isidro Campus. Purposive population 4 3.40-4.19 Agree
sampling was used since only those with Messenger and 3 2.60-3.39 Slightly Agree
Internet connections were chosen to be the respondents. 2 1.80-2-59 Slightly Disagree
1 1.0-1.79 Strongly Disagree

2. Pearson correlation was utilized to determine the

relationship between the socio-demographic profile of the
students and perception about parental favoritism. All
computations were done using Microsoft Excel.

IJISRT21JUN286 www.ijisrt.com 87
Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
III. RESULTS sibling relationship.
5. Parental favoritism affects
The data obtained were organized, analyzed, and children’s academic 3.75 Agree
interpreted with the use of appropriate statistical tools such as performance.
frequency, percentage, weighted mean, and Pearson 6. Parental favoritism causes
correlation. 3.78 Agree
family problems.
7. Children avoid their parents
A. Profile of the Respondent when they know that their 3.80 Agree
parents are having favoritism.
Table 1 Sex of the Respondents 8. Parental favoritism causes
Sex Frequency(F) Percentage (%) conflict between children and 3.71 Agree
Male 53 59.55 their parents.
Female 36 40.45 9. Parents are not treating their
4.01 Agree
Total 89 100% children’s equally.
10. Children are having a hard
3.80 Agree
Table 1 shows the sex of the respondent. Out of 89, 53 time being with their parents.
or 59.55% were male while 36 or 40.45 % were female. Average Weighted Mean 3.71 Agree

Table 2 Number of siblings of the Respondents Table 2 shows the perceptions of the respondents about
Number of Siblings Frequency (F) Percentage (%) parental favoritism. Item statement number 9, “Parents are
0 14 15.73 not treating their children equally.” has the highest weighted
1 22 24.72 mean, which is equivalent to 4.01 with verbal interpretation
2 27 30.34 “Agree.” It is followed by item statement number 7 and 10,
3 18 20.22 “Children avoid their parents when they know that their
4 6 6.74 parents have parental favoritism.” and “Children are having a
5 2 2.25 hard time in being with their parents.” both have weighted
Total 89 100% mean, which is equivalent to 3.80 with verbal interpretation
“Agree.” Meanwhile, item statement number 2, “Favoritism
Table 2 shows the number of siblings of the usually happens in a broken family,” has the lowest weighted
respondents. Out of 89, 14 or 15.73 % has no sibling, 22 or mean of 3.37, which has verbal interpretation as “Slightly
24.72 % has 1 sibling, 27 or 30.34 % has 2 siblings, 18 or Agree.” It is followed by item statement number 1,
20.22% has 3 siblings, 6 or 6.74 % has 4 siblings and 2 or “Favoritism happens in children with a single parent.” which
2.25 % has 5 siblings. has a weighted mean, which is equivalent to 3.61 with verbal
interpretation “Agree.” The average weighted mean is 3.71
Table 3 Birth Order of the Respondents with a verbal interpretation of “Agree.”
Birth Order Frequency(F) Percentage (%)
Eldest 38 42.70 C. Impacts of parental favoritism to respondents’ personality
Middle child 12 13.48
Youngest 23 25.84 Table 5 Impacts of Parental Favoritism in Mental Aspect
Only child 16 17.98 Weighted Verbal
Item Statements
Mean Interpretation
Total 89 100% 1. I overthink about all things. 3.98 Agree
Table 3 shows the birth order of the respondents. Out of 2. I always compare myself to
3.97 Agree
89, 38 or 42.70 % was eldest, 12 or 13.48 % was middle others.
child, 23 or 25.84 % was youngest and 16 or 17.98 % was 3. I always feel useless. 3.88 Agree
only child. 4. I always think that my parents
3.69 Agree
don’t love me.
B. Perceptions of the respondents’ about parental favoritism 5. I always feel that they are not
3.75 Agree
proud of me.
Table 4. Respondents’ Perception about Parental Favoritism 6. I feel that my parents are not
3.67 Agree
Weighted Verbal giving me attention.
Item Statements 7. I feel that my parents love my
Mean Interpretation 3.64 Agree
1. Favoritism happens in siblings more than me.
3.61 Agree 8. I always think that my parents
children with a single parent.
2. Favoritism usually happens are being unfair all the time in 3.71 Agree
3.37 Slightly Agree anything.
in a broken family.
3. Parental favoritism causes 9. I am always trying my best to
3.72 Agree 4.12 Agree
children’s rebellion. make them proud.
4. Parental favoritism destroys 3.55 Agree 10. I am always giving my best 4.03 Agree

IJISRT21JUN286 www.ijisrt.com 88
Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
just to reach their standards. Table 7 Impacts of parental favoritism in emotional aspect
Average Weighted Mean 3.84 Agree Weighted Verbal
Item Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. I easily get mad. 3.67 Agree
The table above shows the impacts of parental
favoritism on the children’s personalities in the mental aspect. 2. I always feel sad. 3.46 Agree
Item statement number 9, “I am always trying my best to 3. I cry a lot. 3.39 Slightly Agree
make them proud.” has the highest weighted mean, equivalent 4. I always feel alone. 3.67 Agree
to 4.12 with verbal interpretation “Agree.” It is followed by
item statement number 10, “I am always giving my best just 5. I pity myself. 3.35 Slightly Agree
to reach their standards.” which has the weighted mean, 6. I always feel down 3.52 Agree
equivalent to 4.03 with verbal interpretation “Agree.” 7. I always feel happy. 3.55 Agree
Meanwhile, item statement 7, “I feel that my parents love my
siblings more than me.” has the lowest weighted mean, 8. I am always positive. 3.66 Agree
equivalent to 3.64 with verbal interpretation “Agree.” It is 9. I am hurt. 3.47 Agree
followed by item statement number 6, “I feel that my parents 10. I feel loveless. 3.51 Agree
are not giving me attention.” which has the weighted mean,
equivalent to 3.67 with verbal interpretation “Agree.” The Average Weighted Mean 3.53 Agree
average weighted mean is 3.84 with verbal interpretation
“Agree.” The table above shows the impacts of parental
favoritism in the emotional aspect. Item statement number 1,
Table 6 Impacts of parental favoritism in social aspect “I easily get mad” and item statement number 4 “I always
Weighted Verbal feel alone” have the highest weighted mean equivalent to 3.67
Item Statements with verbal interpretation “Agree”. Meanwhile, item
Mean Interpretation
1. I don’t have many friends. 3.31 Slightly Agree statement number 5, “I pity myself.” has the lowest weighted
mean, equivalent to 3.35 with verbal interpretation “Slightly
2. I lose my self-confidence
Agree." It is followed by item statement number 3, “I cry a
when it comes in gaining 3.47 Agree
lot.” with verbal interpretation “Slightly Agree." The average
friends.
weighted mean is 3.53 with verbal interpretation “Agree”.
3. I am ashamed of myself. 3.49 Agree
4. I feel shy talking to many D. Impacts of parental favoritism in children’s sibling
3.53 Agree
people. relationship
5. I always want someone to talk
3.61 Agree
to. Table 8. Perceptions regarding the effects of parental
6. I want some advice from
4.06 Agree favoritism in children’s sibling relationship
others. Weighted Verbal
7. I post my thoughts in social Item Statements
3.17 Slightly Agree Mean Interpretation
media. 1. I always fight with my
8. I feel afraid of people’s 3.55 Agree
3.78 Agree siblings.
judgment. 2. I feel jealous of my siblings. 3.38 Slightly Agree
9. I more likely to go outside 3. I always compare myself to
3.63 Agree 3.42 Agree
than to stay in the house my siblings.
10. I don’t associate with the 4. We are not close with each
3.35 Slightly Agree 3.06 Slightly Agree
people around me. other.
Average Weighted Mean 3.54 Agree 5. I always want to be better
3.37 Slightly Agree
than them.
The table above shows the impacts of parental 6. I always compete with them. 3.26 Slightly Agree
favoritism in the social aspect. Item statement number 6, “I 7. I easily get mad at them. 3.34 Slightly Agree
want some advice from others.” has the highest weighted
mean, which is equivalent to 4.06 with verbal interpretation 8. I don’t want to be with them. 3.04 Slightly Agree
“Agree.” It is followed by item statement number 8, “I feel 9. I still love them no matter
3.97 Agree
afraid of people’s judgment.” which has the weighted mean, what.
equivalent to 3.78 with verbal interpretation “Agree.” 10. I want to be close with
3.87 Agree
Meanwhile, item statement number 7, “I post my thoughts in them.
social media.” has the lowest weighted mean, equivalent to Average Weighted Mean 3.43 Slightly Agree
3.17 with verbal interpretation “Slightly Agree”. It is
followed by item statement number 10, “I don’t associate Table 8 shows the impacts of parental favoritism in
with the people around me.” which has the weighted mean, children’s sibling relationships. Item statement number 9, “I
equivalent to 3.35 with verbal interpretation “Slightly Agree.” still love them no matter what.” has the highest weighted
The average weighted mean is 3.54 with a verbal mean, equivalent to 3.97 with verbal interpretation “Agree.”
interpretation of “Agree”. It is followed by item statement number 10, “I want to be

IJISRT21JUN286 www.ijisrt.com 89
Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
close with them.” which has the weighted mean, equivalent to interpretation “Agree”, respectively. According to the (17),
3.87 with verbal interpretation “Agree.” Meanwhile, item individuals tend to examine others to evaluate their own
statement number 8, “I don’t want to be with them.” has the opinions and abilities (18). All participants indicated that they
lowest weighted mean, equivalent to 3.04 with verbal have compared themselves to their siblings at one point or
interpretation “Slightly Agree”. It is followed by item another and used the result to interpret whether or not they
statement number 4, “We are not close with each other.” are treated differently than a sibling. Participants indicated
which has the weighted mean, equivalent to 3.06 with verbal they compared themselves to siblings based on parental
interpretation “Slightly Agree.” The average weighted mean expectations, material gains, privilege and need. It is known
is 3.43 with a verbal interpretation of “Slightly Agree.” that the type of relationship a parent has with their child has
an impact on various domains in that child’s life, specifically
E. Relationship between the profile of the respondents and their emotional well-being. Subsequently, literature on
their perception about parental favoritism family differences has convincingly demonstrated that
Parental Differential Treatment has consequences for
Table 9. Relationship between the Profile of the Respondents children's lives (19). In addition, it is believed that
and their Perception about Parental Favoritism emotionally secure child-caregiver relationships are believed
Correlation to facilitate close and trusting extended relationships, while
Variable Interpretation insecure relationships with caregivers are believed to lead to
Coefficient
Sex 0 No Correlation conflictual, distant and less satisfying extended relationships
Number of Weak Positive with others (20). Interestingly, as people move across the
0.2 life-course, they tend to reduce or avoid conflict and
Siblings Correlation
Weak Positive emphasize harmony in their relationships (21 and 22).
Birth Order 0.3
Correlation
The fourth objective was to determine the impacts of
Table 9 shows the relationship of sex, number of parental favoritism on the sibling relationship. The average
siblings, and birth order to the respondents' perception of weighted mean obtained was 3.43 with a verbal interpretation
parental favoritism. Overall, the relationship between the of “Slightly Agree”. The sibling relationship is an important
birth order and the number of siblings to their perception component of the family system (23). Subsequently, the
about parental favoritism has a correlation coefficient communication that takes place in the sibling relationship
equivalent to 0.3 and 0.2, respectively, which means it has a impacts the relationship between the siblings and other family
weak positive correlation. Meanwhile, sex having a relationships (24). The participants noted that it has
correlation coefficient equal to 0 has no relationship to their negatively impacted the relationship between their siblings at
perception about parental favoritism. This implies that the one point or another in their lives. (25) confirm this indicating
relationship of the socio-demographic profile of the that PDT is related to negative outcomes, not only for
respondent and their perception about parental favoritism is individuals but also impacting siblings and families.
weak positive to no correlation at all.
The fifth and last objective was to evaluate the
IV. DISCUSSION relationship between the profile of the respondents and their
perception of parental favoritism. Based on the result, the
In this study, five objectives were established to explain relationship between the birth order and the number of
the impacts of parental favoritism on the respondents. The siblings to their perception about parental favoritism was
first objective was to describe the study population. weak positive to no correlation. Interestingly, when people
According to the socio-demographic profile of the move across the life-course, they increasingly attempt to
respondents, most of the respondents were male, many of reduce or avoid conflict and emphasize harmony in their
them have 2 siblings and the majority of them were the eldest relationships (19 and 20). On the contrary, siblings may try to
in the family. maintain harmony despite negative feelings emanating from
perceptions that their parents in the past favor another child
The second objective was to determine the perception of (17).
the respondents about parental favoritism. The average
weighted mean obtained is equivalent to 3.71, which has a V. CONCLUSION
verbal interpretation of “Agree”. Based on the result, it only
means that parental favoritism negatively affects an Currently, the impacts of parental favoritism on
individual. According to (16), disfavoring a child may children’s personality and sibling relationships have been a
produce more negative reactions of that child towards the significant issue in different fields, sectors, and even in the
parents, which may lead the parents to disfavor that child students' academics. The majority of the respondents were
further. male. Most of them have two siblings and were the eldest in
the family. Respondents agreed that parent’s favoritism
The third objective was to determine the impacts of affects their children. Children are always doing their best
parental favoritism on the respondents’ personality regarding for their parents. And they need other people’s attention.
its mental, social, and emotional aspects. The average They are also emotional when they experience favoritism and
weighted mean obtained in mental, social and emotional uncomfortable with their siblings. Almost all respondents
aspects was 3.84, 3.54 and 3.53 which had verbal responded that parental favoritism harms children’s

IJISRT21JUN286 www.ijisrt.com 90
Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
personalities and sibling relationships. It is not a good [14]. Santiago, J. M., & David, E. S. (2019). The Use of Two
decision to have parental favoritism on the family because it Media of Instruction in Biology: A Quasi-Experimental
affects the children’s personality and the children’s sibling Study. International Journal of Advanced Engineering,
relationship. Management and Science, 5(2), 111-115.
[15]. Santiago, J. M., & Cajucom, R. L. (2020). Knowledge
REFERENCES about COVID-19 among university students before the
implementation of the enhanced community quarantine
[1]. Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., & Lussier, G. (2002). in Philippines. International Journal of Public Health,
Sibling relationships and socioemotional adjustment in 9(4), 321-328.
different family contexts. Social Development, 11, 571– [16]. Lollis, S., & Kuczynski, L. (1997). Beyond one hand
590 clapping: Seeing bi-directionally in parent-child
[2]. Clutton-Brock TH. 1991. The evolution of parental relations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
care. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. 14, 441-461.
[3]. Trivers R. 1974. Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool. [17]. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison
14:249–264. processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
[4]. Family Resource Group. (2018, March 1). Long term [18]. Kothari, Brianne H., "Parental Differential Treatment
effects of parental favoritism. Baton Rouge Parents | (PDT) of Siblings: Examining the Impact and
Baton Rouge Parents Magazine. Malleability of Differential Warmth and Hostility on
https://www.brparents.com/article/long-term-effects-of- Children's Adjustment" (2010). Dissertations and
parental-favoritism.html# Theses. Paper 49.
[5]. Pillemer, K., & Suitor, J. J. (2006). Making choices: A [19]. Suitor, J. J., Sechrist, J., Steinhour, M., & Pillemer, K.
within-family study of caregiver selection. The (2006). “I’m sure she chose me!” Accuracy of
Gerontologist, 46(4), 439-448. children’s reports of mothers’ favoritism in later life
[6]. Pillemer, K., & Suitor, J. J. (2008). Intergenerational families. Family Relations, 55, 526–538.
support, care and relationship quality in later life: [20]. Abbey, C., & Dallos, R. (2004). The experience of the
Exploring within–family differences.”. Caring, impact of divorce on sibling relationships: A qualitative
Negotiation and Exchange within and across study. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 9,
Generations, 195-231. 241-259.
[7]. Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. H. (2003). Perceived [21]. Charles, T., & Carstensen, L. (2008). Unpleasant
parental differential treatment in middle adulthood: situations elicit different emotional responses in
Curvilinear relations with individuals’ experienced younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 23,
relationship quality to sibling and parents. Journal of 495-504.
Family Psychology, 17, 472–487. [22]. Coats, A., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2008). Emotion
[8]. Kilner RM, Johnstone RA. 1997. Begging the question: regulation in interpersonal problems: The role of
are offspring solicitation behaviors signals of need? cognitive-emotional complexity, emotion regulation
Trends Ecol Evol. 12:11–15 goals, and expressivity. Psychology and Aging, 23, 39-
[9]. Kowal, A. K., & Kramer, L. (1997). Children’s 51.
understanding of parental differential treatment. Child [23]. Brody, G., & Stoneman, Z. (1990). Sibling
Development, 68(1), 113-126. relationships. In I.E. Sigel & G.H. Brody (Eds.),
[10]. Feinberg, M. E., & Hetherington, E. M. (2001). Methods of family research: Biographies of research
Differential parenting as a within-family variable. projects: Normal families (pp.182-212). Hillsdale, NJ:
Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 22-37. Erlbaum.
[11]. Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & [24]. Cicirelli, V. (1995). Sibling relationships across the
Osgood, D. (2008). Linkages between parents’ lifespan. New York: Plenum Press
differential treatment, youth depressive symptoms, and [25]. Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. (2010) Trait and state
sibling relationships. Journal of Mar- riage and Family, components of perceived parental differential treatment
70(2), 480-494 in middle adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of
[12]. Richmond, M. K., Stocker, C. M., & Rienks, S. L. Individual Differences, 31 (3), 158-165.
(2005). Longitudinal associations between sib- ling
relationship quality, parental differential treatment, and
children’s adjustment. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19(4), 550-559.
[13]. Kowal, A. K., Kramer, L., Krull, J. L., & Crick, N. R.
(2002). Children’s perceptions of the fairness of
parental preferential treatment and their socioemotional
well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 297-
306.

IJISRT21JUN286 www.ijisrt.com 91