Wild that that is the click-bait headline they went with when the conclusion in the actual study is:
"after controlling for other moderators, our models suggest that parents report they slightly favor daughters over sons (a small effect). Children report no differences." and "Past meta-analytic data show that girls are significantly higher in effortful control, on average, than boys (Else-Quest et al., 2006)."<p>But this paper seems determined to ignore that granting freedom to different children will have different results. It says:
"Conscientious and agreeable children also received more favored treatment. For conscientious children, favoritism was strongest when based on differences in conflict (i.e., more conscientious children had relatively less conflict with their parents)."<p>That seems less like "favoritism" and more like "the natural consequence of acting in a trustworthy manner".<p>The paper addresses that criticism by claiming, without citation: "Whether differential control is developmentally appropriate or not, siblings may not see it as fair".<p>We can talk about more-effective mechanisms to support good behavior, but the idea that every child should be treated the same regardless of how trustworthy they are seems patently ridiculous. Actions have consequences, even for children.<p>"Why are boys not being taught to be conscientious?" seems like a more fruitful question than "how can we make parents be meaner to girls?"