|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cinderella effect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
This title might need to become a DAB page; there are quite a few other things called "Cinderella effect" in Google books. (I had happen to know of one off the top of my head, but there are others.) Tijfo098 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. "The "Cinderella Effect": Elevated Mistreatment of Stepchildren in Comparison to Those Living with Genetic Parents." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (2005): 507–08.
- This particular article does not appear in the source cited; See this issue to verify. Nor does it appear on the website of the original author. A gsearch results in an article on the website for the Center for Evolutionary Psychology I'm a little confused by this, so I'm looking into it. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Adopted Children VS. Step Children
The explaination for this effect is largely based on evolutionary science. If this were true, would it also indicate that there are higher rates of abuse among adopted children since they are also non-biological? Any info on this topic is appreciated. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC) NK
Prince Charming and Little Girls
This is perhaps another aspect of the Cinderella Effect that is of importance to note--- The Prince Charming concept
From the moment little girls read Cinderella, they are swept away by the concept of Prince Charming, and many girls wait their entire lives to meet their own Prince Charming, who may never show up. You need to teach your daughter that looks are not very important. Or, play down the good looks of Prince Charming, and make him sound more like a nice, kind and loving person, who has more to him than just good looks and pot loads of money. http://www.indiaparenting.com/confident-child/43_1099/the-cinderella-effect.html Natural (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural
- If you're proposing to add that to the article, please find some academic source. Pop psychology web sites won't do as WP:RS in this context. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I came here from Best of Wikipedia -- does the "Conclusions" section violate the neutral point of view rule? It seems quite directly editorial to me -- the whole article, in fact, feels as if it is reliably in favor of the theory of genetic factors in the effect, but the "Conclusion" section in particular feels as if it were written by a participant with a personal stake in the 'outcome' of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly not neutral. The criticism section is even larger than the article itself. Even outside the criticism section there are debunking attempts, like the section "misconceptions". The neutrality of this artcile should be disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor is claiming the Cinderella effect is a hypothesis when it is an empirical effect. There are also theories regarding this effect but those are not called the "Cinderella effect". This is sourced. The editor is also claiming that there are opposing sources but none has been presented. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here is an overview: . We could that the effect is disputed by some studies. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Response to From Editor: Forgive me if I am discussing this in the wrong area... I am not sure of the protocol. Either way, the empiricism is disputed strongly by Buller, one of the most vocal academics to criticise the "effect". He states that "it is not argued that step-parents abuse children less than records show, but that evidence indicates that genetic parents abuse them more than records show. If investigative agencies became aware of research into bias, it could serve to help children who are now being lost to the system. In that case, insisting that we already ‘know’ everything about child abuse is what would ‘do real harm in the practical realm of child protection’." http://www.niu.edu/phil/~buller/publications/_pdf/ticsreply.pdf The article expounds his arguments. I hope I have addressed the two specific matters contested and it is accepted the Buller is a very legitimate and respected critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomasha (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- You can see the reply to Buller and other critics in the source above. Please read it if you are interested in this area. Anway, a "hypothesis" or "theory" refers to an explanation for empirical observations. The empirical observations may be disputed or even false but they are not "hypotheses". A better text may be this: "The Cinderella effect is a term used to describe the observed significantly higher rate of stepchildren being physically abused, emotionally abused, sexually abused, neglected, murdered, or otherwise mistreated at the hands of their stepparents than at the hands of their genetic parents. The effect is disputed by some studies." Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I used ‘hypothesis’ because of the frequency that the term ‘Cinderella Effect’ is used to encompass both the claimed evidence and the evolutionary psychology explanation for it (especially in the popular press). The fact that in the next sentence it is claimed to be "one of the poster-children of evolutionary psychology” lends weight to the confusion and the implication that it is evolutionary psychologists who most enthusiastically push for statistical acceptance. However, I see your point that the original researchers might not have framed it as anything else but a term for what appeared to be a phenomenon. It is arguable that the two have now become confused.
Nevertheless, the trouble is that there is no definitive study or agreement on the stats. I would therefore argue that the claim of “significantly higher rates” is disputed. Forgive my lack of reference here, but I think it fair to say that in the field of social services it is very commonly argued that abuse is grossly under recorded. There is also, without doubt, a cultural bias against stepparenting which social workers and the like are probably not immune from. It is such an important Wikipedia page and I have seen it referenced enough times to warrant concern for absolute accuracy. It lends itself so well to bolstering moral panic type press articles, it needs extra vigilance. I therefore think that Buller’s points should not be sidelined as just another criticism, they are weighty concerns and as the whole page does seem to be pretty much tipped in favour towards Daly and Wilson’s perspective already, it seems better that at least reference to one of the weightier criticisms is included in the introduction.
How about: "The Cinderella effect is a term used to describe the apparent significantly higher rate of stepchildren being physically abused, emotionally abused, sexually abused, neglected, murdered, or otherwise mistreated at the hands of their stepparents than at the hands of their genetic parents. The effect is disputed by some studies, amongst which is the claim that the figures of stepparent abuse themselves are not necessarily innacurate, but that there is evidence that genetic parents abuse children considerably more than records show." ( http://www.niu.edu/phil/~buller/publications/_pdf/ticsreply.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomasha (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again see the replies here: . I would say that evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the existance of the empirical phenomenon with a few disagreeing studies that are questionable. "Apparent" is strange word. Better would be "in many studies" or "in most studies" to reflect the weight of evidence. The lead should not go into detailed explanations. If we mention the argument that there may be biased underreporting, then we must also mention at the same time the counter-arguments. This is better done in the body, not in the lead which should be a brief summary. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree to replacing "apparent" with "in many studies". The argument that the evidence is overwhelming is highly contestable as any attempts to collate data of such social behaviour is always open to serious dispute. There are massive disagreements as to what constitutes a stepparent in the first place to the extent that the American census has self confessed problems even defining the term. At one stage, even stepfamilies themselves were only counted if the householder was the stepparent, not the partner. As far as I know, there is no agreed criteria for what degree of cohabitation counts in definition of a stepparent, if at all. Others have no consideration of how long a relationship has been in place. There is also no evidence that specifically compares the cases of abuse in long term step-relationships to short term. If the subject of a page is highly disputed and/or socially sensitive, then the lead very often will contain a reference to criticism. How about your original suggestion..."The effect is disputed by some studies" with the addition of "one claim being that abuse by genetic parents is grossly underestimated". ? --Nomasha (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Criticism is already mentioned in the lead when we say that that are some opposing studies. Going into details regarding the arguments should preferably not be done in the lead which is a brief summary and if done then the arguments of both sides must be presented, not just those of one of the sides. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Cannot see where criticism is already mentioned in the lead? Where exactly? In mentioning a prominent opposing view, I fail to see this as going into detail and would consider it very much part of a brief summary of the entire issue.--Nomasha (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, I propose something like "The Cinderella effect is a term used to describe the significantly higher rate of stepchildren being physically abused, emotionally abused, sexually abused, neglected, murdered, or otherwise mistreated at the hands of stepparents than at the hands of their genetic parents. This effect has been found in many but not all studies. It takes its name from the fairy tale character Cinderella, who in the story was cruelly mistreated by her stepmother and stepsisters. The Cinderella effect and associated explanatory theories for the effect has been called "one of the poster-children of evolutionary psychology. There has also been various criticisms of these theories." Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the criticism that these studies are misleading in that they grossly underestimate abuse by genetic parents is way too important and vital a criticism to be sidelined. There are powerful material implications in children's lives in the dismissal of the significant thesis that abuse is drastically under-recorded and the tendency to blame one group more so over another for it. Most people working at ground level in the field of child abuse will agree that there are few reliable markers. I think this needs wider discussion by others (not just supporters of the Cinderella Effect stats and accompanying EP hypothesis). The prominence of the idea that it is one of the "poster-children of evolutionary psychology" is indicative of this article's bias. --Nomasha (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is ample room to include criticisms in the body of the article and also counter-criticisms as stated in the sources above. The lead should be a summary. If it is going to include specific criticisms, then the counter-arguments must be presented there also for neutrality. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Nope, the argument of neutrality is contradictory. The lead should indeed be a summary and one of the major criticisms is part of that summary, as is the norm on many wiki pages that deal with sensitive issues. It is far from neutral to present a summary without acknowledgement that the topic is highly controversial and the entire basis for the "effect" is rigorously questioned by other academics. It is too controversial a page to misrepresented like this. We need other input as we are not going to progress.--Nomasha (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- The above summary mentions that there are various criticisms. To go into further detail and only present the specific arguments of one side in the lead violates WP:NPOV. If it is going into details regarding the specific arguments of one side, then the specific arguments of the other side must be presented only also. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
A new proposal eliminating the "poster-children" wording. "The Cinderella effect is a term used to describe the observed, in many but not all studies, significantly higher rate of stepchildren being physically abused, emotionally abused, sexually abused, neglected, murdered, or otherwise mistreated at the hands of stepparents than at the hands of their genetic parents. It takes its name from the fairy tale character Cinderella, who in the story was cruelly mistreated by her stepmother and stepsisters. The effect has been explained by application of evolutionary psychology theories. There has also been various criticisms of these theories." Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It does give the reader a more balanced introduction to the topic and the removal of the "poster children" helps too. Will research more and return at a later date.--Nomasha (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
What a load of nonsense.
You don't need a specific evolutionary theory to explain why step-children are abused more often. This is the expected result, the surprise would be if parents abused their OWN children more often.
What next, will there be research showing that parents buy their own children more gifts and an "evolutionary theory" to say why it's the case? Such extremely obvious and trivial stuff, I find it hard to believe this is dressed up as formal and serious science. Anonywiki (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind: this Talk page is not a forum WP:NOTAFORUM. Memills (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually all of it adds up to a big fat zero if you're the kid getting the (literal) short end of the stick. A lawyer using this as a defense for abuse (which is what this argument amounts to) might find it a hard sell to any jury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The conclusion has been removed. Reasons as given below.
"Daly and Wilson, whose findings have been corroborated by a number of independent studies, have contributed to an ever-growing body of work related to the Cinderella effect." That may be true, but this needs to be rephrased NPOV. D&W are construed as uncnontested "winners".
"Of the researchers in disagreement with Daly and Wilson, some have a well-known skepticism of the field of evolutionary psychology, such as David Buller, while others have put forth studies that suffer from analytical error, such as Hans Temrin." What does it matter that Buller is skeptical of evolutionary psychology? Does that in and of itself lessen his critcism? Violates NPOV. The arguments against Temrin need to be substantiated.
"While there are other hypotheses that attempt to debunk the Cinderella effect, or explain it in non-evolutionary terms, they remain largely untested and are unlikely to be able to fully account for the striking variation between genetic and stepparental instances of child maltreatment." They may be untested, but what does the author know of their likelihood to explain empirically observed differences? Deleted on the grounds of being original research.
All in all, this section read like a defense of D&W. An encyclopedia should allow facts to speak for themselves, and not come up with unfounded conclusions. Daley and Wilson surely don't need such uncritical support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Big Typo in Criticism?
I may be completely misunderstanding the paragraph, but the first part of the Criticism -> Davit Buller section seems to have suffered a poor edit where the end of one sentence and the beginning of another were removed and the edit never completed. I am adding italics to the sentence that is throwing me off below.
- Philosopher of science David Buller, as a part of his general critique of evolutionary psychology  has reviewed Daly and Wilson's data. He argues that evolutionary psychology (EP) mistakenly attempts to discover human psychological adaptations rather than "the evolutionary causes of psychological traits." Buller also argues that Daly and Wilson's study is statistically flawed because it conflates different kinds of abuse that do not necessarily psychologically similar cases, 1985 Canadian sample included cases of sexual abuse as well as cases of unintentional omission, such as not buckling a child’s seatbelt in the car. Buller asserts that unintentional omission does not fall under the realm of dangerous acts, and rather should be designated "maltreatment".
Perhaps it is a few missing words or perhaps entire missing phrases. I am not versed in this subject at all (just reading it out of curiosity as a divorced father with children who spend part of their time with a step-father (who seems to be a great guy)), so I don't feel qualified to try to repair it. Perhaps something along the lines of this would make more sense?
- Philosopher of science David Buller, as a part of his general critique of evolutionary psychology  has reviewed Daly and Wilson's data. He argues that evolutionary psychology (EP) mistakenly attempts to discover human psychological adaptations rather than "the evolutionary causes of psychological traits." Buller also argues that Daly and Wilson's study is statistically flawed because it conflates different kinds of abuse that do not necessarily stem from psychologically similar cases. For instance, a 1985 Canadian sample included cases of sexual abuse as well as cases of unintentional omission, such as not buckling a child’s seatbelt in the car. Buller asserts that unintentional omission does not fall under the realm of dangerous acts, and rather should be designated "maltreatment".
- Hi 18.104.22.168! Thank you for telling us! The following has happened: there was a perfectly good text, but one editor thought it needed more explanation, and wrote "study is statistically flawed because it conflates different kinds of abuse that do not necessarily psychologically similar cases" in the middle of the sentence, whithout checking if the whole sentence still made sense. I just removed this sentence. However, I like the sentence you propose also (apart from the "for instance" because the study that Buller thinks is flawed is based on the 1985 sample). So if you feel like adding your sentence, please be bold and add it! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
To balance this idea it might be worth adding an opposing perspective - there is research in attachment theory that shows that you do not need to be a blood relative to develop an attachment bond, and this attachment bond does not necessarily have to be present from birth. A good example of this is children who are adopted. Psunej (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Made a few changed to this section, the claims that were being made about attachment and adoption weren't cited and were not supported by the only citation given, which had nothing to do with adoption at all, so I reworded them to make them more tentative (as most things in psychological research should be). I also added a sentence on attachment in adoption. I think possibly the while section could do with revising, or maybe removing and adding a sentence about attachment in to one of the other sections? I don't see how relevant it is to the Cinderella effect unless there is some research I can't find that has linked them.Psunej (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cinderella effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516102016/http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/Cinderella_Effect.pdf to http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/Cinderella_Effect.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
- Monique van Londen, W.; Juffer, F.; van IJzendoorn, M. H. (20 June 2007). "Attachment, Cognitive, and Motor Development in Adopted Children: Short-term Outcomes after International Adoption". Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 32 (10): 1249–1258. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsm062. Retrieved 2 February 2016.