Sons win, daughters fit in: Parental preferences for outcomes in offspring competition

Sons win, daughters fit in: Parental preferences for outcomes in offspring competition | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Sons win, daughters fit in: Parental preferences for outcomes in offspring competition Krystal Duarte, Julia Hurwitz, Tori Short, Jennifer Byrd-Craven This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6865499/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Parental investment is a foundational concept in evolutionary psychology used to explain mating strategies and reproductive behavior (Del Giudice, Gangestad, & Kaplan, 2015; Del Giudice, 2009; Trivers, 1972). However, less is known about how competitive strategies persist into parenthood. This study examined how parent sex, child sex, and child performance (outperform, equal, underperform) in different life domains influence parents’ emotional responses and their expectations of others’ reactions. Parents were recruited through college student referrals, social media advertisements, and in-person outreach at local sporting events. They responded to vignettes where their child competed in a valued domain (e.g., academics, sports, friendships, church, or music). Results showed that parents were happiest when their child performed equally to a peer, especially for daughters. Mothers, in particular, preferred daughters’ performance to match rather than exceed peers and anticipated emotional responses such as jealousy and hurt from other parents when their daughters performed better than other children. Fathers, by contrast, showed minimal emotional differentiation across child sex or performance condition, extending and replicating Benenson & Schinazi’s (2004) work. Parents were more emotionally responsive in domains tied to reputation and peer inclusion, such as academics and church involvement. These findings suggest parenting, like mating, may function as a competitive arena where child performance reflects not only individual achievement but also social positioning and long-term reproductive success. Public Significance Statement: This study reveals that parenting is not just about nurturing; it can also be shaped by competition and social awareness. Parents, especially mothers, are sensitive to how their child’s success may be perceived by others, particularly when daughters stand out among peers. These findings suggest that emotional reactions to child achievement are influenced by gendered expectations and reputational concerns, extending theories of competition and cooperation into the domain of parenthood. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Public Significance Statement This study reveals that parenting is not just about nurturing; it can also be shaped by competition and social awareness. Parents, especially mothers, are sensitive to how their child’s success may be perceived by others, particularly when daughters stand out among peers. These findings suggest that emotional reactions to child achievement are influenced by gendered expectations and reputational concerns, extending theories of competition and cooperation into the domain of parenthood. Introduction Parents routinely pour resources into their children from hundreds of dollars annually for sports and extracurriculars to clothing and school accessories (LendingTree, 2023 ; Statista, 2024 ). These costs are not just acts of care but also signals of commitment, status, and investment. Parental investment is a foundational concept in evolutionary psychology, widely applied to understand mate preferences, friendships, and grandparenting (Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Hawkes, 2004 ; Loo et al., 2017 ; Reynolds, 2022 ; Trivers, 1972). As a finite and valuable resource, parental investment is often the object of competition, and it has been linked to numerous fitness benefits for offspring such as enhanced academic success, social mobility, physical health, and offspring survival (Alami et al., 2020; Amato, 1998 ; Kaplan et al., 1998; Sapolsky, 1986). Yet, while the literature richly explores how individuals secure parental investment from others (e.g., mates, grandparents, or friends), less is known about whether parents themselves use investment as a competitive strategy on behalf of their children. The current work addresses this gap by examining whether parents compete through investment and whether this varies by parent and child sex. In doing so, we argue that competition extends beyond mating and continues into parenting, where investment becomes both a caretaking act and a strategic signal. From Mating to Parenting: A Broader View of Investment Parental investment theory states that the sex that invests more in offspring will be more selective in mate choice, while the lower-investing sex will compete for access to mates (Trivers, 1972). In humans, women are choosier about sexual partners due to their limited reproductive timeline, obligatory gestation period, and prolonged caregiving needs during the extended juvenile period (Clutton-Brock, 1989; Trivers, 1972). These biological constraints have shaped sex differences in mate preferences. For example, women seek mates capable of providing protection, resources, and long-term stability, as a committed partner who offers these provisions enhances both her own survival and that of her offspring (Buss & Schmitt, 2019). While men often prioritize youth and fertility, traits linked to reproductive capability, they also value commitment, specifically in long-term relationships. Although men can pursue low-investment strategies due to their relatively lower obligatory parental investment (i.e., no gestation or lactation), commitment can offer substantial reproductive benefits (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972). Investing in a long-term partner and offspring increases paternity certainty, improves child survival, and ultimately enhances reproductive success (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Geary, 2000 ). Indeed, male parental investment is thought to have evolved, in part, because it improves offspring viability and is especially advantageous in environments where children’s survival is highly dependent on resource provisioning (Geary, 2000 ). Thus, a preference for a partner capable of investing in offspring lies at the heart of parental investment theory and is a valuable commodity over which individuals compete to enhance reproductive success. However, reproductive success does not end at conception or with partner commitment; for humans, it requires substantial investment over the course of extended offspring development. Parenting thus becomes a central strategy for ensuring offspring survival and success, ultimately benefiting the parents’ inclusive fitness. The considerable resources parents devote to their children reflect this imperative, as effective caregiving and provisioning directly influence a child's health, social positioning, and future reproductive outcomes (Alami et al., 2020; Amato, 1998 ; Kaplan et al., 1998). This reality highlights the crucial role of parental investment throughout child rearing and extended juvenility. Parental investment continues after birth through resource allocation, caregiving, and support of the child’s social development; yet this stage of investment has received less attention in competitive frameworks. We propose that parenting may be a domain of strategic competition, particularly when offspring outcomes serve as proxies for social standing and overall generational fitness. Parental Investment as a Social Strategy Geary and Flinn ( 2001 ) argued that the extended juvenile period serves as a way for parents to nurture their children's socio-cognitive abilities, enabling them to understand and navigate intricate social networks. Such skills were particularly vital in small societies where tracking coalitions and resources was crucial for survival. During our ancestral past, female exogamy (women leaving their natal group) was common upon marriage, leading them to establish close relationships with non-relatives (Benenson, 2022 ). Conversely, men tended to stay close to their kin throughout their lives, fostering bonds within their familial and social circles. These structures honed social skills and vigilance, shaping friendship preferences, expectations, and the nature of intrasexual competition. For instance, men's expansive networks revolved around cooperative activities, valuing friends for resources, status, and prestige that could enhance their fitness (Benenson et al., 1997; Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Williams et al., 2021). Long-term cooperative alliances were crucial for coalition-building and fending off threats (Geary et al., 2003; MacFarlen et al., 2014). Conversely, women sought smaller, intimate friendships centered on safety, emotional support, and information exchange (Benenson & Markovits, 2010; Campbell, 1999 ; Hrdy, 2009 ; McAndrew et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2021). Their pursuits revolved around intangible resources like social support, incorporating strategies like reciprocal altruism within their social network (Byrd-Craven & Geary, 2013; Geary, 2002 ; Hill & Hurtado, 2009 ; Liesen, 2013). Friendships were particularly prized among women, ensuring offspring care and survival. In fact, alloparental support significantly impacts offspring survival rates (Hrdy, 2009 ). While literature often emphasizes women seeking mates capable of investing in their offspring, pair bonding alone does not drive investment and provisioning to an offspring (Loo et al., 2017 ). In line with theories on alloparental care, focusing only on parental investment underscores the vital role of social support in enhancing offspring viability (Hawkes, 2004 ). Alloparental care is a valuable resource, often acquired through female friendships; thus, mothers should be sensitive to losses in non-kin social support and should find it worthy to compete over (Benenson, 2013 ). In ancestral environments, navigating complex social networks was crucial for survival and reproductive success. Evolved mechanisms like cheater detection (Cosmides & Tooby, 2005 ; Ermer et al., 2006 ) and ally recognition (DeScioli & Kurzban, 2009 ) helped individuals secure valuable social partners. For mothers, strong alloparental support networks alleviated parenting stress and enhanced offspring survival (Balaji et al., 2007 ). Maintaining a favorable social reputation thus became critical for accessing support and optimizing cooperation and competition opportunities. Geary and Flinn ( 2001 ) emphasize that the extended juvenile period allows parents to shape children’s socio-cognitive skills, fostering social development, resource accumulation, and ultimately enhancing offspring reproductive success (Silk, 2009 ). Parental investment thus operates as a competitive tactic to secure long-term generational advantages. Consistent with this, lack of parental investment is linked to earlier puberty, earlier sexual initiation, and higher rates of teenage pregnancy among girls (Alvergne et al., 2008; Ellis et al., 2003; Moffitt et al., 1992; Tither & Ellis, 2008), and greater anger, criminal behavior, and risk-taking among boys (Amato & Sobolewski, 2004; Harper & McLanahan, 2004; Kruger & Nesse, 2006). In contrast, children with highly involved parents show better academic performance, higher social mobility, and improved health outcomes (Alami et al., 2020; Amato, 1998 ; Kaplan et al., 1998). These patterns suggest that parental investment calibrates offspring development to early environments and that investment itself may serve as a competitive signal of parental dedication, resources, and genetic quality. A child’s achievements thus not only reflect individual success but also enhance parental reproductive fitness. Sex Differences in Parental Investment Although both men and women invest in their children, the motives and forms of parental competition may reflect evolved sex differences. Men and women tend to compete differently: men are more likely to engage in direct, overt competition for tangible rewards, while women often favor indirect and relational strategies shaped by safety concerns and caregiving responsibilities (Benenson & Abadzi, 2020 ; Campbell, 1999 ; Cassar & Rigdon, 2021). Additionally, men and boys are more tolerant of conflict within their friendships (Benenson et al., 2009 ). These sex differences in behavior are also reflected within the stress response. Men show heightened reactivity to achievement-based threats, whereas women are more attuned to social and relational stressors (Clauss & Byrd-Craven, 2019; Stroud et al., 2002). In response to stress, women often engage in “tend-and-befriend” strategies that promote social harmony and alliance formation (Nickels et al., 2017 ; Taylor et al., 2000). Consistent with this, women tend to avoid direct same-sex competition and often report disliking other women who are overtly competitive (Benenson & Abadzi, 2020 ; Duarte et al., 2025 ). These dynamics extend into parenting. Parents may be particularly sensitive to how their daughters are socially perceived. Traits such as sexual openness, attention-seeking, or overt ambition may raise concern due to reputational costs, as they signal reduced mate value and hinder peer acceptance (Benenson & Abadzi, 2020 ; Buss & Dedden, 1990; Duarte et al., 2025 ; Vaillancourt, 2013 ). For example, the daughter-guarding hypothesis suggests that fathers are especially vigilant about their daughters’ sexual reputations, often engaging in monitoring and control to preserve their mate value and the family’s social standing (Apostolou, 2012 ; Perilloux, 2008). In contrast, parents may be more attuned to performance-based stress in their sons, as achievements signal resource acquisition potential and social dominance. Supporting this, fathers exhibit heightened physiological reactivity to their sons’ overtly competitive experiences, such as in sports (Alvarado et al., 2018 ). As a result, parents may manage their investment in their sons and daughters differently. While these patterns occur across children, daughters in particular may be recipients of gendered investments tied to participation in socially visible activities. For sons, however, parental investment may be more concentrated in performance-based domains such as competitive sports or academic achievement, areas tied to status acquisition and future success. These sex-differentiated investment patterns reflect broader evolutionary expectations with downstream reproductive and social benefits (Geary, 1998; Hill & Buss, 2008; Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2009). In line with this, these parenting strategies reflect broader evolved mechanisms related to same-sex rivalry, mate value calibration, and reputation management. The Current Study In the present study, we utilize the competitive framework outlined by Benenson & Schinazi ( 2004 ) to examine how parents respond emotionally to their child’s performance and how they believe other parents would react to their child’s performance outcome. We further explore whether these emotional reactions vary by performance context (e.g., outperforming vs. underperforming) and whether they differ based on the parent’s sex and the child’s sex. By identifying how parents respond to competition involving their children, this study sheds light on how parents navigate reputational concerns and strategically manage their children’s social and competitive outcomes. We expect that parents will be more attuned to stressors that are salient for each child’s sex. Further, in line with work on female intra-sexual competition and friendships, we expect that mothers will be more satisfied with equal outcomes, particularly for their daughters, rather than overtly outperforming another child. Methods Participants The sample consisted of 668 parents, ranging in age from 18 to 75 years old. Parents were recruited from a mid-western university through college student referrals, social media advertisements, and outreach at local sporting events. Of these, 402 identified as female, 73 as male, and 188 did not specify their sex thus were not included in the analysis involving sex. Parents were asked to report on one of their children; among those specified, 359 reported on a daughter, 153 on a son, and 156 did not specify their child’s sex, which were also not included in the analysis involving sex. Participants were also asked to report their child’s age. Most responses fell within the expected range of school-aged and young adult children (ages 6–21), though three potential outliers (e.g., 27, 28, 48) suggest that some parents may have mistakenly entered their own age. In terms of racial and ethnic identity, the majority of respondents identified as White/Caucasian (82.3%), followed by Hispanic/Hispanic American (5.0%), with less than (5.0%) identifying as Black/African American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian/Asian American, Indian/Indian American, Middle Eastern, and Multiracial/Biracial. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB-23-492-STW. It was not preregistered, but data and materials can be found on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/4hcta/?view_only=cc151cf0190143cb8479bb6fdb6b0714 . Procedure Parents completed demographic questions (e.g., age, relationship status, ethnicity), followed by questions about their eldest child (e.g., age, sex). Using a modified version of a hypothetical competition paradigm (Benenson & Schinazi, 2004 ), parents selected which domain was most important to them: academics, sports, friendships, music, or church involvement. In a within-subjects design, they were then randomly assigned to read a vignette in which their child either (a) outperformed another child, (b) performed equally to another child, or (c) was outperformed by another child in that domain. After reading the scenario, parents reported their own emotional reactions and their beliefs about how the other child's parent would feel about their child’s performance. If parents indicated they had more than one child, the survey repeated the procedure for the next child. Measures Feelings about child’s performance On a 5-point scale (1 = Extremely unhappy, 5 = Extremely happy) participants rated how each vignette made them feel. This measure captured how parents felt in response to their child’s performance outcome, allowing for comparisons across performance outcomes, child sex, and parent sex. Perceived emotions of other parents Participants were presented with a checklist of emotional reactions and asked to select all that applied to how they believed other parents would respond to their child’s performance outcome. The list included a range of emotional responses categorized as negative, positive, or neutral. The six negative items included ‘jealous’, ‘hurt’, ‘sad’, ‘mad’, ‘betrayed’, and ‘you try too hard.’ Positive had two items including ‘happy for you’ and ‘proud of you’. Then three neutral items included ‘indifferent’, ‘unbothered’, and ‘nothing’. This measure was designed to assess parents’ perceptions of the emotional and social reactions their child’s success or failure might evoke from others, allowing for the examination of how perceptions of peer comparison and social evaluation vary based on parent sex, child sex, and performance context. Results Parent Priorities When asked which domain was most important to them regarding their child, 46.3% of parents selected academics, followed by church involvement (24.9%), having friends (23.8%), sports (4.2%), and music (0.8%). This suggests that academic achievement is the dominant domain for nearly half the sample (See Fig. 1). How Parents Feel About Their Child’s Performance A univariate ANOVA was used to examine how child’s performance (outperform, underperform, equal), parent sex (male/father, female/mother), and child sex (male/son, female/daughter) influenced parents’ emotional responses. A significant main effect of performance emerged, F (3, 608) = 13.18, p < .001, partial η²=.061. Parents in general reported greater happiness when their child performed equally to a peer ( M = 3.95, SE = .13), followed by outperforming ( M = 2.97, SE = .13), and the least happiness when their child underperformed ( M = 2.59, SE = .13) (See Fig. 2). All pairwise comparisons were significant ( ps < .05), suggesting that equality was the outcome that brought about the most satisfaction. Two key interactions qualified these findings. First, there was a significant interaction between performance and child sex, F (2, 608) = 9.46, p < .001, partial η²=.030. Parents were happier when daughters performed equally to peers ( M = 4.55, SE = .19), compared to sons performing equally ( M = 3.44, SE = .16) (See Fig. 3). A second interaction between parent sex and child sex was also significant, F (2, 608) = 9.57, p < .001, partial η²=.031. Mothers reported greater happiness when their sons outperformed others ( M = 3.14, SE = .12) than when their daughters did ( M = 2.73, SE = .10), whereas fathers showed similar levels of happiness for both sons ( M = 3.13, SE = .19) and daughters ( M = 3.32, SE = .17). Lastly, a three-way interaction among performance, parent sex, and child sex further showed these effects but marginally, F (3, 608) = 2.62, p = .050, partial η²=.013. Mothers expressed the most happiness when daughters performed equally to a peer ( M = 4.39, SE = .09) and the lowest when their child underperformed, regardless of sex (See Fig. 4 for all Means and Standard Errors). Parents Respond Differently Across Life Domains In addition to performance and sex, parental emotional responses were also influenced by domain. A main effect of domain emerged, F (5, 608) = 6.34, p < .001, partial η²=.050. Parents overall reported the highest happiness responses in the Academics ( M = 3.55, SE = 0.12) and Music ( M = 4.00, SE = 0.40) domains, followed by Church Involvement ( M = 3.04, SE = 0.15). Responses were lower for Friends ( M = 2.43, SE = 0.14) and Sports ( M = 1.78, SE = 0.23). The effect of domain was moderated by performance, as indicated by a significant domain and performance interaction, F (6, 608) = 6.95, p < .001, partial η²=.064. In Academics, equal performance ( M = 4.42, SE = 0.13) and outperforming ( M = 4.17, SE = 0.13) elicited more happiness, whereas underperformance ( M = 2.82, SE = 0.13) produced less. A similar pattern emerged in Church Involvement and Friends, where happiness was higher under equal conditions and dropped when the child underperformed. One notable exception to this pattern was in the Sports domain, where parental happiness remained relatively low across all performance outcomes. This may reflect the cultural ambivalence surrounding youth sports. While athletic success is often celebrated, it is also associated with heightened pressure, risk of injury, and burnout (Coakley, 2006 ; Fredricks & Eccles, 2004 ) (See Table 1 for all Means and Standard Errors). Table 1 Parent Happiness by Domain and Performance Condition Domain Outcome Mean SE Academics Equal 4.42 0.13 Academics Outperform 4.17 0.13 Academics Underperform 2.82 0.13 Church Involvement Equal 4.30 1.09 Church Involvement Outperform 3.07 1.21 Church Involvement Underperform 2.47 0.59 Friends Equal 4.08 1.08 Friends Outperform 2.53 0.83 Friends Underperform 2.30 0.69 Sports Equal 3.00 0.89 Sports Outperform 0.00 0.00 Sports Underperform 2.67 0.82 Music Equal 5.00 0.00 Music Outperform 4.00 1.41 Music Underperform 3.00 0.00 Note. Happiness was rated on a scale from 1 (Extremely Unhappy) to 5 (Extremely Happy). Anticipation of Other Parent’s Emotional Reactions To assess how parents believed others would react to their child’s performance, chi-square analyses were conducted on anticipated emotional responses. In parents overall, there was no significant relationship between performance condition and anticipated jealousy, χ²(3, N = 668) = 3.84, p = .279, Cramer’s V = .076. However, among mothers, jealousy was significantly associated with child performance, χ²(3, N = 402) = 136.14, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .582. Mothers were most likely to believe others would feel jealous when their child outperformed a peer. While fathers did not anticipate jealousy in any performance condition. When stratified by child sex, this pattern held for daughters. Parents of daughters reported significantly greater expectations of jealousy from others when their child outperformed, χ²(3, N = 359) = 8.83, p = .032, Cramer’s V = .157. No such association emerged for sons (See Table 2 for all Means and Standard Errors). Percentage of Parents Who Anticipated Others Would Feel Jealous A similar trend was observed for the emotion “hurt.” In the overall sample, hurt was unrelated to performance condition, χ²(3, N = 668) = 0.74, p = .865, Cramer’s V = .033. However, among mothers, hurt was again significantly associated with performance condition, χ²(3, N = 402) = 80.06, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .446, with the highest frequencies occurring when their child either outperformed or underperformed. This association was again only evident for daughters, χ²(3, N = 359) = 10.88, p = .012, Cramer’s V = .174 (See Table 3 for all Means and Standard Errors). Positive emotions such as “pride” and “happy for you” also showed significant associations with child performance, but only among mothers. Mothers were more likely to anticipate pride from others, χ²(3, N = 402) = 21.50, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .245 (Table 4), and that others would feel happy for them, χ²(3, N = 402) = 10.88, p = .012, Cramer’s V = .174, (Table 5), when their child outperformed. These effects did not emerge among fathers. No significant effects were found for other anticipated emotions, including betrayal, sadness, anger, indifference, being unbothered, doing nothing, or trying hard. Discussion The current study examined parents’ emotional responses to their child’s performance in valued domains and explored whether these reactions varied by parent gender, child gender, and domain. We find that parents reported the greatest happiness when their child performed equally to a peer, rather than outperforming or underperforming. Notably, this was largely driven by mothers’ responses to daughters. Mothers preferred sons to outperform, but daughters to perform equally to peers. In contrast, fathers did not differentiate by child gender or performance level. These findings align with research by Benenson and Schinazi ( 2004 ), which shows that girls prefer equal outcomes in friendships and anticipate negative emotional reactions from others when they stand out. It is not that mothers do not want their daughters to succeed; rather, they appear to engage in protective behaviors that promote social safety and shield daughters from potential social threats, such as exclusion or relational aggression. The aversion to outperformance likely reflects an intuitive understanding of the social risks associated with standing out – risks that are more acute for girls than for boys (Benenson et al, 2013 ; Benenson, 2014 ; Goodwin, 1990 ; Gottman, 1986 ; Maltz & Borker, 1982 ; Simmons, 2002 ). Supporting this, mothers in our study expected that other parents would react negatively. They reported expectations of jealousy and hurt from other parents when their daughters outperformed peers. This heightened sensitivity may reflect the relational costs of standing out. Women’s success in raising offspring depended on cultivating reliable social networks and cooperative caregiving relationships (Hrdy, 2009 ). In such environments, maintaining relational harmony and avoiding social strain would have been essential for preserving long-term support, making mothers especially attuned to signs of potential conflict or reputational costs. Within these social structures, mothers had to carefully balance cooperation and competition, a tension highlighted by Fisher and Moule’s ( 2013 ) framework of cooperative versus competitive motherhood. While collaboration ensured mutual support in childrearing, competition could arise subtly through child comparisons and reputational signaling. While maintaining a positive reputation is important for both mothers and fathers, the domains in which reputational management matters may differ. For fathers, being seen as competent providers or authoritative figures can enhance social standing and reinforce their role in the family, especially in contexts tied to provisioning (Geary, 2000 ; Marlowe, 2000 ). However, for mothers, ancestral maternal caregiving demands may have placed greater selective pressure on mothers to manage social impressions of their children and avoid conflict to preserve potential caregiving alliances. Likewise, women who gain access to territory, resources, and alliances tend to have greater reproductive success, making these relationships vital (Clutton-Brock, 2009). Thus, while both sexes care about reputation, mothers may be more attuned to subtle threats to relational harmony because their reputational standing directly affects their access to caregiving support Moreover, women and girls often face steep social penalties for overt displays of dominance or superiority. Research shows that women who are perceived as competitive or high achieving, especially when they disrupt group cohesion, are often disliked (Duarte et al., 2025 ; Reynolds, 2022 ; Sheppard & Aquino, 2017). This is especially true in same-sex friendships, where perceived inequality can lead to conflict (Benenson et al., 2014). Girls are expected to maintain equality, and behaving superior, even when earned, can result in ostracism (Benenson et al, 2013 ; Benenson, 2014 ; Goodwin, 1990 ; Gottman, 1986 ). Williams and Tiedens ( 2016 ) further demonstrate that dominance, particularly in women, is penalized both implicitly and explicitly across social and professional domains. Taken together, these findings suggest that mothers may anticipate the social and emotional costs that come with their daughters outperforming others. By preferring equal outcomes, they may be protecting their daughters from being disliked, excluded, or perceived as socially threatening, all of which could jeopardize peer bonds, reputational standing, and future support networks. Interestingly, our findings suggest a potential gap in paternal attention to the risks of losing alloparental support and recognition of differences in status striving for male and female offspring. Fathers reported relatively similar happiness for son and daughter outcomes alike, though with a comparably lower sample size, we had limited power to detect effects. It could however, also reflect a lack of awareness or concern about the social costs associated with outperforming others in same-gender peer contexts for girls. While mothers appeared more sensitive to these social dynamics, fathers may focus more on achievement or status gains, overlooking how peer relationships can be threatened by high performance particularly for daughters. This aligns with research suggesting that women are generally more socially attentive and relationally oriented than men, especially in managing in-group dynamics (Cross & Madson, 1997). Life history theory also provides a useful framework for interpreting these patterns. It explains how individuals allocate resources toward survival, reproduction, and social relationships (Stearns, 1992 ). Parents with slow life history strategies tend to emphasize long-term planning, delayed reproduction, and strong social bonds, whereas fast strategies prioritize early reproduction, frequent mating, and lower parental investment (Kaplan & Gangestad, 2005 ). Our findings elicit that parents are most pleased when their child “fits in” rather than excels, suggesting a preference for outcomes that promote social inclusion. Consistent with life history theory, high parental attunement, particularly among mothers, may reflect a slower strategy emphasizing long-term planning, reputation management, and strong investment in fewer offspring (Del Giudice, 2009; Quinlan, 2007). However, several limitations warrant consideration in interpreting these findings and open avenues for future research. Limitations and Future Directions First, there may have been definitional overlap across domains. For instance, sports, church involvement, and music could reflect both achievement-based values and social belonging goals, making it difficult to disentangle whether parents prioritized these domains primarily for their child’s individual success or for their integration into valued peer groups. While participants selected the domain most important to them, the underlying psychological stakes may have been similar across categories, especially in terms of how performance impacts their child’s social reputation. Second, cell sizes were uneven and occasionally small, which limits the ability to detect more nuanced interactions between variables. For example, future work could include domains that more clearly distinguish between appearance enhancement or social affiliation (e.g., beauty, popularity) versus status and formidability (e.g., leadership, competitive sports), which may elicit different responses by parent or child sex, as these traits differentially enhance social value for men and women. Relatedly, when participants reported how they thought other parents would react, this was most notable among mothers. Future work should explore the imagined sex of those judging parents. For example, whether mothers anticipate or fear judgment from parents generally or from other mothers specifically. Future studies could experimentally manipulate the sex of the evaluators which would allow researchers to test whether perceived judgment depends on the evaluator’s sex to examine whether same-sex parental comparisons heighten feelings of judgment. Third, the sample has notable limitations. First, it was drawn from a geographically constrained region in the U.S. Midwest and was primarily composed of White/Caucasians who identified as religious, limiting the generalizability of the findings. This becomes evident in the fact that church involvement ranks as the second most important life domain which may vary across the states or cultures. However, this domain being most important may also serve as a signaling function as religiosity can cue to trustworthiness and restricted sociosexuality, both that may be more important to parents for their daughters to signal as it is connected to her mate value (Apostolou, 2012 ; Moon et al., 2018 ; Perilloux, 2008). Along with this, the sample primarily consisted of mothers rather than fathers, so the lack of differences among fathers may be due to limited statistical power. This also raises the possibility that any sensitivity fathers might have shown toward their sons’ performance may have gone undetected. Future research should aim to examine these dynamics with more fathers, across cultures, developmental stages, and real-life contexts. Future work should also consider how parents’ own sociosexual orientation, reproductive history, or single-parent status may shape investment strategies particularly when it comes to protecting children from social costs or navigating reputational threats. Practical Implications Importantly, these findings carry practical implications for modern parenting. Mothers may feel pressure to ensure their daughters are socially accepted, even if that means dampening visible ambition. While these instincts may be protective, they could inadvertently discourage girls from embracing competition or taking pride in their achievements. Helping children, especially daughters, learn how to succeed without social penalty may require open conversations about peer dynamics, emotional resilience, and the difference between arrogance and confidence. Likewise, fathers may benefit from increased awareness of the relational stakes daughters face in peer groups and how success may carry unintended social consequences. Conclusion This study sheds light on the nuanced ways parents respond to their child’s performance in socially and emotionally significant domains. By revealing that mothers, particularly of daughters, prioritize social equilibrium over individual success, our findings suggest that parental emotional responses are not solely about achievement but reflect strategies for navigating social harmony, reputation, and relational dynamics. These patterns highlight how parenting decisions may support both the child’s development and broader social cohesion within valued networks. Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This study was approved by the Oklahoma State University Institutional Review Board (IRB-23-492-STW). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study. Human Ethics and Consent to Participate Declarations This study involved human participants. Ethics approval and informed consent were obtained. Clinical Trial Number Not applicable. Funding This research received no external funding. Author Contribution K.D wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript. References Alami, S. (2020). Mother's social status is associated with child health in a horticulturalist population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287, 20192783. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2783 Alvarado, L. C., Muller, M. N., Eaton, M. A., et al. (2018). Steroid Hormone Reactivity in Fathers Watching Their Children Compete. Human Nature , 29 , 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9318-2 Amato, P. R. (1998). More than money? Men's contributions to their children's lives. In A. Booth, & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (pp. 241–278). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Apostolou, M. (2012). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating. Evolutionary Psychology , 10 (3), 403–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000308 Balaji, A. B., Claussen, A. H., Smith, D. C., Visser, S. N., Morales, M. J., & Perou, R. (2007). Social support networks and maternal mental health and well-being. J Women Health (Larchmt) , 16 (10), 1386–1396. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2007.CDC10 Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Fitzgerald, C., Geoffroy, D., Flemming, J., Kahlenberg, S. M., & Wrangham, R. W. (2009). Males’ Greater Tolerance of Same-Sex Peers. Psychological Science , 20 (2), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02269.x Benenson, J. F. (2022). Human females as a dispersal-egalitarian species: A hypothesis about women and status. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology , 8 , 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-022-00191-x Benenson, J. F., & Abadzi, H. (2020). Contest versus scramble competition: Sex differences in the quest for status. Current Opinion in Psychology , 33 , 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.013 Benenson, J. F., & Markovits, H. (2014). Warriors and worriers: The survival of the sexes . Oxford University Press. Benenson, J. F., & Schinazi, J. (2004). Sex differences in reactions to outperforming same-sex friends. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 22 (3), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1348/0261510041552729 Benenson, J. F. (2013). The development of human female competition: allies and adversaries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences , 368 (1631). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0079 Benenson, J. F., et al. (2013). Social exclusion: More important to human females than males. PLOS ONE , 8 (2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055851 Benenson, J. F., & Markovits, H. (2023). Married women with children experience greater intrasexual competition than their male counterparts. Scientific Reports , 13 (1), 4498. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31816-0 Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Fitzgerald, C., Geoffroy, D., Flemming, J., Kahlenberg, S. M., & Wrangham, R. W. (2009). Males’ Greater Tolerance of Same-Sex Peers. Psychological Science , 20 (2), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02269.x (Original work published 2009). Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 22 , 203–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99001818 Cassar, A. (2016). Competing for the benefit of offspring eliminates the gender gap in competitiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5201–5205. Clutton-Brock, T. (2017). Reproductive competition and sexual selection. Royal Society , 372 (1729). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0310 Coakley, J. (2006). The good father: Parental expectations and youth sports. Leisure Studies , 25 (2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360500467735 Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2005). Neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 584–627). Wiley. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). The alliance hypothesis for human friendship. PLoS One , 4 (6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005802 Del Giudice, M., Gangestad, S. W., & Kaplan, H. S. (2015). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 88–114). Wiley. Duarte, K., Rodriguez, N. N., Krems, J. A., French, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (Eds.). (2025). (Why) Do people disfavor competitiveness in women? Pre-registered tests between three theories . Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. Ellis, B. J., & Garber, J. (2000). Psychosocial Antecedents of Variation in Girls' Pubertal Timing: Maternal Depression, Stepfather Presence, and Marital and Family Stress. Child Development , 71 , 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00159 Ermer, E., Guerin, S., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Miller, M. (2006). Theory of mind broad and narrow: Reasoning about social exchange engages TOM areas, precautionary reasoning does not. Social Neuroscience , 2 (3–4), 196–219. Fisher, M. L., & Moule, K. R. (2013). A new direction for intrasexual competition research: Cooperative versus competitive motherhood. Journal of Social Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology , 7 , 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099187 Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Parental influences on youth involvement in sports. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 145–164). Fitness Information Technology. Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin , 126 (1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55 Geary, D. C. (2002). Sexual selection and human life history. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 30, pp. 41–101). Academic. Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2001). Evolution of human parental behavior and the human family. Parenting: Science and Practice , 1 (1–2), 5–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR011&2_2 Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children . Indiana University Press. Gottman, J. M., & Parker, J. G. (1986). Conversations of friends: Speculations on affective development . Cambridge University Press. Hawkes, K. (2004). The grandmother effect. Nature , 428 , 128–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/428128a Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (2009). Cooperative breeding in South American hunter–gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1674), 3863–3870. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding . Harvard University Press. Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 68–95). Wiley. LendingTree (2023). Cost of extracurriculars: How much are parents paying? https://www.lendingtree.com Loo, S., Hawkes, K., & Kim, P. (2017). Evolution of male strategies with sex-ratio–dependent pay-offs: Connecting pair bonds with grandmothering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 372. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0041 Macfarlan, S. J., Walker, R. S., Flinn, M. V., & Chagnon, N. A. (2014). Lethal coalitionary aggression and long-term alliance formation among Yanomamö men. Pnas , 111 (47), 16662–16669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.141863911 Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A Cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity . Cambridge University Press. Marlowe, F. W. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioural Processes , 51 (1–3), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00118-2 Moon, J., Krems, J., & Cohen, A. (2018). Religious People Are Trusted Because They Are Viewed as Slow Life-History Strategists. Psychological Science , 29 , 947–960. 10.1177/0956797617753606 Nickels, N., Waite, M., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2017). Sex differences in the effects of psychosocial stress on cooperative and prosocial behavior: Evidence for ‘fight or flight’ in males and ‘tend and befriend’ in females. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology , 3 (2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-017-0062-3 Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The Daughter-Guarding Hypothesis: Parental Influence on, and Emotional Reactions to, Offspring’s Mating Behavior. Evolutionary Psychology , 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600202 Reynolds, T. A. (2022). Our grandmothers' legacy: Challenges faced by female ancestors leave traces in modern women's same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 51 (7), 3225–3256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01768-x Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development , 50 (4), 923–935. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129316 Silk, J. B. (2009). The benefits of social capital: close social bonds among female baboons enhance offspring survival. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1670), 3099–3104. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0681 Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls . Harcourt, Inc. Snyder, E. E., & Purdy, D. A. (1982). Socialization into sport: Parent and child reverse and reciprocal effects. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 53 (3), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1982.10609353 Statista (2024). Back-to-school spending in the United States. https://www.statista.com/statistics/232531/ Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories . Oxford University Press. Trivers, R. L. (1996). Parental investment and sexual selection. In L. D. Houck, & L. C. Drickamer (Eds.), Foundations of animal behavior: Classic papers with commentaries (pp. 795–838). University of Chicago Press. Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 368 (1631), 20130080. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0080 Von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223–2232. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2145 Williams, K. E. G., Krems, J. A., Ayers, J. D., & Rankin, A. M. (2022). Sex differences in friendship preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior , 43 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.09.003 Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin , 142 (2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6865499","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":472038410,"identity":"7a1c1fb4-248e-4bb2-9af0-b397e0dc762f","order_by":0,"name":"Krystal Duarte","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oklahoma State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Krystal","middleName":"","lastName":"Duarte","suffix":""},{"id":472038413,"identity":"e627ee37-d252-42f1-8337-708a93537a20","order_by":1,"name":"Julia Hurwitz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oklahoma State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Julia","middleName":"","lastName":"Hurwitz","suffix":""},{"id":472038414,"identity":"910fed96-25e6-4e9b-ad9c-b59d5e905c5d","order_by":2,"name":"Tori Short","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oklahoma State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tori","middleName":"","lastName":"Short","suffix":""},{"id":472038416,"identity":"23c379c4-0975-4bc0-a9f1-4461647f7401","order_by":3,"name":"Jennifer Byrd-Craven","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oklahoma State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jennifer","middleName":"","lastName":"Byrd-Craven","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-10 17:53:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6865499/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6865499/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84858316,"identity":"4d4b9eba-b2bd-49ea-a13d-b62301c6b1b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-18 06:32:35","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParent Priorities by Life Domain\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6865499/v1/4e0d73d547fa9804ec1b1400.png"},{"id":84857498,"identity":"c68c0a29-f642-482b-8674-c75523df4c94","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-18 06:24:35","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":22965,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParent Happiness by Child’s Performance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6865499/v1/6936d4a83891d18162d9c620.png"},{"id":84857503,"identity":"51567802-2199-4b1f-b49e-9e24d91b5329","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-18 06:24:36","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23486,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParent’s Happiness Based on Child’s Sex and Performance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6865499/v1/d492d9bb27550d3c5a92cacd.png"},{"id":84857499,"identity":"98eec11b-f062-41ab-b77a-26865b15591b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-18 06:24:35","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":28045,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParent’s Happiness Based on Parent’s Sex, Child’s Sex, and Performance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6865499/v1/6c19f0bcbcc2108412f92f46.png"},{"id":90155888,"identity":"44f31f90-36e5-4984-995f-59fbdfff93a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-29 08:09:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":936628,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6865499/v1/fbfb2a9b-1ca9-444a-b7b2-d5586bd4ae53.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eSons win, daughters fit in: Parental preferences for outcomes in offspring competition \u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Public Significance Statement","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study reveals that parenting is not just about nurturing; it can also be shaped by competition and social awareness. Parents, especially mothers, are sensitive to how their child\u0026rsquo;s success may be perceived by others, particularly when daughters stand out among peers. These findings suggest that emotional reactions to child achievement are influenced by gendered expectations and reputational concerns, extending theories of competition and cooperation into the domain of parenthood.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eParents routinely pour resources into their children from hundreds of dollars annually for sports and extracurriculars to clothing and school accessories (LendingTree, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Statista, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These costs are not just acts of care but also signals of commitment, status, and investment. Parental investment is a foundational concept in evolutionary psychology, widely applied to understand mate preferences, friendships, and grandparenting (Buss \u0026amp; Schmitt, 2019; Hawkes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Loo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Reynolds, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Trivers, 1972). As a finite and valuable resource, parental investment is often the object of competition, and it has been linked to numerous fitness benefits for offspring such as enhanced academic success, social mobility, physical health, and offspring survival (Alami et al., 2020; Amato, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan et al., 1998; Sapolsky, 1986). Yet, while the literature richly explores how individuals secure parental investment from others (e.g., mates, grandparents, or friends), less is known about whether parents themselves use investment as a competitive strategy on behalf of their children. The current work addresses this gap by examining whether parents compete through investment and whether this varies by parent and child sex. In doing so, we argue that competition extends beyond mating and continues into parenting, where investment becomes both a caretaking act and a strategic signal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFrom Mating to Parenting: A Broader View of Investment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParental investment theory states that the sex that invests more in offspring will be more selective in mate choice, while the lower-investing sex will compete for access to mates (Trivers, 1972). In humans, women are choosier about sexual partners due to their limited reproductive timeline, obligatory gestation period, and prolonged caregiving needs during the extended juvenile period (Clutton-Brock, 1989; Trivers, 1972). These biological constraints have shaped sex differences in mate preferences. For example, women seek mates capable of providing protection, resources, and long-term stability, as a committed partner who offers these provisions enhances both her own survival and that of her offspring (Buss \u0026amp; Schmitt, 2019). While men often prioritize youth and fertility, traits linked to reproductive capability, they also value commitment, specifically in long-term relationships. Although men can pursue low-investment strategies due to their relatively lower obligatory parental investment (i.e., no gestation or lactation), commitment can offer substantial reproductive benefits (Buss \u0026amp; Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972). Investing in a long-term partner and offspring increases paternity certainty, improves child survival, and ultimately enhances reproductive success (Gangestad \u0026amp; Simpson, 2000; Geary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, male parental investment is thought to have evolved, in part, because it improves offspring viability and is especially advantageous in environments where children\u0026rsquo;s survival is highly dependent on resource provisioning (Geary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, a preference for a partner capable of investing in offspring lies at the heart of parental investment theory and is a valuable commodity over which individuals compete to enhance reproductive success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, reproductive success does not end at conception or with partner commitment; for humans, it requires substantial investment over the course of extended offspring development. Parenting thus becomes a central strategy for ensuring offspring survival and success, ultimately benefiting the parents\u0026rsquo; inclusive fitness. The considerable resources parents devote to their children reflect this imperative, as effective caregiving and provisioning directly influence a child's health, social positioning, and future reproductive outcomes (Alami et al., 2020; Amato, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan et al., 1998).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis reality highlights the crucial role of parental investment throughout child rearing and extended juvenility. Parental investment continues after birth through resource allocation, caregiving, and support of the child\u0026rsquo;s social development; yet this stage of investment has received less attention in competitive frameworks. We propose that parenting may be a domain of strategic competition, particularly when offspring outcomes serve as proxies for social standing and overall generational fitness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParental Investment as a Social Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeary and Flinn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) argued that the extended juvenile period serves as a way for parents to nurture their children's socio-cognitive abilities, enabling them to understand and navigate intricate social networks. Such skills were particularly vital in small societies where tracking coalitions and resources was crucial for survival. During our ancestral past, female exogamy (women leaving their natal group) was common upon marriage, leading them to establish close relationships with non-relatives (Benenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, men tended to stay close to their kin throughout their lives, fostering bonds within their familial and social circles. These structures honed social skills and vigilance, shaping friendship preferences, expectations, and the nature of intrasexual competition. For instance, men's expansive networks revolved around cooperative activities, valuing friends for resources, status, and prestige that could enhance their fitness (Benenson et al., 1997; Buss \u0026amp; Schmitt, 2019; Williams et al., 2021). Long-term cooperative alliances were crucial for coalition-building and fending off threats (Geary et al., 2003; MacFarlen et al., 2014). Conversely, women sought smaller, intimate friendships centered on safety, emotional support, and information exchange (Benenson \u0026amp; Markovits, 2010; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Hrdy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; McAndrew et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2021). Their pursuits revolved around intangible resources like social support, incorporating strategies like reciprocal altruism within their social network (Byrd-Craven \u0026amp; Geary, 2013; Geary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Hill \u0026amp; Hurtado, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Liesen, 2013). Friendships were particularly prized among women, ensuring offspring care and survival. In fact, alloparental support significantly impacts offspring survival rates (Hrdy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). While literature often emphasizes women seeking mates capable of investing in their offspring, pair bonding alone does not drive investment and provisioning to an offspring (Loo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In line with theories on alloparental care, focusing only on parental investment underscores the vital role of social support in enhancing offspring viability (Hawkes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Alloparental care is a valuable resource, often acquired through female friendships; thus, mothers should be sensitive to losses in non-kin social support and should find it worthy to compete over (Benenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn ancestral environments, navigating complex social networks was crucial for survival and reproductive success. Evolved mechanisms like cheater detection (Cosmides \u0026amp; Tooby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Ermer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) and ally recognition (DeScioli \u0026amp; Kurzban, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) helped individuals secure valuable social partners. For mothers, strong alloparental support networks alleviated parenting stress and enhanced offspring survival (Balaji et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Maintaining a favorable social reputation thus became critical for accessing support and optimizing cooperation and competition opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeary and Flinn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that the extended juvenile period allows parents to shape children\u0026rsquo;s socio-cognitive skills, fostering social development, resource accumulation, and ultimately enhancing offspring reproductive success (Silk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Parental investment thus operates as a competitive tactic to secure long-term generational advantages. Consistent with this, lack of parental investment is linked to earlier puberty, earlier sexual initiation, and higher rates of teenage pregnancy among girls (Alvergne et al., 2008; Ellis et al., 2003; Moffitt et al., 1992; Tither \u0026amp; Ellis, 2008), and greater anger, criminal behavior, and risk-taking among boys (Amato \u0026amp; Sobolewski, 2004; Harper \u0026amp; McLanahan, 2004; Kruger \u0026amp; Nesse, 2006). In contrast, children with highly involved parents show better academic performance, higher social mobility, and improved health outcomes (Alami et al., 2020; Amato, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan et al., 1998). These patterns suggest that parental investment calibrates offspring development to early environments and that investment itself may serve as a competitive signal of parental dedication, resources, and genetic quality. A child\u0026rsquo;s achievements thus not only reflect individual success but also enhance parental reproductive fitness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSex Differences in Parental Investment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough both men and women invest in their children, the motives and forms of parental competition may reflect evolved sex differences. Men and women tend to compete differently: men are more likely to engage in direct, overt competition for tangible rewards, while women often favor indirect and relational strategies shaped by safety concerns and caregiving responsibilities (Benenson \u0026amp; Abadzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Cassar \u0026amp; Rigdon, 2021). Additionally, men and boys are more tolerant of conflict within their friendships (Benenson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). These sex differences in behavior are also reflected within the stress response. Men show heightened reactivity to achievement-based threats, whereas women are more attuned to social and relational stressors (Clauss \u0026amp; Byrd-Craven, 2019; Stroud et al., 2002). In response to stress, women often engage in \u0026ldquo;tend-and-befriend\u0026rdquo; strategies that promote social harmony and alliance formation (Nickels et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Taylor et al., 2000). Consistent with this, women tend to avoid direct same-sex competition and often report disliking other women who are overtly competitive (Benenson \u0026amp; Abadzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Duarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese dynamics extend into parenting. Parents may be particularly sensitive to how their daughters are socially perceived. Traits such as sexual openness, attention-seeking, or overt ambition may raise concern due to reputational costs, as they signal reduced mate value and hinder peer acceptance (Benenson \u0026amp; Abadzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Buss \u0026amp; Dedden, 1990; Duarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Vaillancourt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For example, the daughter-guarding hypothesis suggests that fathers are especially vigilant about their daughters\u0026rsquo; sexual reputations, often engaging in monitoring and control to preserve their mate value and the family\u0026rsquo;s social standing (Apostolou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Perilloux, 2008). In contrast, parents may be more attuned to performance-based stress in their sons, as achievements signal resource acquisition potential and social dominance. Supporting this, fathers exhibit heightened physiological reactivity to their sons\u0026rsquo; overtly competitive experiences, such as in sports (Alvarado et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, parents may manage their investment in their sons and daughters differently. While these patterns occur across children, daughters in particular may be recipients of gendered investments tied to participation in socially visible activities. For sons, however, parental investment may be more concentrated in performance-based domains such as competitive sports or academic achievement, areas tied to status acquisition and future success. These sex-differentiated investment patterns reflect broader evolutionary expectations with downstream reproductive and social benefits (Geary, 1998; Hill \u0026amp; Buss, 2008; Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2009). In line with this, these parenting strategies reflect broader evolved mechanisms related to same-sex rivalry, mate value calibration, and reputation management.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Current Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the present study, we utilize the competitive framework outlined by Benenson \u0026amp; Schinazi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) to examine how parents respond emotionally to their child\u0026rsquo;s performance and how they believe other parents would react to their child\u0026rsquo;s performance outcome. We further explore whether these emotional reactions vary by performance context (e.g., outperforming vs. underperforming) and whether they differ based on the parent\u0026rsquo;s sex and the child\u0026rsquo;s sex. By identifying how parents respond to competition involving their children, this study sheds light on how parents navigate reputational concerns and strategically manage their children\u0026rsquo;s social and competitive outcomes. We expect that parents will be more attuned to stressors that are salient for each child\u0026rsquo;s sex. Further, in line with work on female intra-sexual competition and friendships, we expect that mothers will be more satisfied with equal outcomes, particularly for their daughters, rather than overtly outperforming another child.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample consisted of 668 parents, ranging in age from 18 to 75 years old. Parents were recruited from a mid-western university through college student referrals, social media advertisements, and outreach at local sporting events. Of these, 402 identified as female, 73 as male, and 188 did not specify their sex thus were not included in the analysis involving sex. Parents were asked to report on one of their children; among those specified, 359 reported on a daughter, 153 on a son, and 156 did not specify their child\u0026rsquo;s sex, which were also not included in the analysis involving sex. Participants were also asked to report their child\u0026rsquo;s age. Most responses fell within the expected range of school-aged and young adult children (ages 6\u0026ndash;21), though three potential outliers (e.g., 27, 28, 48) suggest that some parents may have mistakenly entered their own age. In terms of racial and ethnic identity, the majority of respondents identified as White/Caucasian (82.3%), followed by Hispanic/Hispanic American (5.0%), with less than (5.0%) identifying as Black/African American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian/Asian American, Indian/Indian American, Middle Eastern, and Multiracial/Biracial. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB-23-492-STW. It was not preregistered, but data and materials can be found on Open Science Framework: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/4hcta/?view_only=cc151cf0190143cb8479bb6fdb6b0714\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/4hcta/?view_only=cc151cf0190143cb8479bb6fdb6b0714\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParents completed demographic questions (e.g., age, relationship status, ethnicity), followed by questions about their eldest child (e.g., age, sex). Using a modified version of a hypothetical competition paradigm (Benenson \u0026amp; Schinazi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), parents selected which domain was most important to them: academics, sports, friendships, music, or church involvement. In a within-subjects design, they were then randomly assigned to read a vignette in which their child either (a) outperformed another child, (b) performed equally to another child, or (c) was outperformed by another child in that domain. After reading the scenario, parents reported their own emotional reactions and their beliefs about how the other child's parent would feel about their child\u0026rsquo;s performance. If parents indicated they had more than one child, the survey repeated the procedure for the next child.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFeelings about child\u0026rsquo;s performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn a 5-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Extremely unhappy, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Extremely happy) participants rated how each vignette made them feel. This measure captured how parents felt in response to their child\u0026rsquo;s performance outcome, allowing for comparisons across performance outcomes, child sex, and parent sex.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePerceived emotions of other parents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Participants were presented with a checklist of emotional reactions and asked to select all that applied to how they believed other parents would respond to their child\u0026rsquo;s performance outcome. The list included a range of emotional responses categorized as negative, positive, or neutral. The six negative items included \u0026lsquo;jealous\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;hurt\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;sad\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;mad\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;betrayed\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;you try too hard.\u0026rsquo; Positive had two items including \u0026lsquo;happy for you\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;proud of you\u0026rsquo;. Then three neutral items included \u0026lsquo;indifferent\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;unbothered\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;nothing\u0026rsquo;. This measure was designed to assess parents\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the emotional and social reactions their child\u0026rsquo;s success or failure might evoke from others, allowing for the examination of how perceptions of peer comparison and social evaluation vary based on parent sex, child sex, and performance context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eParent Priorities\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen asked which domain was most important to them regarding their child, 46.3% of parents selected academics, followed by church involvement (24.9%), having friends (23.8%), sports (4.2%), and music (0.8%). This suggests that academic achievement is the dominant domain for nearly half the sample (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eHow Parents Feel About Their Child\u0026rsquo;s Performance\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA univariate ANOVA was used to examine how child\u0026rsquo;s performance (outperform, underperform, equal), parent sex (male/father, female/mother), and child sex (male/son, female/daughter) influenced parents\u0026rsquo; emotional responses. A significant main effect of performance emerged, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 608)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2;=.061. Parents in general reported greater happiness when their child performed equally to a peer (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.95, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.13), followed by outperforming (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.97, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.13), and the least happiness when their child underperformed (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.59, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.13) (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). All pairwise comparisons were significant (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05), suggesting that equality was the outcome that brought about the most satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo key interactions qualified these findings. First, there was a significant interaction between performance and child sex, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 608)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2;=.030. Parents were happier when daughters performed equally to peers (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.55, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.19), compared to sons performing equally (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.44, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16) (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). A second interaction between parent sex and child sex was also significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 608)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2;=.031. Mothers reported greater happiness when their sons outperformed others (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.14, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.12) than when their daughters did (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.73, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10), whereas fathers showed similar levels of happiness for both sons (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.13, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.19) and daughters (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.32, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17). Lastly, a three-way interaction among performance, parent sex, and child sex further showed these effects but marginally, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 608)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.050, partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2;=.013. Mothers expressed the most happiness when daughters performed equally to a peer (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.39, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.09) and the lowest when their child underperformed, regardless of sex (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e for all Means and Standard Errors).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eParents Respond Differently Across Life Domains\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn addition to performance and sex, parental emotional responses were also influenced by domain. A main effect of domain emerged, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(5, 608)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2;=.050. Parents overall reported the highest happiness responses in the Academics (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.55, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12) and Music (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.00, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.40) domains, followed by Church Involvement (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.04, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15). Responses were lower for Friends (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.43, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14) and Sports (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.78, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23). The effect of domain was moderated by performance, as indicated by a significant domain and performance interaction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(6, 608)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.95, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2;=.064. In Academics, equal performance (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.42, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13) and outperforming (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.17, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13) elicited more happiness, whereas underperformance (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.82, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13) produced less. A similar pattern emerged in Church Involvement and Friends, where happiness was higher under equal conditions and dropped when the child underperformed. One notable exception to this pattern was in the Sports domain, where parental happiness remained relatively low across all performance outcomes. This may reflect the cultural ambivalence surrounding youth sports. While athletic success is often celebrated, it is also associated with heightened pressure, risk of injury, and burnout (Coakley, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Fredricks \u0026amp; Eccles, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) (See Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for all Means and Standard Errors).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParent Happiness by Domain and Performance Condition\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDomain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutcome\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChurch Involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChurch Involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChurch Involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFriends\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFriends\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFriends\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMusic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEqual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMusic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMusic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnderperform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Happiness was rated on a scale from 1 (Extremely Unhappy) to 5 (Extremely Happy).\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAnticipation of Other Parent\u0026rsquo;s Emotional Reactions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo assess how parents believed others would react to their child\u0026rsquo;s performance, chi-square analyses were conducted on anticipated emotional responses. In parents overall, there was no significant relationship between performance condition and anticipated jealousy, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;668)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.84, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.279, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.076. However, among mothers, jealousy was significantly associated with child performance, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;402)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;136.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.582. Mothers were most likely to believe others would feel jealous when their child outperformed a peer. While fathers did not anticipate jealousy in any performance condition. When stratified by child sex, this pattern held for daughters. Parents of daughters reported significantly greater expectations of jealousy from others when their child outperformed, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;359)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.83, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.032, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.157. No such association emerged for sons (See Table\u0026nbsp;2 for all Means and Standard Errors).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePercentage of Parents Who Anticipated Others Would Feel Jealous\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA similar trend was observed for the emotion \u0026ldquo;hurt.\u0026rdquo; In the overall sample, hurt was unrelated to performance condition, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;668)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.865, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.033. However, among mothers, hurt was again significantly associated with performance condition, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;402)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.446, with the highest frequencies occurring when their child either outperformed or underperformed. This association was again only evident for daughters, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;359)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.012, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.174 (See Table\u0026nbsp;3 for all Means and Standard Errors).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive emotions such as \u0026ldquo;pride\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;happy for you\u0026rdquo; also showed significant associations with child performance, but only among mothers. Mothers were more likely to anticipate pride from others, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;402)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.50, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.245 (Table\u0026nbsp;4), and that others would feel happy for them, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3, \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;402)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.012, Cramer\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.174, (Table\u0026nbsp;5), when their child outperformed. These effects did not emerge among fathers. No significant effects were found for other anticipated emotions, including betrayal, sadness, anger, indifference, being unbothered, doing nothing, or trying hard.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current study examined parents\u0026rsquo; emotional responses to their child\u0026rsquo;s performance in valued domains and explored whether these reactions varied by parent gender, child gender, and domain. We find that parents reported the greatest happiness when their child performed equally to a peer, rather than outperforming or underperforming. Notably, this was largely driven by mothers\u0026rsquo; responses to daughters. Mothers preferred sons to outperform, but daughters to perform equally to peers. In contrast, fathers did not differentiate by child gender or performance level. These findings align with research by Benenson and Schinazi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), which shows that girls prefer equal outcomes in friendships and anticipate negative emotional reactions from others when they stand out. It is not that mothers do not want their daughters to succeed; rather, they appear to engage in protective behaviors that promote social safety and shield daughters from potential social threats, such as exclusion or relational aggression. The aversion to outperformance likely reflects an intuitive understanding of the social risks associated with standing out \u0026ndash; risks that are more acute for girls than for boys (Benenson et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Benenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Goodwin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Gottman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Maltz \u0026amp; Borker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e; Simmons, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupporting this, mothers in our study expected that other parents would react negatively. They reported expectations of jealousy and hurt from other parents when their daughters outperformed peers. This heightened sensitivity may reflect the relational costs of standing out. Women\u0026rsquo;s success in raising offspring depended on cultivating reliable social networks and cooperative caregiving relationships (Hrdy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In such environments, maintaining relational harmony and avoiding social strain would have been essential for preserving long-term support, making mothers especially attuned to signs of potential conflict or reputational costs. Within these social structures, mothers had to carefully balance cooperation and competition, a tension highlighted by Fisher and Moule\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) framework of cooperative versus competitive motherhood. While collaboration ensured mutual support in childrearing, competition could arise subtly through child comparisons and reputational signaling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile maintaining a positive reputation is important for both mothers and fathers, the domains in which reputational management matters may differ. For fathers, being seen as competent providers or authoritative figures can enhance social standing and reinforce their role in the family, especially in contexts tied to provisioning (Geary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Marlowe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). However, for mothers, ancestral maternal caregiving demands may have placed greater selective pressure on mothers to manage social impressions of their children and avoid conflict to preserve potential caregiving alliances. Likewise, women who gain access to territory, resources, and alliances tend to have greater reproductive success, making these relationships vital (Clutton-Brock, 2009). Thus, while both sexes care about reputation, mothers may be more attuned to subtle threats to relational harmony because their reputational standing directly affects their access to caregiving support\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, women and girls often face steep social penalties for overt displays of dominance or superiority. Research shows that women who are perceived as competitive or high achieving, especially when they disrupt group cohesion, are often disliked (Duarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Reynolds, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sheppard \u0026amp; Aquino, 2017). This is especially true in same-sex friendships, where perceived inequality can lead to conflict (Benenson et al., 2014). Girls are expected to maintain equality, and behaving superior, even when earned, can result in ostracism (Benenson et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Benenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Goodwin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Gottman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Williams and Tiedens (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) further demonstrate that dominance, particularly in women, is penalized both implicitly and explicitly across social and professional domains. Taken together, these findings suggest that mothers may anticipate the social and emotional costs that come with their daughters outperforming others. By preferring equal outcomes, they may be protecting their daughters from being disliked, excluded, or perceived as socially threatening, all of which could jeopardize peer bonds, reputational standing, and future support networks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, our findings suggest a potential gap in paternal attention to the risks of losing alloparental support and recognition of differences in status striving for male and female offspring. Fathers reported relatively similar happiness for son and daughter outcomes alike, though with a comparably lower sample size, we had limited power to detect effects. It could however, also reflect a lack of awareness or concern about the social costs associated with outperforming others in same-gender peer contexts for girls. While mothers appeared more sensitive to these social dynamics, fathers may focus more on achievement or status gains, overlooking how peer relationships can be threatened by high performance particularly for daughters. This aligns with research suggesting that women are generally more socially attentive and relationally oriented than men, especially in managing in-group dynamics (Cross \u0026amp; Madson, 1997).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLife history theory also provides a useful framework for interpreting these patterns. It explains how individuals allocate resources toward survival, reproduction, and social relationships (Stearns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). Parents with slow life history strategies tend to emphasize long-term planning, delayed reproduction, and strong social bonds, whereas fast strategies prioritize early reproduction, frequent mating, and lower parental investment (Kaplan \u0026amp; Gangestad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Our findings elicit that parents are most pleased when their child \u0026ldquo;fits in\u0026rdquo; rather than excels, suggesting a preference for outcomes that promote social inclusion. Consistent with life history theory, high parental attunement, particularly among mothers, may reflect a slower strategy emphasizing long-term planning, reputation management, and strong investment in fewer offspring (Del Giudice, 2009; Quinlan, 2007). However, several limitations warrant consideration in interpreting these findings and open avenues for future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, there may have been definitional overlap across domains. For instance, sports, church involvement, and music could reflect both achievement-based values and social belonging goals, making it difficult to disentangle whether parents prioritized these domains primarily for their child\u0026rsquo;s individual success or for their integration into valued peer groups. While participants selected the domain most important to them, the underlying psychological stakes may have been similar across categories, especially in terms of how performance impacts their child\u0026rsquo;s social reputation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, cell sizes were uneven and occasionally small, which limits the ability to detect more nuanced interactions between variables. For example, future work could include domains that more clearly distinguish between appearance enhancement or social affiliation (e.g., beauty, popularity) versus status and formidability (e.g., leadership, competitive sports), which may elicit different responses by parent or child sex, as these traits differentially enhance social value for men and women. Relatedly, when participants reported how they thought other parents would react, this was most notable among mothers. Future work should explore the imagined sex of those judging parents. For example, whether mothers anticipate or fear judgment from parents generally or from other mothers specifically. Future studies could experimentally manipulate the sex of the evaluators which would allow researchers to test whether perceived judgment depends on the evaluator\u0026rsquo;s sex to examine whether same-sex parental comparisons heighten feelings of judgment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the sample has notable limitations. First, it was drawn from a geographically constrained region in the U.S. Midwest and was primarily composed of White/Caucasians who identified as religious, limiting the generalizability of the findings. This becomes evident in the fact that church involvement ranks as the second most important life domain which may vary across the states or cultures. However, this domain being most important may also serve as a signaling function as religiosity can cue to trustworthiness and restricted sociosexuality, both that may be more important to parents for their daughters to signal as it is connected to her mate value (Apostolou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Moon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Perilloux, 2008). Along with this, the sample primarily consisted of mothers rather than fathers, so the lack of differences among fathers may be due to limited statistical power. This also raises the possibility that any sensitivity fathers might have shown toward their sons\u0026rsquo; performance may have gone undetected. Future research should aim to examine these dynamics with more fathers, across cultures, developmental stages, and real-life contexts. Future work should also consider how parents\u0026rsquo; own sociosexual orientation, reproductive history, or single-parent status may shape investment strategies particularly when it comes to protecting children from social costs or navigating reputational threats.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, these findings carry practical implications for modern parenting. Mothers may feel pressure to ensure their daughters are socially accepted, even if that means dampening visible ambition. While these instincts may be protective, they could inadvertently discourage girls from embracing competition or taking pride in their achievements. Helping children, especially daughters, learn how to succeed without social penalty may require open conversations about peer dynamics, emotional resilience, and the difference between arrogance and confidence. Likewise, fathers may benefit from increased awareness of the relational stakes daughters face in peer groups and how success may carry unintended social consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study sheds light on the nuanced ways parents respond to their child\u0026rsquo;s performance in socially and emotionally significant domains. By revealing that mothers, particularly of daughters, prioritize social equilibrium over individual success, our findings suggest that parental emotional responses are not solely about achievement but reflect strategies for navigating social harmony, reputation, and relational dynamics. These patterns highlight how parenting decisions may support both the child\u0026rsquo;s development and broader social cohesion within valued networks.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was approved by the Oklahoma State University Institutional Review Board (IRB-23-492-STW). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHuman Ethics and Consent to Participate Declarations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study involved human participants. Ethics approval and informed consent were obtained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClinical Trial Number\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eK.D wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlami, S. (2020). Mother's social status is associated with child health in a horticulturalist population. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287, 20192783. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2783\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rspb.2019.2783\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlvarado, L. C., Muller, M. N., Eaton, M. A., et al. (2018). Steroid Hormone Reactivity in Fathers Watching Their Children Compete. \u003cem\u003eHuman Nature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e, 268\u0026ndash;282. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9318-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12110-018-9318-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmato, P. R. (1998). More than money? Men's contributions to their children's lives. In A. Booth, \u0026amp; A. C. Crouter (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eMen in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make?\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 241\u0026ndash;278). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApostolou, M. (2012). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 403\u0026ndash;409. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000308\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/147470491201000308\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBalaji, A. B., Claussen, A. H., Smith, D. C., Visser, S. N., Morales, M. J., \u0026amp; Perou, R. (2007). Social support networks and maternal mental health and well-being. \u003cem\u003eJ Women Health (Larchmt)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1386\u0026ndash;1396. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2007.CDC10\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1089/jwh.2007.CDC10\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Fitzgerald, C., Geoffroy, D., Flemming, J., Kahlenberg, S. M., \u0026amp; Wrangham, R. W. (2009). Males\u0026rsquo; Greater Tolerance of Same-Sex Peers. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 184\u0026ndash;190. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02269.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02269.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F. (2022). Human females as a dispersal-egalitarian species: A hypothesis about women and status. \u003cem\u003eAdaptive Human Behavior and Physiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, 433\u0026ndash;460. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-022-00191-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40750-022-00191-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F., \u0026amp; Abadzi, H. (2020). Contest versus scramble competition: Sex differences in the quest for status. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e, 62\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F., \u0026amp; Markovits, H. (2014). \u003cem\u003eWarriors and worriers: The survival of the sexes\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F., \u0026amp; Schinazi, J. (2004). Sex differences in reactions to outperforming same-sex friends. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 317\u0026ndash;333. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1348/0261510041552729\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1348/0261510041552729\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F. (2013). The development of human female competition: allies and adversaries. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e368\u003c/em\u003e(1631). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0079\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rstb.2013.0079\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F., et al. (2013). Social exclusion: More important to human females than males. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055851\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0055851\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F., \u0026amp; Markovits, H. (2023). Married women with children experience greater intrasexual competition than their male counterparts. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4498. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31816-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-023-31816-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Fitzgerald, C., Geoffroy, D., Flemming, J., Kahlenberg, S. M., \u0026amp; Wrangham, R. W. (2009). Males\u0026rsquo; Greater Tolerance of Same-Sex Peers. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 184\u0026ndash;190. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02269.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02269.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e(Original work published 2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCampbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women\u0026rsquo;s intrasexual aggression. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral and Brain Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 203\u0026ndash;252. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99001818\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/s0140525x99001818\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCassar, A. (2016). Competing for the benefit of offspring eliminates the gender gap in competitiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5201\u0026ndash;5205.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClutton-Brock, T. (2017). Reproductive competition and sexual selection. \u003cem\u003eRoyal Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e372\u003c/em\u003e(1729). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0310\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rstb.2016.0310\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoakley, J. (2006). The good father: Parental expectations and youth sports. \u003cem\u003eLeisure Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 153\u0026ndash;163. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02614360500467735\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02614360500467735\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCosmides, L., \u0026amp; Tooby, J. (2005). Neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of evolutionary psychology\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 584\u0026ndash;627). Wiley.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeScioli, P., \u0026amp; Kurzban, R. (2009). The alliance hypothesis for human friendship. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(6). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005802\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0005802\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDel Giudice, M., Gangestad, S. W., \u0026amp; Kaplan, H. S. (2015). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe handbook of evolutionary psychology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1, pp. 88\u0026ndash;114). Wiley.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuarte, K., Rodriguez, N. N., Krems, J. A., French, J., \u0026amp; Byrd-Craven, J. (Eds.). (2025). (Why) \u003cem\u003eDo people disfavor competitiveness in women? Pre-registered tests between three theories\u003c/em\u003e. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEllis, B. J., \u0026amp; Garber, J. (2000). Psychosocial Antecedents of Variation in Girls' Pubertal Timing: Maternal Depression, Stepfather Presence, and Marital and Family Stress. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e, 485\u0026ndash;501. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00159\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1467-8624.00159\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErmer, E., Guerin, S., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., \u0026amp; Miller, M. (2006). Theory of mind broad and narrow: Reasoning about social exchange engages TOM areas, precautionary reasoning does not. \u003cem\u003eSocial Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 196\u0026ndash;219.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFisher, M. L., \u0026amp; Moule, K. R. (2013). A new direction for intrasexual competition research: Cooperative versus competitive motherhood. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 318\u0026ndash;325. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0099187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/h0099187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFredricks, J. A., \u0026amp; Eccles, J. S. (2004). Parental influences on youth involvement in sports. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 145\u0026ndash;164). Fitness Information Technology.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e126\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.55\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeary, D. C. (2002). Sexual selection and human life history. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eAdvances in child development and behavior\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 30, pp. 41\u0026ndash;101). Academic.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeary, D. C., \u0026amp; Flinn, M. V. (2001). Evolution of human parental behavior and the human family. \u003cem\u003eParenting: Science and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 5\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR011\u0026amp;2_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/S15327922PAR011\u0026amp;2_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoodwin, M. H. (1990). \u003cem\u003eHe-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children\u003c/em\u003e. Indiana University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGottman, J. M., \u0026amp; Parker, J. G. (1986). \u003cem\u003eConversations of friends: Speculations on affective development\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHawkes, K. (2004). The grandmother effect. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e428\u003c/em\u003e, 128\u0026ndash;129. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/428128a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/428128a\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHill, K., \u0026amp; Hurtado, A. M. (2009). Cooperative breeding in South American hunter\u0026ndash;gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1674), 3863\u0026ndash;3870.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHrdy, S. B. (2009). \u003cem\u003eMothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan, H. S., \u0026amp; Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 68\u0026ndash;95). Wiley.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLendingTree (2023). Cost of extracurriculars: How much are parents paying? \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.lendingtree.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.lendingtree.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoo, S., Hawkes, K., \u0026amp; Kim, P. (2017). Evolution of male strategies with sex-ratio\u0026ndash;dependent pay-offs: Connecting pair bonds with grandmothering. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 372. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rstb.2017.0041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacfarlan, S. J., Walker, R. S., Flinn, M. V., \u0026amp; Chagnon, N. A. (2014). Lethal coalitionary aggression and long-term alliance formation among Yanomam\u0026ouml; men. \u003cem\u003ePnas\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e111\u003c/em\u003e(47), 16662\u0026ndash;16669. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.141863911\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.141863911\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaltz, D., \u0026amp; Borker, R. (1982). A Cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eLanguage and social identity\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarlowe, F. W. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. \u003cem\u003eBehavioural Processes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;3), 45\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00118-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00118-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoon, J., Krems, J., \u0026amp; Cohen, A. (2018). Religious People Are Trusted Because They Are Viewed as Slow Life-History Strategists. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e, 947\u0026ndash;960. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0956797617753606\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0956797617753606\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNickels, N., Waite, M., \u0026amp; Byrd-Craven, J. (2017). Sex differences in the effects of psychosocial stress on cooperative and prosocial behavior: Evidence for \u0026lsquo;fight or flight\u0026rsquo; in males and \u0026lsquo;tend and befriend\u0026rsquo; in females. \u003cem\u003eAdaptive Human Behavior and Physiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 171\u0026ndash;183. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-017-0062-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40750-017-0062-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., \u0026amp; Buss, D. M. (2008). The Daughter-Guarding Hypothesis: Parental Influence on, and Emotional Reactions to, Offspring\u0026rsquo;s Mating Behavior. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/147470490800600202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReynolds, T. A. (2022). Our grandmothers' legacy: Challenges faced by female ancestors leave traces in modern women's same-sex relationships. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(7), 3225\u0026ndash;3256. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01768-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10508-020-01768-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSavin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(4), 923\u0026ndash;935. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1129316\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/1129316\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilk, J. B. (2009). The benefits of social capital: close social bonds among female baboons enhance offspring survival. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1670), 3099\u0026ndash;3104. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0681\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rspb.2009.0681\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimmons, R. (2002). \u003cem\u003eOdd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls\u003c/em\u003e. Harcourt, Inc.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSnyder, E. E., \u0026amp; Purdy, D. A. (1982). Socialization into sport: Parent and child reverse and reciprocal effects. \u003cem\u003eResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(3), 263\u0026ndash;267. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1982.10609353\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02701367.1982.10609353\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStatista (2024). Back-to-school spending in the United States. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.statista.com/statistics/232531/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/232531/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStearns, S. C. (1992). \u003cem\u003eThe evolution of life histories\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrivers, R. L. (1996). Parental investment and sexual selection. In L. D. Houck, \u0026amp; L. C. Drickamer (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eFoundations of animal behavior: Classic papers with commentaries\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 795\u0026ndash;838). University of Chicago Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy? \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e368\u003c/em\u003e(1631), 20130080. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0080\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rstb.2013.0080\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVon Rueden, C., Gurven, M., \u0026amp; Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223\u0026ndash;2232. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2145\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rspb.2010.2145\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, K. E. G., Krems, J. A., Ayers, J. D., \u0026amp; Rankin, A. M. (2022). Sex differences in friendship preferences. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.09.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.09.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, M. J., \u0026amp; Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women\u0026rsquo;s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e142\u003c/em\u003e(2), 165\u0026ndash;197. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/bul0000039\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6865499/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6865499/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eParental investment is a foundational concept in evolutionary psychology used to explain mating strategies and reproductive behavior (Del Giudice, Gangestad, \u0026amp; Kaplan, 2015; Del Giudice, 2009; Trivers, 1972). However, less is known about how competitive strategies persist into parenthood. This study examined how parent sex, child sex, and child performance (outperform, equal, underperform) in different life domains influence parents’ emotional responses and their expectations of others’ reactions. Parents were recruited through college student referrals, social media advertisements, and in-person outreach at local sporting events. They responded to vignettes where their child competed in a valued domain (e.g., academics, sports, friendships, church, or music). Results showed that parents were happiest when their child performed equally to a peer, especially for daughters. Mothers, in particular, preferred daughters’ performance to match rather than exceed peers and anticipated emotional responses such as jealousy and hurt from other parents when their daughters performed better than other children. Fathers, by contrast, showed minimal emotional differentiation across child sex or performance condition, extending and replicating Benenson \u0026amp; Schinazi’s (2004) work. Parents were more emotionally responsive in domains tied to reputation and peer inclusion, such as academics and church involvement. These findings suggest parenting, like mating, may function as a competitive arena where child performance reflects not only individual achievement but also social positioning and long-term reproductive success. \u0026nbsp; Public Significance Statement: This study reveals that parenting is not just about nurturing; it can also be shaped by competition and social awareness. Parents, especially mothers, are sensitive to how their child’s success may be perceived by others, particularly when daughters stand out among peers. These findings suggest that emotional reactions to child achievement are influenced by gendered expectations and reputational concerns, extending theories of competition and cooperation into the domain of parenthood. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sons win, daughters fit in: Parental preferences for outcomes in offspring competition","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-18 06:24:31","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6865499/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e4bf72c8-2dbc-4cfe-8354-b83bff3a8e7b","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-29T08:08:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-18 06:24:31","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6865499","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6865499","identity":"rs-6865499","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}