The Cinderella Effect - does it have implications for couples using sperm donor?

[Carla786]

I know this is a very sensitive issue, and I don't want to upset anyone. But I think it needs to be discussed.

The Cinderella Effect was coined by a husband and wife research team in the 1970s, and while some studies have questioned it since, it does seem to still be widely accepted as at least somewhat accurate.

Essentially, it means that all things being equal, a stepfather is more likely to abuse a child than a biological father.

I came across this in the recent MN discussions about the Australia nursery abuse cases. Some were arguing that surrogacy is linked to this, as a man in a gay couple can get a baby via surrogacy who he may not be related to, with none of the checks adoption necessitates. A single man doing this is also worrying, though in that case they would probably be related.

Thinking about this, I saw that the Cinderella Effect has been discussed in relation to both adoption (straight and gay male) and gay male couples in general and found to be negligible according to results. Clearly they are all in a different situation from a stepfather.

However, one situation I can find no discussion of is sperm donation. I am uneasy about this.

A straight couple who use a sperm donor are raising a child who is not related biologically to the father, and unlike adoption, there are no checks. It is theorised that the Cinderella Effect is partly because men evolved to be suspicious of paternity, so a child from a previous relationship is under threat (adoption or a gay male couple would be different for that element as the issue of a woman having had a child with a previous partner wouldn't apply). I'm not sure how- if at all- this would apply to a straight couple using a sperm donor.

It's also fair to say that antisocial men may prey on single women so that could be another reason for the Cinderella Effect which would not apply.

One thing that makes me uneasy is the general lack of ethics that fertility clinics have displayed. The disastrous anonymous donation policy. The IVF clinics which falseh told lesbian couples reciprocal IVF was safe with clinic-run studies (a study thus year has shown it's not : like surrogacy, it involves an unrelated egg being carried, so carries the same risks).

I'm not saying the Cinderella Effect automatically applies to straight couples who use sperm donors. But I do think it's a question that should be asked.

Thank you, I don't want to hurt anyone, but child safety has to be discussed whether it hurts adults or not. There is no excuse for making these questions taboo.

That's horrible you went through that, I'm really sorry. 🫂

That's good your siblings mainly reported good experiences...I hope this is the majority. However, how can we know when the subject has been hushed up and research discouraged and very hard to do?

Some studies I have come across, although sometimes flawed (small sample etc) do give higher rates of mental health, substance abuse and other problems for donor conceived children. These studies mainly quoted identity problems and lack of parental honesty as the problems, but we don't know if there are other reasons,,due to the lack of studies...

Yes, and some researchers have a vested interest in saying that donor conception is fine. If you dig a bit you discover that the sample is self-selecting and/or young and they just don’t ask the questions that would reveal the issues that people like me have experienced.

Another study backing up the Cinderella Effect.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077559509337255

I think it's also relevant to point out that women who use an egg donor, despite many ethical concerns with this also, do grow the child in their womb. Men who use a sperm donor do not have this bonding experience.

I think there is likely to be an increased risk of abuse compared to biological fathers (where there is still a risk for abuse), but I think it's likely to be lower than with stepfathers.

I think in part, a 'protective' factor is that a man using a sperm donor with his wife has spent time trying and failing to conceive - so he already wanted to have children.
Unlike a stepfather who is interested in a woman who happens to come with another man's ready-made children, a man using a sperm donor is 'involved' in the act of creating the child from the beginning, in terms of choosing to go ahead with a donor, picking the donor, and supporting his wife through the pregnancy and birth.

I also think there's less risk of abuse with a sperm donor in a heterosexual couple than with a man or two men buying a baby from its mother, because it's the wife's biological child, and she will (usually) have a strong drive to protect it.

It isn't "widely accepted" though, is it? It's widely challenged and huge flaws have been found in the original data, including selective gathering, which renders the original study unscientific.

I'm not sure what your agenda is here, but I am deeply uncomfortable about your failure to correct the misconceptions of other posters, including those who assume that abuse means sexual abuse, which is not covered by the study. In fact, several critics make the point that including sexual abuse cases skews the data, given that the original study was of cases of physical abuse and mistreatment (including neglect). Increasingly, it is clear that sexual abuse points to a specific pathology rather than a fracturing of social/familial norms. It is an important distinction which this thread has glossed over.

I would caution anyone reading this thread not to take the pronouncements here at face value.

Can you link the critical studies?

Interesting to hear that the original study was considered flawed.

Purely anecdotally, I know far, far more women who were sexually abused by stepfathers or their mother's boyfriends than by their biological fathers, so I personally lean towards the stereotype of sexually abusive stepfathers being based on societal observation.

But I suppose it's possible that biological fathers are just as prone to sexual abuse as unrelated father figures are, and it's just less talked about.

The point that I made, very clearly, is that the Cinderella Effect isn't about sexual abuse. This pretty much sums up the problem with threads like this. Repeatedly, posters have linked "abuse" (which in terms of the Cinderella Effect means violent physical abuse, cruelty and neglect) to sexual abuse, which the original study does not cover, and the OP doesn't have sufficient expertise in the subject to correct this misconception.

To what purpose? I'm not here to debate with you. I'm here to stop you assuming a position of authority on a subject you clearly know very little about. Google "criticism of the Cinderella Effect" if you're interested in any opinion other than your own.

I think it was me who threw a spanner in the works by mentioning my own experience, and bringing in sexual abuse. I am trying to be honest, though, by sharing that my half-siblings had different experiences.

I don’t have time to track down the original studies but I remember reading that children were many times more likely to suffer accidental injury or death while being cared for by a step-parent. And now that data isn’t necessarily collected or recorded.

@HelenaWaiting do you think the OP has a hidden agenda? Personally I think that it’s good to debate these things and if not here, where? Trying to shut down debate doesn’t give a good impression of your position.

Fair enough.

I must say, I'm less interested in the specific 'Cinderella Effect' as studied, and more interested in the general topic of whether sperm donation puts the resulting children at higher risk of sexual (or physical) abuse, much as being unrelated in other ways (stepfather) tends to.

So I'm not so bothered by the misuse of one study – it made a good springboard for discussion.

Thank you, I agree that this should be discussed..

That poster did have a valid point about contrary studies, although my OP noted that some contradicted it.

However, she was inaccurate about the original study not including sexual abuse, it did.

It is true that sexual abuse probably has different causes, and the effect is strongest when you look at physical abuse. I should have been clearer on this, I'm sorry.

More detail from an article I found :
The Cinderella Effect is one of the most consistently replicated findings in child maltreatment research across dozens of datasets and countries (U.S., Canada, UK, Sweden, Australia, etc.). Stepchildren living with a stepparent are at significantly higher risk of physical abuse, severe neglect, and especially fatal maltreatment than children living with two genetic parents. That pattern has held up in peer-reviewed studies for over 40 years.
Yes, the magnitude is debated (some early estimates were very high, later ones more moderate once you control for things like poverty, maternal age, family size, etc.), but even the most critical reviews that try to adjust for every confounder still find a substantial elevated risk for stepchildren, particularly for lethal abuse.
The original Daly & Wilson studies (and most of the large datasets they used) did include sexual abuse cases in their overall counts, but the effect is strongest and least controversial when you look only at physical abuse and fatal cases. Many critics (e.g., David Buller, Robert Burgess, etc.) have pointed out that sexual abuse probably has different causes and shouldn’t be lumped in with physical violence or neglect when testing the evolutionary parental-investment hypothesis.

I certainly am interested in other positions,,and I indicated in my OP that I was aware the study had been criticised.

Your criticism was both accurate and inaccurate. It is accurate that the effect is disputed, but it's inaccurate that it's widely considered inaccurate. There is a 40-year body of research backing it up across multiple countries

It is inaccurate that the original Daly study didn't include sexual abuse, it did.

However, as I said to Otterly, critics like Buss rightly argue that sexual abuse probably has different causes. The Effect is strongest when looking at physical abuse. I should have been clearer on this, I apologise.

When you control for things like poverty or family size it's smaller, but it's still there.

As to my agenda, Helena, I have no agenda except to establish factual information about potential dangers to children.

Do you imagine I want to malign families who use sperm donor families or stepfamilies? I do not. But I strongly believe that even if facts/theories are painful, they need to be tested and discussed. Children's safety is the most important thing.

I hope the Cinderella Effect is NOT true, but sadly the studies do seem to overall indicate it is at least somewhat true.