Do young children have favorites within their family? The short answer is yes. The important answer is that it’s not rejection, it’s not manipulation, and it’s not a problem. It’s emotional development in action. From the first months of life, children begin to organize their emotional world not in terms of equality, but of security. And security, in the developing psyche, isn’t always distributed equally.
Babies and young children don’t love some people less because they love others more. Their brains don’t yet operate with abstract concepts like «fairness» or «emotional balance.» They operate with a basic and powerful question: Who do I feel most protected by when something happens to me? This is the basis of attachment theory, developed by John Bowlby, who explained that children tend to bond more intensely with the figure who responds most consistently to their physical and emotional needs. It’s not about who loves more, but about who is more available.
In the early years, attachment isn’t distributed democratically. A child might seek out their mother for sleep, their father for play, their grandmother for comfort, or an older sibling for exploration. These preferences change, overlap, and shift according to developmental stage, tiredness, context, and prior experience. They are not permanent labels, but rather emotional states.
Mary Ainsworth, a collaborator of Bowlby, showed that children develop greater security when a figure responds predictably. This predictability creates a secure base from which the child dares to explore the world. Therefore, when a baby cries and only wants to be held by a specific person, they are not rejecting others. They are seeking the familiar internal sensation, the one their body recognizes as regulating.
Here, a common scene emerges in many families: «He doesn’t want to be held by me, only by him,» «He always prefers his grandmother,» «He doesn’t want his father to hold him.» These situations often cause pain in the adult world, but in the child’s world, they don’t carry the emotional weight we attribute to them. The child isn’t making a conscious choice; they are responding from their nervous system. Children seek out the person who best helps them regain their equilibrium when they feel overwhelmed.
Age also plays a role. In the first two years of life, their preference is usually linked to the person who meets most of their basic needs: food, sleep, and comfort. Later, as children gain autonomy, their preferences may shift toward the person who offers play, exploration, or clear boundaries. This isn’t contradictory; it’s complementary. Each bond fulfills a different function in the child’s emotional development.

Another important factor is the child’s stage of life. When they are sick, tired, or scared, they tend to return to the figure who provides them with the most support. When they feel secure, they open up more to other relationships. This explains why sometimes a child seems to «reject» someone precisely when they are most encouraged to share or connect. Security isn’t imposed; it’s offered. Forcing a child to divide affection, cuddles, or attention equally can have the opposite effect. Instead of learning to share, they learn that their internal signals are not being heard. Donald Winnicott pointed out that a child needs to feel that their emotional needs are legitimate in order to later consider the needs of others. Empathy arises from being understood, not from being forced.

This doesn’t mean excluding or reinforcing rigid dynamics. Adults can foster connections without imposing them. Allowing children to approach relationships at their own pace, creating spaces for shared play, respecting their timing, and avoiding comparisons are healthy ways to expand their emotional network. Bonds grow when there is positive experience, not when there is pressure.
It’s also important to understand that preferences don’t define long-term love. A child who only loves one person today won’t be an adult incapable of connecting with others. On the contrary, early secure attachment often facilitates healthier relationships in the future. Security is expansive, not exclusive. Ultimately, children’s preferences tell us more about how the child feels than how they love adults. They are an emotional compass, not a judgment. If we can read them calmly and without taking them personally, we can better support our children’s emotional development.

And yes, sometimes they only want to give the cookie to one person. Not because others don’t matter, but because at that moment, that one person is the one who gives them the reassurance that the world is still a safe place.

Building a child’s understanding of right and wrong doesn’t happen overnight, nor is it achieved through long lectures or memorable punishments. It’s a slow, daily, and deeply relational process. It doesn’t originate from a list of rules stuck to the refrigerator, but from thousands of small experiences children have with the adults who care for them. From the perspective of child psychology, we know that morality isn’t taught like a school subject; it’s learned through experience.

During the first years of life, children don’t distinguish right from wrong as adults do. They don’t operate from an internal moral compass; they operate from experience. Jean Piaget explained that, in early childhood, children go through a stage of heteronomous morality, where right and wrong depend on external authority. Something is «bad» because the adult is upset, not because the child yet understands the impact of their actions. This isn’t a problem; it’s a necessary stage of development.

Herein lies the first common mistake: believing that a young child acts “with bad intentions.” In reality, their behavior is usually guided by impulses, intense emotions, and curiosity. A child who hits, lies, or breaks something isn’t questioning values; they are exploring boundaries. Therefore, more than punishment, what they need is emotional guidance and a sense of purpose.
The concept of right and wrong begins to develop when a child understands that their actions have effects on others. And this isn’t achieved through lectures, but through clear emotional experiences. Lev Vygotsky maintained that learning occurs in social interaction. In this case, morality is formed when the adult gives words, meaning, and support to what is happening. Saying “that’s wrong” doesn’t teach as much as saying “that hurts” or “look at how your friend feels.”
One of the pillars of moral development is example. Children don’t learn values ​​by listening to them; they learn them by observing them. If a child sees consistency between what the adult says and what they do, their brain begins to integrate an internal logic. If you see inconsistency, you learn confusion. An adult who demands respect but yells; who asks for honesty but lies; who talks about empathy but ridicules, conveys much stronger messages with their actions than with their words.

Donald Winnicott spoke of the importance of a good enough environment, where the child feels safe to explore, make mistakes, and repair the damage. Repair is key to children’s moral development. It’s not just about pointing out the mistake, but about teaching what to do afterward. When a child breaks something or hurts someone, the question shouldn’t just be «Why did you do it?» but «How can we fix it?» That’s how responsibility is built, not guilt.
Guilt paralyzes, responsibility mobilizes. When we punish without explaining, the child learns to avoid the punishment, not to understand the behavior. Carol Gilligan, a psychologist, argued that morality is also built from care and empathy, not just from rigid rules. Teaching right from wrong involves helping children empathize with others, recognize their emotions, and understand that we live in relationships.

Another fundamental aspect is emotional language. A child who can’t name their feelings has more difficulty regulating their behavior. Many actions that adults label as «bad» are, in reality, overwhelming emotions. When we help a child say «I’m angry,» «I’m sad,» or «I’m scared,» we are giving them tools to act more appropriately. Morality cannot be built without emotional regulation.

It’s also important to adjust our expectations to their age. We can’t ask a three-year-old for the same level of self-control or moral awareness as a seven-year-old. Children’s psyches mature in stages, and demanding values ​​they can’t yet integrate generates frustration in both adults and children. Educating isn’t about rushing processes; it’s about guiding them.
Over time, and thanks to the repetition of consistent experiences, children begin to internalize rules. They no longer do «good» simply because an adult is watching, but because they begin to internally sense when something is right or wrong. That is the true goal: to move from external control to internal self-regulation.
Raising children with a healthy sense of right and wrong doesn’t mean raising children who are obedient out of fear, but rather children who understand, feel, and choose. And that path is built every day, in how we speak, how we repair mistakes, how we set limits, and how we support them. Because in the end, morality isn’t branded; it’s woven with patience.

The relationship between children and pets is often filled with tenderness, expectations, and plenty of picture-perfect photos. But beyond the adorable aspects, this bond is a profound ground for emotional learning, responsibility, and respect. Children aren’t born knowing how to interact with an animal; they learn by observing, experimenting, and being guided by adults. Therefore, managing this relationship isn’t just a matter of rules, but of early emotional education.