Tests & Experiments
Birth Order and Personality
For other uses of the redirecting terms such as "little brother" and "big sister", see Brothers and Sisters.
"Last child" redirects here. For the song by Aerosmith, see Last Child.
Does being younger or older than one's sibling affect child development?
Birth order is defined as a person's rank by the sequence of birth among his or her siblings.
Birth order is commonly believed to have a profound and lasting effect
on psychological development. Although this assertion has been
repeatedly challenged by researchers, birth order continues to have a
strong presence in pop psychology and popular culture.
Theories
Alfred Adler (1870-1937), an Austrian psychiatrist, and a contemporary of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, was one of the first theorists to suggest that birth order influences personality.
He argued that birth order can leave an indelible impression on an
individual's style of life, which is one's habitual way of dealing with
the tasks of friendship, love, and work. According to Adler, firstborns
are "dethroned" when a second child comes along, and this may have a
lasting influence on them. Younger and only children
may be pampered and spoiled, which can also affect their later
personalities. Additional birth order factors that should be considered
are the spacing in years between siblings, the total number of
children, and the changing circumstances of the parents over time.
Since Adler's time, the influence of birth order on the development of personality has become a controversial issue in psychology.
Among the general public, it is widely believed that personality is
strongly influenced by birth order, but many psychologists dispute
this. One important modern theory of personality states that the Big Five personality traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism
represent most of the important elements of personality that can be
measured. Contemporary approaches to birth order frequently suggest
that birth order influences these five traits.
In his book Born to Rebel, Frank Sulloway suggests that birth order has strong and consistent effects on the Big Five personality traits. He argues that firstborns are more conscientious,
more socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas
compared to laterborns. However, critics such as Fred Townsend, Toni
Falbo, and Judith Rich Harris, argue against Sulloway's theories. An issue of Politics and the Life Sciences, dated September, 2000 but not published until 2004 [1] due to legal threats from Sulloway (who claimed its content to be defamatory,
although it was carefully and rigorously researched and sourced),
contains criticisms of Sulloway's theories, including studies that show
conflicting findings.
In their book Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance across the Lifespan, Michael E. Lamb and Brian Sutton-Smith make the point that sibling relationships often last an entire lifetime. They point out that the lifespan view proposes that development is continuous, with individuals continually adjusting to the competing demands of socialization
agents and biological tendencies. Thus, even those concerned only with
interactions among young siblings implicitly or explicitly acknowledge
that all relationships change over time and that any effects of birth
order may be eliminated, reinforced, or altered by later experiences.
Personality research
Most of the claims about birth order have not been supported by
scientific research. Indeed, many of the traits believed to be
associated with different birth positions appear to contradict each
other. Only children are supposedly more extraverted because they need
to go outside of the family to meet other children, yet they are also
believed to be more introverted so they can tolerate being by
themselves. In fact, extraversion and introversion
are stable personality traits, and they are related more strongly to
genetic factors than to birth order. Firstborns are attributed with a
variety of traits that do not even correlate with each other, much less with birth order. In general, birth order effects are weaker than commonly believed.
In practice, systematic birth order research is a challenge because
it is difficult to control for all of the variables that are
statistically related to birth order. Family size, and a number of
social and demographic variables are associated with birth order and
serve as potential confounds.
For example, large families are generally lower in socioeconomic status
than small families. This means that third born children are not only
third in birth order, but they are also more likely to come from
larger, poorer families than firstborn children. If thirdborns have a
particular trait, it may be due to birth order, or it may be due to
family size, or to any number of other variables. It is often
impossible to determine which variable is the actual cause of the
observed trait. This methodological issue has plagued research in this
area. Spacing of children, parenting style, and gender are additional
variables to consider. Consequently, there is a large number of
published studies on birth order that vary widely in quality and are
inconsistent in their conclusions.
Literature reviews
that have examined many studies and attempted to control for
confounding variables tend to find minimal effects for birth order.
Ernst and Angst (1983) reviewed all of the research published between
1946 and 1980. They also did their own study on a representative sample
of 6,315 young men from Switzerland. They found no substantial effects
of birth order and concluded that birth order research was a "waste of
time." More recently, Jefferson, Herbst, and McCrae (1998) analyzed
data from a national sample of 9,664 subjects on the Big Five personality traits
of extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience. Contrary to Sulloway's predictions, they found
no significant correlation between birth order and self-reported
personality. There was, however, some tendency for people to perceive
birth order effects when they were aware of the birth order of an
individual.
In her review of the scientific literature, Judith Rich Harris
(1998) suggests that birth order effects may exist within the context
of the family of origin, but that they are not enduring aspects of
personality. When people are with their parents and siblings,
firstborns behave differently than laterborns, even during adulthood.
However, most people don't spend their adult lives in their childhood
home. Harris provides evidence that the patterns of behavior acquired
in the childhood home don't affect the way people behave outside the
home, even during childhood. Harris concludes that birth order effects
keep turning up because people keep looking for them, and keep
analyzing and reanalyzing their data until they find them.
Intelligence
Since the 1970s, one of the most influential theories to explain why
firstborns frequently score higher on intelligence and achievement
tests than other children is the confluence model of Robert Zajonc.
This model states that because firstborns mainly have adult influences
around them in their early years, they will spend their initial years
of life interacting in a highly intellectual family environment. This
effect may also be observed in siblings who, although later born, have
a sibling at least five years senior with no siblings in between. These
children are considered to be "functional firstborns". The theory
further suggests that firstborns will be more intelligent than only
children, because the latter will not benefit from the "tutor effect"
(i.e. teaching younger siblings).
Zajonc's theory has been criticised for confounding birth order with
both age and family size, and alternative theories (such as Resource
Depletion Theory) have been offered to explain the Belmont and Marolla
findings. In a meta-analysis of the research, Polit and Falbo (1988)
found that firstborns, only children, and children with one other
sibling score higher on tests of verbal ability than laterborns and
children with multiple siblings. This effect suggests that smaller
families lead to children with higher test scores. Because there was no
specific advantage for firstborn children, the results are consistent
with Resource Depletion Theory, but not the confluence model.
The basic finding that firstborns have higher IQ scores has been
disputed. One group of researchers examined data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) (USA), which gave them the
opportunity to look at a large randomly selected sample of US families.
The sample included children whose academic performance had been
reviewed multiple times throughout their academic careers. This study
found no relationship between birth order and intelligence (Rodgers,
Cleveland, Van den Oord, & Rowe, 2000).
Recently, researchers reporting in the journal Science (June 2007) found that "the eldest children in families tend to develop slightly higher IQs than their younger siblings." [1] This could be a consequence of parents spending more quality time with their first-born children than with subsequent children [2].
Sexuality
The fraternal birth order
effect is the name given to the observation that the more older
brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a
homosexual sexual orientation. The fraternal birth order effect is the
strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, each older brother
increases a man's odds of being gay (Blanchard & Bogaerd, 1996).
Even so, the fraternal birth order effect only accounts for a maximum
of one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems
to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect of the
number of older sisters.
In the book, Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality,
Edward M. Miller suggests that the birth order effect on homosexuality
may be a by-product of an evolved, biological mechanism that shifts
personality toward the feminine direction in laterborn sons. This would
have the consequence of reducing the probability of these sons engaging
in unproductive competition with each other.
Notes and references
- Adler, A. (1964). Problems of neurosis. New York: Harper and Row.
- Blanchard, R., and Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers. Am. J. Psychiat. 153: 27–31.
- Belmont, M., & Marolla, F.A. (1973). "Birth order, family size, and intelligence". Science 182: 1096–1101.
- Ernst, C. & Angst, J. (1983). Birth order: Its influence on personality. Springer.
- Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.
- Jefferson, T., Herbst, J. H., & McCrae, R. R. (1998).
Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from
self-reports and observer ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 498-509.
- Lamb, M. E., Sutton-Smith, B. (1982).Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance of the Lifespan. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Leman, K. (1985). The Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are. New York: Dell Publishing.
- Polit, D. F. & Falbo, T. (1988). The intellectual achievement of only children. Journal of Biosocial Science, 20, 275-285.
- Rodgers, J. L., Cleveland, H. H., van den Oord, E. and Rowe, D.
(2000). Resolving the Debate Over Birth Order, Family Size and
Intelligence. American Psychologist, Vol. 55.
Further reading
- Michalski, R. L. , & Shackelford, T. K. (2002). Birth order and sexual strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 33 , 661-667. Full text
- Sulloway, F.J. (2001). Birth Order, Sibling Competition, and Human Behavior. In Paul S. Davies and Harmon R. Holcomb, (Eds.), Conceptual Challenges in Evolutionary Psychology: Innovative Research Strategies. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 39-83. [http://www.sulloway.org/Holcomb.pdf Full text
External links
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia Encyclopedia article "Birth Order"
|