Is it really possible that something as simple as the order in which brothers and sisters are born determines their personality and future trajectory?
It's a question that has been explored over the years by a number of researchers, launching theories and even stereotypes. But it's not as simple as numbering children as they are born.
According to the Huffington Post, "since the 1970s, thousands of scientific studies on birth order have been conducted, but psychologists often disagree about how much of a role birth order actually plays in development. However, some common aspects of the personalities of oldest, middle and youngest children are consistent across the literature."
Those "common aspects" boil down to the oldest as a leader, middle as socially capable and thus a peacemaker, and the baby as possibly a bit rebellious, most likely in an effort to get some attention from parents.
"Of the many factors to control for, theres sex of the children, number of years between them (in multiple-child families), and family history, not to mention the right way to study personality. What about step-siblings, half-siblings, and siblings who dont even know that the other one exists? There are biological and adopted families. Parents vary in their ages and in the ages they were when they had their children. When it comes to psychological variables, the situation becomes even more complex. Do we study actual achievements, and if so, how do we measure them? Income? Education? Occupational prestige or advancement up the career ladder? Should we look at personality, motivation, intelligence, happiness, or mental health?" wrote Susan Krauss Whitbourne on the topic a couple of years ago for Psychology Today.
She looked at research from University of Georgia psychologist Alan E. Stewart, who had in turn looked at two decades of articles on the subject. Based on other researchers' findings, Stewart pointed out that there is real birth order you have a younger brother and an older sister, so you're really in the middle and psychological birth order your older sister was married and moved away when you were very young, so you're effectively the oldest in your home.
Bottom line, Stewart and others conclude that your psychological birth order trumps your actual birth order.
Two other studies that Whitbourne considered looked at two-child families and shaded the leadership quality question with a bit more nuance. The first-born is not compared to another child in the family. Within the unit, there's actual trailblazing going on. On the other hand, that second child can't help but be compared a bit to what the firstborn has accomplished. She also offers the idea that if someone thinks he's a born leader because he was born first, he may try to lead and actually develop those qualities.
But "the moral of the story for parents is to look for your own biases and stereotypes about birth order as you think about what your children are capable of doing. Encourage them to teach each other, to define their own identities in the family, and to avoid labeling themselves based on their birth order. Dont let the lives of your children be dominated by the random forces that caused them to be born when they were," Whitbourne wrote.
There's one area where the consensus really is pretty universal: Parents should recognize children's strengths and weaknesses and treat them as the individuals they are.
"Children need to be allowed to find their destiny, whatever their role in the family may be," child development expert Gail Gross advised parents in a Huffington Post blog.
"Some researchers believe birth order is as important as gender and almost as important as genetics. It gets back to the old nurture vs. nature business. In my experience as an educator and a researcher, I know that no two children have the same set of parents, even though they live in the same family. Why? Because parents are different with each of their children, and no two children ever take the same role. For example, if you are the caretaking child, then that role is taken and your sibling will pick another role in the family, perhaps that of the achiever."
It's a question that has been explored over the years by a number of researchers, launching theories and even stereotypes. But it's not as simple as numbering children as they are born.
According to the Huffington Post, "since the 1970s, thousands of scientific studies on birth order have been conducted, but psychologists often disagree about how much of a role birth order actually plays in development. However, some common aspects of the personalities of oldest, middle and youngest children are consistent across the literature."
Those "common aspects" boil down to the oldest as a leader, middle as socially capable and thus a peacemaker, and the baby as possibly a bit rebellious, most likely in an effort to get some attention from parents.
"Of the many factors to control for, theres sex of the children, number of years between them (in multiple-child families), and family history, not to mention the right way to study personality. What about step-siblings, half-siblings, and siblings who dont even know that the other one exists? There are biological and adopted families. Parents vary in their ages and in the ages they were when they had their children. When it comes to psychological variables, the situation becomes even more complex. Do we study actual achievements, and if so, how do we measure them? Income? Education? Occupational prestige or advancement up the career ladder? Should we look at personality, motivation, intelligence, happiness, or mental health?" wrote Susan Krauss Whitbourne on the topic a couple of years ago for Psychology Today.
She looked at research from University of Georgia psychologist Alan E. Stewart, who had in turn looked at two decades of articles on the subject. Based on other researchers' findings, Stewart pointed out that there is real birth order you have a younger brother and an older sister, so you're really in the middle and psychological birth order your older sister was married and moved away when you were very young, so you're effectively the oldest in your home.
Bottom line, Stewart and others conclude that your psychological birth order trumps your actual birth order.
Two other studies that Whitbourne considered looked at two-child families and shaded the leadership quality question with a bit more nuance. The first-born is not compared to another child in the family. Within the unit, there's actual trailblazing going on. On the other hand, that second child can't help but be compared a bit to what the firstborn has accomplished. She also offers the idea that if someone thinks he's a born leader because he was born first, he may try to lead and actually develop those qualities.
But "the moral of the story for parents is to look for your own biases and stereotypes about birth order as you think about what your children are capable of doing. Encourage them to teach each other, to define their own identities in the family, and to avoid labeling themselves based on their birth order. Dont let the lives of your children be dominated by the random forces that caused them to be born when they were," Whitbourne wrote.
There's one area where the consensus really is pretty universal: Parents should recognize children's strengths and weaknesses and treat them as the individuals they are.
"Children need to be allowed to find their destiny, whatever their role in the family may be," child development expert Gail Gross advised parents in a Huffington Post blog.
"Some researchers believe birth order is as important as gender and almost as important as genetics. It gets back to the old nurture vs. nature business. In my experience as an educator and a researcher, I know that no two children have the same set of parents, even though they live in the same family. Why? Because parents are different with each of their children, and no two children ever take the same role. For example, if you are the caretaking child, then that role is taken and your sibling will pick another role in the family, perhaps that of the achiever."
