Birth Order

The power of birth order – is anecdotal evidence true?

For the last century or so there has been a debate raging amongst psychologists about the power of birth order.

Anecdotally it’s widely accepted that first-borns tend to be more responsible, serious and organised. They are subject to high expectations and, as a result, are pleasers.

Middle children are said to be more relaxed and diplomatic. They often keep the peace amongst older and younger siblings but can feel squeezed out of a position of significance and accordingly develop characteristics that help them negotiate, and sometimes manipulate, their place in the family environment.

The youngest, or baby of the family are said to be the rebels and risk-takers. They are generally creative, charming, playful and humorous. Youngest children are said to have wonderful social skills because of their interactions with older siblings.

But let’s take a look at the power of birth order from a scientific point of view.

Alfred Adler (1870-1937), an Austrian psychiatrist, was one of the first theorists to suggest that birth order influences personality. He believed that birth order can leave an indelible impression on the individual’s style of life, incorporating friendships, love and career.

More recently Michael Grose, a well-known Australian writer and speaker on parenting and family matters, has said birth-order theory is all about understanding your place in your family and its impact on your life. “It will influence your level of achievement at school. It will help determine the job you choose and even how long you work. It will help determine the spouse you choose,” he says.

New research undertaken by scientists at the University of Oslo tends to back this up. Using the IQ tests taken from the military records of 241,310 Norwegian conscripts, the scientists have found that eldest siblings are, on average, significantly more intelligent than secondborns. The second child, in turn, is in turn more intelligent than the third and so on.

In an article in London’s Independent, Steve Connor reports; “In an attempt to explain why older children seem to have higher IQs than subsequent siblings, psychologists talk about the “resource dilution model” – the finite amount of money, personal attention and cultural stimuli, such as books, that parents can draw on to raise their children. Firstborns have the initial advantage of having some of their early life without having to compete with later-borns.

“Another important factor in being the firstborn is that the eldest sibling is more likely to undertake the unpaid role of private tutor to his or her younger siblings. Many psychologists believe that this opportunity to tutor younger children improves the oldest child’s verbal and cognitive skills. They learn by teaching, and this pays them dividends in later life – making them into leaders rather than followers.”

There appear to be physical differences as well. Studies in the Philippines show that later-born siblings tend to be shorter and weigh less than earlier-borns.

Eldest siblings are also disproportionally represented in high-paying professions. Younger siblings, by contrast are often less educated and less strapping, but statistically likelier to live the exhilarating life of an artist, comedian, entrepreneur or adventurer.

After perusing a number of commercially published books* here’s a look at what impact your birth-order may have on you:

Firstborns

More conscientious, ambitions and aggressive than their younger siblings, firstborns are over-represented in disciplines requiring higher education such as medicine, engineering or law. They’re problem solvers, strong-willed, determined, good listeners, worry about new experiences, controlling, jealous and moralistic. There have been more first born US presidents and Nobel Prize winners than any other birth ranking.

Middle children

Middle children are more easygoing and peer-oriented. Because they mediate between siblings they tend to have excellent people skills. They are flexible and giving. They have lots of friends but they can also be manipulative. Many feel forced to assume roles that their older siblings for one reason or another are unable to fulfil and this may leave them with a chip on their shoulder.

Youngest children

Later-born children always have someone ahead of them to compete against. Their parents are more relaxed and less strict with the later born child who can be rebellious but are also pleasant, agreeable and easy going. They tend to be the most creative, unconventional and often feel like the ‘baby’, even when they are adults.

Only children

Only children have similar characteristics to firstborns and are frequently burdened with high parental expectations. They are more confident, articulate and likely to use their imagination than other children. They also expect a lot from others, hate criticism, can be inflexible and are often perfectionists.

Twins

Because they hold equal status in the family, twins tend to turn out similarly in most cases.

Dr Frank Sulloway, a behavioural scientist and author of Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives, says firstborns are more similar in personality to firstborns in other families than they are to their own younger siblings and that youngest children are often more similar to the youngest child in another family than his or her own elder siblings. He says this is because the family is not as much a shared environment as a set of niches that provide siblings with different outlooks.

However Toni Falbo, professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas urges caution. “People read birth-order books the way they read horoscopes. ‘I’m a middle-born, so that explains everything in my life’ – it’s just not like that.”

In 1998 Judith Rich Harris, in review of the scientific literature, said that birth order effects may exist within the context of the family or origin, but that they are not enduring aspects of personality. “When people are with their parents and siblings, firstborns behave differently that laterborns, even during adulthood. However, most people don’t spend their adult lives in their childhood home.” Harris concludes that birth order effects keep turning up because people keep looking for them, and keep analysing and reanalysing their data until they find them.

Ultimately, the birth-order debate will never be entirely settled. 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 socio-economic 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. Spacing of children, parenting style, and gender are additional variables to consider. In conclusion, Frank F Furstenberg, University of Pennsylvania sociology professor said, “It is well understood now that variation within families is enormous in (terms of) outcomes. The family isn’t a little printing press that copies and reproduces all children in one form.”

Things for parents to consider

From sociologist Dalton Conley’s book

“The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why”:

• Opposite-sex children usually experience the “same” family very differently, with different life outcomes.
• Researchers say parents tend to give sons more independence, assign them fewer chores and criticise them less.
• Fathers tend to spend more time with sons.
• Sons and daughters of working mothers tend to have more-equal incomes as adults. Sons out-earn daughters by US$4,500 per year, on average, if their mother was employed in their formative years, and by US$8,000 when their mother was not employed. (At-home mothers may offset this by exposing their daughters to other role models).
• Birth order has no effect in families of only two children. It matters in larger families – mostly because time and money are spread thin. Who suffers? The middle children. The “baby” of a very large family usually does well.
• Children within the same family may experience divorce very differently. The impact is often less severe on older kids who have already moved out – but most severe on the oldest child at home, who may fall into a caretaker role. (Note: In abusive marriages, younger children may benefit most from the split because they have more time to recover.)

Resources: *Born to Rebel, by Frank Sulloway. Understanding Human Nature, by A Adle. The intellectual achievement of only children, Journal of Biosocial Science, by DF Polit & T Falbo. The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why, by Dalton Conley. Why Firstborns Rule the World and Lastborns want to Change it, by Michael Grose.

Mum, I’m bored!

By Dr. Noel Swanson

“Mum, I’m bored!” How many times have you heard that from your kids?

And what happens when you hear it? Do you feel pangs of guilt and a sense of obligation that somehow you are failing as a parent if you cannot keep your children entertained?

These days it seems that boredom has become almost a crime against humanity. Adults and children alike frantically rush around seeking some kind of stimulation to stave off the dreaded B word.

Yet, increasingly, we turn to passive forms of entertainment to achieve that – TV and video games being chief among them.

The result? A whole bunch of kids who are fat and unfit, and at risk of diabetes and other health problems as they grow up.

Is that what you want for your kids?

So what should you do when your children are “bored”?

It seems to me that you have two options:

One, you can try to keep them entertained. Or two, you tell them to entertain themselves.

Now, which of these you choose will depend on your basic philosophy of parenting: is it your job to give your children everything they want and ask for, as to fail to do that would be tantamount to deprivation and neglect (after all, why shouldn’t they have the benefits of all that you can provide for them?)

Or is it your job to train them to become self-confident, independent individuals who are able to succeed in a complex and constantly changing modern society?

If you believe the former, then please, go ahead and indulge them their every whim. Why not? They are your precious darlings after all, and you want to give them every advantage that you never had when you were a kid.

The world needs adults who are focused on short-term gratification, people who are driven by their passions rather than their principles and decisions. Why? Because these are the people that will be our work force. Constantly spending their money on the latest gadgets and fads, they are constantly in need of funding, and so always in need of a job. The world couldn’t run without people like that.

But the world also needs leaders. People who can think independently, who can create and add value to the world. Be they inventors, designers, statesmen, artists, authors, entrepreneurs, these are the people who are prepared to think long term, putting off immediate gratification for a more distant, but much bigger benefit.

The workers make the wheels go around, and we couldn’t do without them. But the leaders design the wheels, and the engines to power them, and the artwork to make them more beautiful. And they reap their reward in proportion to the value they bring to society.

So, which group do you want your children to join?

Please, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying one group is better than the other – we need both. But what I am saying is that the choices that you make as a parent will influence your children’s future. And none so clearly than in how you handle the boredom issue.

You see, if you provide them with passive entertainment, they get an immediate buzz. But when the program ends, the buzz ends. And a big vacuum opens up. Boredom. It is like addiction to a drug. Desperately they need another fix of entertainment – and they will do no end of whining or other mischief to get you to provide it for them.

But what if you don’t provide it for them? A vacuum does seek to fill itself. At first they will do all they can to get another fix. They will mope around. They will whine. They will cry and tell you you’re the meanest parent in town. They will remind you that their friend at school, Billy, has three DVD players, five games consoles, a three-metre TV screen, and gets to drink beer too, so why should they be deprived? You will feel terrible, and will be sorely tempted to ease their suffering – after all, just another hour on the TV won’t hurt them, will it?

Just like one cigarette for your colleague who is three days into abstinence won’t hurt him either?

Don’t do it! All they will learn is that:

A. If they make enough fuss they can get you to give in.

B. The world does owe them a living.

C. Why work towards something, when you can get it the easy way?

This is the kind of thinking that leads to people being in debt and dependent on the welfare state.

Gradually, as they realise that you are not playing that game anymore, they will start to look around to find other ways to fill the void. After about two or three weeks, they will have discovered books (remember what they were?), and maybe drawing, painting, writing poetry, sewing, football, running, canoeing and karate, as well.

Another month or two and they will wonder how they ever had time to be bored!

Now, instead of getting their daily fix of passive pleasure, they are developing their creativity and their initiative.

They are taking charge of their own entertainment and, as a result, are learning to take responsibility for their own lives.

And that is the kind of thinking that leads to success.

The word on swearing

By Dr John Waring

Recently a school principal introduced a so called "zero tolerance" policy at his school banning swearing. Immediately he ran into problems that perhaps parents should also consider. Firstly he had definition problems: what words would be included on the banned list? The list quickly grew and was eventually abandoned.

He then had difficulty with deciding in what context swearing should be banned. For example, if someone is accidentally hurt and lets out a swear word, should they be punished as harshly as a child who swears at another child or indeed at a teacher? The school, in my opinion, came up with a sensible policy that was to punish swearing that was directed at an individual for the purpose of abusing or harassing that individual. After all, that appears to be the most offensive aspect of swearing, the aggression that accompanies the words when they are directed towards an individual.

The vast majority of adults if honest would admit to swearing – which makes it ironic that many parents seem to believe that their child learnt to swear at preschool or school but never at home. The fact that dad swears when he hits his thumb with the hammer or his footy team is being beaten, or that mum swears when things go wrong for her couldn’t possibly be copied by their children.

Swearing is becoming much more tolerated. For example, there was a time on television when the word bum would cause a flood of complaints. Now that car advertisement that mentions the word bugger repeatedly is tolerated and laughed at by many people.

However, as parents we need to educate our children about swearing. They need to know that there may be a time and place where swearing is appropriate, but never in an abusive harassing manner of another person.

If your young child has started to swear, ignore the word as much as possible, quietly tell them that "we don’t use that word in our family". Try to play down the impact of the word. Being shocked and over-reacting to your child’s swearing will simply increase the power of the word for the child who may then learn to swear for effect.

A speech pathologist colleague of mine told me about a child with autism who only had one word. But if you had to choose one word that could be a verb, a noun and an adjective, one word that could get everyone’s attention in the supermarket when yelled at 100 decibels he had chosen a beauty! Maybe he just learnt it at school?