# Birth Order



## Bonjules

Hola,
This deals with the question if and how your position
among siblings affects your personality traits.
There is the common perception, for instance, that the
first born is often more responsible, more likely to be a
'high achiever' because the parents tend to express the expectation of 'more reasonable' as 'the oldest' or may even call on him/her to assist in raising the others.

A quick review of some of the literature seems to indicate that there is no agreement whether overall this is a good predictor of traits. Most seem to agree, however, that the 'middle position' is probably the most difficult one, having no clearly defined 'role' and often receiving the least parental attention.

If you have siblings, do you think your position among them had much of an influence on who you have become? Do you see it in the others?


----------



## Kajjo

I believe, but have no studies to support this notion, that the oldest sibling actually has a more dominant role _in average_ than younger siblings. The oldest child is usually involved in raising and teaching the younger ones and learns the necessary traits and behaviour. In very many persons I know, I observed such traits long before I knew their order of birth. However, as with most social habits and human traits, this is a rule with a lot of exceptions.

Kajjo


----------



## GEmatt

I think the age gaps will also make a difference. I have two younger siblings, but my younger sister is almost as close to me in age as humanly possible, and my younger brother is three years younger. I wasn't able to assist in actually raising them, but I was expected to set the example, on the basis of being the oldest (even though I usually didn't know much better than my brother or sister).

Edit: I should add that I think we all felt fairly individual, growing up. I was the eldest, my brother was the youngest, and my sister was the only girl (and the middle child), so we all felt we had our 'niche'.  Compare this to a friend of mine who had 3 siblings, an older brother and sister, and a younger brother. The oldest had his niche, the youngest had his, the only girl had hers, and my friend (jokingly, I'm sure) used to say he felt redundant in the family.


----------



## Etcetera

I have a younger sister (she's more than 10 years my junior) and a number of cousins. The oldest of my cousins is almost 13, the youngest is merely 3 years old. 
Of course, it's always been one of my chief responsibilities to look after my sister. For example, now as she's learning English, I'm helping her with it. 
When I stay with my aunt's family (she has three children), I'm naturally expected to help her with the children. Of coirse, no one is forcing me to sit with them, but my help is always gladly appreciated. And I really enjoy it!
It seems to me that the eldest child is always expected to set an example to the younger ones. When I behaved myself badly, my Mum told me to think "what an example I'm setting for my sister?" It is generally acknowledged that parents' example is very important for the child; I believe that older siblings' example is also important. 
Ough, what a responsibility I take on myself!


----------



## Bonjules

GEmatt said:


> I think the age gaps will also make a difference.


 Certainly. There is much agreement that with age differences > 5,6 years, for both more of an 'only child'
pattern (not a subject of this thread!) emerges.

  Both,  GEmatt and Kajjo appear to support the idea
that the 1st born is often groomed as 'the leader'.

That sets the stage for another common perception:
That the younger ones, especially 'the littlest' will
rebel against that/him/her, will try to be the opposite.

Surely, it would be hard to 'compete' with an older sibling at a young age, the younger you are, the more
age makes 'all the difference in the world'.


----------



## TRG

Here is a reference to read about the effect of birth order on personality. They conclude it has no effect. Dalton Conley has written a book called _The Pecking Order_ in which he also disputes that birth order has any effect on personality. That birth order is determinative regarding any personality traits or life outcomes is most likely a myth, IMO.


----------



## Bonjules

TRG said:


> Here is a reference to read about the effect of birth order on personality. They conclude it has no effect. Dalton Conley has written a book called _The Pecking Order_ in which he also disputes that birth order has any effect on personality. That birth order is determinative regarding any personality traits or life outcomes is most likely a myth, IMO.


 TRG, like I said, there is no agreement on this.
Others have come to different conclusions. I am not trying to duplicate the research here or prove anything.
I am intersted in the perception of folks of how it might have played in their family (or families they know closely) or affected them personally.
saludos


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Nice thread, Bonjules. Perhaps as nice as this one. Just, out of curiosity, what is it you have with siblings and age gaps? 

*If you have siblings, do you think your position among them had much of an influence on who you have become?* 

Indeed! Being the eldest of three has had a huuuge influence on who and what I have become. I say "it has had" instead of simply "had", since I'm still wearing that tiny little tag on my shoulder to let the world know I'm the eldest daughter of my parents. (For more details, check this)



Kajjo said:


> In very many persons I know, I observed such traits long before I knew their order of birth. However, as with most social habits and human traits, this is a rule with a lot of exceptions.


I concur. Perhaps this is one of those stereotypes that has a lot of background to confirm it, and also enough evidence to contradict it. I fit the stereotype, though...

As Miss Etcetera, I had to set a good example for my younger brother, even though 2 years is definitely not a considerable age gap to me. Anyway, my "old folks" were somewhat tougher on me than they were on my brother; they would always demand much more from me, my school marks had to be better, my appereance had to be neater, my room had to be cleaner, my behavior had to be more proper, my vocabulary had to be fancier... "After all, he'll follow your cue", they said. Which, by the way, he didn't.

Josh, my younger brother, fits the corresponding stereotype too. During his teen years, he would contradict me at every chance, he would rebel against whatever authority that would stand on his way, he would mess up everything, complain at everything, ridicule everything... It was nice, really.

Funny how everything changed when our youngest brother was born (he will turn 4 y/o next week). I became the baby's mother, and Josh my middle brother became the elder child (even though he's a grown-up man, already). Josh is still rebel and crazy, but you should see how he looks after the baby... Really cute...

Oh I'm sorry, what's the question again?


----------



## TRG

Bonjules said:


> TRG, like I said, there is no agreement on this.
> Others have come to different conclusions. I am not trying to duplicate the research here or prove anything.
> I am intersted in the perception of folks of how it might have played in their family (or families they know closely) or affected them personally.
> saludos


 
Do you have references for others? I know many people believe this, but do you have examples of people who have studied the problem (other than anecdotally) and found the birth order does affect behavior?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

TRG said:


> Do you have references for others? I know many people believe this, but do you have examples of people who have studied the problem (other than anecdotally) and found the birth order does affect behavior?


Why, but the fact that it has not been quoted here does not mean such studies don't exist.

I remember the existance of some (I even wrote down the names of the scientists and the research thesis), but I unfortunately lost them shortly after.

There was a book, titled "Born to rebel" (I don't remember the name of the author, but I think she was British), which was a reaction to that type of research, and contradicted its accuracy. I didn't get to read it, but I heard about it, some years ago.

I'm sure the Net is full of psychological research on that matter. Pity I don't have either the time or the unlimited on-line access in order to provide some links... If anyone could do so, I'd be most interested in reading about...


----------



## emilymonster

Do you also find that the younger sibling(s) mature quicker than the first-born? In my case I feel that my sister, who is younger by three years, hit puberty at a younger age than me and also got involved in boys and fashion etc. at least two years before I did. Isn't it suppposed to be the other way round because the older sibling is supposed to set an example for the younger sibling(s)?


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

emilymonster said:


> Do you also find that the younger sibling(s) mature quicker than the first-born? In my case I feel that my sister, who is younger by three years, hit puberty at a younger age than me and also got involved in boys and fashion etc. at least two years before I did. Isn't it suppposed to be the other way round because the older sibling is supposed to set an example for the younger sibling(s)?


Interesting point!

I see that in other families, very often. There was a theory which stated that the older your siblings are, the faster you grow up (emotionally), since you are supposed to be "soaked" up in more mature conversations (those of your older, supposedly more mature siblings) than other kids.

I'm not sure how true that is, but it seems to be true in my family: my baby -brother- is definitely the smartest and most mature kid I've ever met in the family (and I belong to a huge -extended- family...)


----------



## emilymonster

Also, why is the 'middle child' such a problem? Both my parents are the oldest of three and feel that the third child caused a problem, they even told me that they chose to have only two children because a third would have caused problems. But obviously, coming from a two-child family I have not experienced this phenomenon.


----------



## emilymonster

Sorry, the second child, I meant (the one that caused the problem in both families was the second or middle child)


----------



## TRG

First, in the absence of any input at all, I am a skeptic about birth order effects.  I am naturally skeptical in all things.  Second, in my first internet search I did not find any actual studies purporting to support the theory that there is such a thing as birth order effects, but I did find some making the case against birth order effects.  I'll admit I didn't look very long.  That studies in favor exist, is just to stay that the matter is unsettled and open to debate.  Given that, what is the point of sharing anecdotes about somone's sibling's personality traits since it will not really prove anything one way or the other.  It's just talk, but that's ok.


----------



## Bonjules

TRG said:


> That studies in favor exist, is just to stay that the matter is unsettled and open to debate. Given that, what is the point of sharing anecdotes about somone's sibling's personality traits since it will not really prove anything one way or the other. It's just talk, but that's ok.


TRG, I am not sure why you keep belaboring the point; I said very clearly that I am not trying to bolster or prove
any research (this is not a research/scietific forum, as you know). The point here is to share peoples perceptions about the issue, because it makes them
(hopefully) think about these things. 
I for my part have gained a lot of insight about our family and myself since I started thinking about these
patterns.


----------



## muselinazi

emilymonster said:


> Do you also find that the younger sibling(s) mature quicker than the first-born? In my case I feel that my sister, who is younger by three years, hit puberty at a younger age than me and also got involved in boys and fashion etc. at least two years before I did. Isn't it suppposed to be the other way round because the older sibling is supposed to set an example for the younger sibling(s)?



I think Venezuelan sweetie has a good point.
It may also have something to do with the older sibling having to 'pave the way' so to speak, for the younger sibling. There's a six-year gap between my younger brother and I and it often seems like having already been through puberty with me, my parents are less anxious and therefore less restrictive with him. He has more freedom than I did in many ways and thus has probably had more character-building experiences earlier. 
As for maturity...the jury is still out on that one.


----------



## Bonjules

emilymonster said:


> Sorry, the second child, I meant (the one that caused the problem in both families was the second or middle child)


 
Hi emilym,
the idea is that the first born has the most defined, secure 'role'. The next desirable place seems to be the youngest which the parents tend (all this is generalizing heavily) devote more attention to. Obviously, with a third child, #2 gets displaced from that spot. At the same time, some/many parents seem more 'relaxed' after #1(they are 'old hands' at this now), so that
#2 finds itself at times on 'autopilot'. Particularly if the parents also have a gender-preference, it can get very lonely. Some sources recommend for the parents to be especially aware and make extra time for #2 (of 3)


----------



## Bonjules

muselinazi said:


> I think Venezuelan sweetie has a good point.
> It may also have something to do with the older sibling having to 'pave the way' so to speak, for the younger sibling. There's a six-year gap between my younger brother and I and it often seems like having already been through puberty with me, my parents are less...


 
Yes, I agree also, as far as emotional maturity goes.
It wouldn't explain earlier physical maturity so much,
but that seems to be a general trend anyway, probably
related  more to environmental issues.


----------



## TRG

Bonjules said:


> TRG, I am not sure why you keep belaboring the point; I said very clearly that I am not trying to bolster or prove
> any research (this is not a research/scietific forum, as you know). The point here is to share peoples perceptions about the issue, because it makes them
> (hopefully) think about these things.
> I for my part have gained a lot of insight about our family and myself since I started thinking about these
> patterns.


 
Well, I'm sharing my perception! And, part of thinking about the birth order effect is giving consideration to the possibility that there is nothing to it. I fully appreciate that it is an interesting and fun topic, so go ahead and have some fun. I will conceed that there is a good argument to made that younger siblings receive different rearing than older ones and to the extent that parents have any influence over personality traits and behavior then you could expect consistent personality trait differences to show up in unrelated children of the same birth order. However, the idea that parents have much influence over the personality traits and behavior of their children is also a matter up for debate. I refer you to the Colorado Longitudinal Twin Study which found that a twin raised by adopted parents had no more in common with its adopted family than someone picked randomly off the street. I'm reporting second hand information about the LTS, so I could have it wrong. If so, someone will hopefully correct me.


----------



## danielfranco

I think everyone's opinion here is correct. I mean, if that's how they see it, that's probably how it actually is.

Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the way parents treat the children rather than with an instinctual hierarchical order (like in a pack of wolves). Although humans probably still have all kinds of instincts pre-wired into their brains, they seem a bit more inclined to do whatever they feel like doing instead of following their "instincts".

But, back to the thingy about parents: I think the first-born often has to shoulder most of the brunt of positive AND negative attention from parents. Especially when there are more children.
Middle children probably get shunted this-a-way and that-a-way by harried parents, who often might only have time to acknowledge them with a simple "yeah, you too..." kind of treatment.
And the last child often arrives in a household where the parents are just bone-tired. Probably by the time the youngest comes into the fold, parents are just ready to say, "look, sonny, here are the keys to the car and the liquor cabinet: go forth, young man, and do what you must; we are just going to take a nap now, alright?"


----------



## muselinazi

danielfranco said:


> And the last child often arrives in a household where the parents are just bone-tired. Probably by the time the youngest comes into the fold, parents are just ready to say, "look, sonny, here are the keys to the car and the liquor cabinet: go forth, young man, and do what you must; we are just going to take a nap now, alright?"



That's it!


----------



## Bonjules

danielfranco said:


> .... Probably by the time the youngest comes into the fold, parents are just ready to say, "look, sonny, here are the keys to the car and the liquor cabinet: go forth, young man, and do what you must; we are just going to take a nap now, alright?"


Well, Daniel, at least he/she gets to drink and drive
at an early age....

But seriously, nobody claimed it was predominantly
'instinct'*. However, children (just like us)do use power games, manipulate etc to get what they want, which(in our corner of the world) is mostly
attention and recognition.
Surely the attitude of the parents is crucial in every aspect.

* You like wolves, don't you. Now just watch a bunch of hungry
children  supervise the distribution of the (meager) weekly/monthly
'meat' ration - if there is any at all. Memories...


----------

