topic Re: Birth Order Debunked? in Community Chat

Birth Order Debunked?

lolakimono — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:28:41 GMT

Massive study: Birth order has no meaningful effect on personality or IQ

http://news.illinois.edu/news/15/0716birth_order_brentroberts.html

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — For those who believe that birth order influences traits like personality and intelligence, a study of 377,000 high school students offers some good news: Yes, the study found, first-borns do have higher IQs and consistently different personality traits than those born later in the family chronology. However, researchers say, the differences between first-borns and “later-borns” are so small that they have no practical relevance to people’s lives.

The analysis is reported in the Journal of Research in Personality.

“This is a conspicuously large sample size,” said University of Illinois psychology professor Brent Roberts, who led the analysis with postdoctoral researcher Rodica Damian, who is now a professor of psychology at the University of Houston. “It’s the biggest in history looking at birth order and personality.”

The analysis found – as a previous large-scale study did – that first-borns enjoy a one-IQ-point advantage over later-borns, Damian said. The difference is statistically significant but meaningless, she said.

The analysis also revealed consistent differences in personality traits between first-borns and later-borns – first-borns tended to be more extroverted, agreeable and conscientious, and had less anxiety than later-borns, for example – but those differences were “infinitesimally small,” amounting to a correlation of 0.02, Roberts said.

“In some cases, if a drug saves 10 out of 10,000 lives, for example, small effects can be profound,” Roberts said. “But in terms of personality traits and how you rate them, a 0.02 correlation doesn’t get you anything of note. You are not going to be able to see it with the naked eye. You’re not going to be able to sit two people down next to each other and see the differences between them. It’s not noticeable by anybody.”

The study controlled for potentially confounding factors – such as a family’s economic status, the number of children and the relative age of the siblings at the time of the analysis – that might skew the results, Damian said.

For example, wealthier families tend to have fewer children than other families, and so have a higher proportion of first-borns who also have access to more resources that may influence their IQ or personality, she said.

Many previous studies of birth order suffered from small sample sizes, Damian said. Many compared children with their siblings – a “within-family” design that some assert is better than comparing children from different families, as the new analysis did.

“But such studies often don’t measure the personality of each child individually,” she said. “They just ask one child – usually the oldest, ‘Are you more conscientious than your siblings?’”

The results differ depending on whom you ask, she said.

“Another major problem with within-family studies is that the oldest child is always older,” Roberts said. “People say, ‘But my oldest kid is more responsible than my youngest kid.’ Yes, and they’re also older.”

An ideal within-family study would follow the families over time, collecting IQ and personality data from each child when he or she reached a specific age, the researchers said.

The team also evaluated a subset of the children in the study – those with exactly two siblings and living with two parents. This allowed the researchers to look for specific differences between first- and second-borns, or second- and third-borns.

The findings confirmed those seen in the larger study, with specific differences between the oldest and a second child, and between second and third children. But the magnitude of the differences was, again, “minuscule,” Roberts said.

“The message of this study is that birth order probably should not influence your parenting, because it’s not meaningfully related to your kid’s personality or IQ,” Damian said.

The National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health supported this research.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

Lila Belle — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:11:58 GMT

Very interesting !

Thanks for posting this lolakimono

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

Burnsite — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:27:43 GMT

Very interesting!

I always wondered about the idea that youngest siblings were less intellectual--not true in my family!

Ben Franklin was the youngest of 17 (11 of them alive when he was growing up). It was a lively, bright family but he seems to have had the most intellectual zeal of all.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

Chrystaltree2 — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:30:33 GMT

There never was an science behind it anyway, it was always just one of those old wives tale things.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

jubilant — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:33:24 GMT

Interesting. I read my first birth order book many years ago and totally disagreed with it.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

Bird mama — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:48:39 GMT

Science may not support it but the differences between me and my sister (last born versus first born) are startling. There are times I wonder if she was raised by wolves or something.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

LTT1 — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:51:36 GMT

@Bird mama

You say this... I am SURE that my brother (younger) was raised by wolves!

@lolakimono

too cute! Wait for it... wait for it....

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

jaxs mom — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:59:46 GMT

Debunked? It's not like it was an established fact in the first place. Regardless just give it time and there will be another study "debunking" this one.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

blackhole99 — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:04:45 GMT

I'm the first born and I'm definitely smarter and more stable than my brother, but my two sisters in between are smarter. I never believed that the first born had the edge, especially in a family were there was more than two children.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

hckynutjohn — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:08:03 GMT

Who paid for this ridiculous study(?), and why? Who with common sense thinks you can mass study any group in lieu of individuality? Because I am the youngest of 4 that means what? I know what it meant/means to me, why would I think the youngest in every family has the same future? Simple answer, i don't.

Use the money/time for things that really helps people.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

Ibby114 — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:22:46 GMT

I'm the youngest of 3- and we're all very smart. My siblings are uber smart though- however they can't walk and chew gum at the same time! A lot has to be said for being street smart -and having strong survival skills.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

MacDUFF — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:38:49 GMT

My “infinitesimally small” first-born guess is that Roberts and Damian are not first-borns.

;0)

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

hckynutjohn — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:48:07 GMT

Smart/Educated/Intelligent/Street Smart/Life Smart/Experienced/Common Sense.

I have met a lot of educated men over the tears. Walls lined with certificates. That translates into? Easy answer. Nothing beyond what they were educated in? Means very little to me.

Life's experience and common sense on the other hand? My eyes and ears are wide open.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

sfnative — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:49:01 GMT

@Bird mama wrote:
Science may not support it but the differences between me and my sister (last born versus first born) are startling. There are times I wonder if she was raised by wolves or something.

I second that motion as it relates to me and my sister.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

hckynutjohn — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:11:57 GMT

My 3 older sisters(youngest died in 1989)are pretty much the same in our core beliefs and actions. Different people? Of course. One likes horses, I prefer felines. The other likes a spotless house, I prefer one that looks like someone actually lives in it.

As I previously said! Generalizations in studies mean squat to me. Always have always will. I believe in specificity in physical training and the same when it comes to what i see as: "Doing the Monday Morning Quarterback Theme".

@sfnative wrote:
@Bird mama wrote:
Science may not support it but the differences between me and my sister (last born versus first born) are startling. There are times I wonder if she was raised by wolves or something.
I second that motion as it relates to me and my sister.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

surfk — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 23:34:06 GMT

deleted by poster

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

songbird — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:11:08 GMT

I don't think birth order has anything to do with IQ, but it does economic wise. An only child will get the best education and the best opportunities for a better life. Frequently the eldest child will also tend to be the more educated and successful of your children. Middle children has less chances for individuality. That child will always be forced to share with another sibling. There will be less money for college. The youngest stays at home the longest and ends up sometimes taking care of aging parents. It certainly was the case in the family of 5 children where I came from.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

Laura14 — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:23:19 GMT

I think common sense would tell you that a first born has the undivided attention for at least the better part of a year before the next kid which would probably explain the one point that they (I) earned because we had a one on one teacher with no one else diverting their attention. Call it the one point perk of limited exclusivity.

And I think we first borns are not smarter. That's ridiculous. We're probably just more responsible and figure things out quicker because we were always the ones eventually left in charge of the younger ones when the parents needed a break.

And for some reason these parents always expected everyone to be alive when they got home and in decent shape. That's a lot of pressure for us first borns to live up to especially at a young age but I think it's just character and resourcefulness building not smarts.

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

hckynutjohn — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:44:20 GMT

I can't believe some are rationalizing this nonsense of "a study(?) As I said, looking back is always 20-20, but looking at a chrystal ball? I underestimated the gullibility of many when it comes believing something/anything and unfortunately, everything called "A STUDY"!!!

Re: Birth Order Debunked?

lolakimono — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:38:58 GMT

@Burnsite wrote:
Very interesting!

I always wondered about the idea that youngest siblings were less intellectual--not true in my family!

@Burnsite

Not true in my family either. Of course, I AM the youngest!