Child Development

(1989), believes the size of the family into which a
child is born is more important than the order of
births in the family. She argues that the fewer the sib-
lings there are, the more attention each child gets
from the parents. And the more attention the child
receives, the greater the chances of achievement in
school verbal and behavioral skills are used more
often through interaction with parents.

Probably the biggest setback to birth order re-
search came from the writings of two Swiss psycholo-
gists, Cecile Ernst and Jules Angst. In a noteworthy
1983 critique of over a thousand studies on birth
order, Ernst and Angst openly criticized the method
by which many of these studies were conducted. Back-
ground variables, they argued, were inadequately
controlled within the research, thereby rendering
much of the significance of birth order useless. They
further argued that the differences between families
and number of siblings might be the cause for partic-
ular trends. A similar critique by Carmi Schooler in
the early 1970s also called into question the validity
of much of the birth order literature, citing most
often poor research design as the culprit in the mis-
representation of the effects of birth order.

Birth Order Today

In spite of these criticisms, research into birth
order and its effects on personality, behavior,
achievement, and intellect continue. In fact, a com-
prehensive research project on birth order by Frank
Sulloway, called Born to Rebel (1996), seems to refute
much of what Ernst and Angst questioned in regard
to the significance of birth order on personality and
development. Sulloway does this through the use of
a sophisticated scientific method called meta-analysis,
in which pooled studies are used to increase the statis-
tical significance. In other words, the more data that
are examined, the less likely there is for error to
occur. It is important to note that as Sulloway re-
viewed the criticism of Ernst and Angst, he was able
to find 196 birth order studies that did meet the stan-
dards for what these two researchers called ‘‘properly
controlled research.’’ Sulloway subsequently exam-
ined the five main personality traits and how these re-
late to human development: openness to experience,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, neurosis (emotion-
al instability), and extroversion. Out of 196 studies,
72 of them substantiated the following components:

• Openness to experience: Firstborns are more
  conforming, traditional, and closely identified
  with parents.


• Conscientiousness: Firstborns are more respon-
  sible, achievement-oriented, and organized.


• Agreeableness: Latterborns are more easygoing,
  cooperative, and popular.
  
  
  • Neurosis (emotional instability): Firstborns are
    more jealous, anxious, neurotic, and fearful.
  
  
  • Extroversion: Firstborns are more outgoing, as-
    sertive, and likely to exhibit leadership qualities.
  
  
  
  

In addition to contradicting much of the criticism

aimed at birth order research, Sulloway’s research de-

tails his efforts to gather data on thousands of people

who were involved in historic controversies. He want-

ed to know what set apart the rebels from the reac-

tionaries throughout history. His conclusion is one

that suggests family structure, not necessarily church,

state, or economy, as the impetus to historical change.

He makes a case that firstborns, whatever their age,

sex, class, or nationality, specialize in defending the

status quo while latterborns specialize in toppling it.

Conclusion

Whether or not birth order is accepted as a legiti-

mate means of understanding people, it is difficult to

ignore many of the general characteristics and ten-

dencies that seem to attach themselves to the three

common ordinal positions. However, it is important

to remember that, in the end, it really is up to the in-

dividual to shape his or her own tendencies. Each

child is unique. Likewise, each family situation is

unique. A variety of factors will impact birth order dy-

namics, including spacing, gender, physical differ-

ences, disabilities, birth order position of parents,

divorce, and sibling death. Most social scientists will,

at the minimum, agree that birth order is simply one

of numerous ways to probe the enigma known as the

human personality.

See also: FAMILY SIZE; PARENTING; SIBLINGS AND

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS

Bibliography

Adler, Alfred. Understanding Human Nature. New York: Faucett

World Library, 1927.

Blake, Judith. Family Size and Achievement. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1989.

Ernst, Cecile, and Jules Angst. Birth Order: Its Influence on Personali-

ty. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983.

Leman, K. The New Birth Order Book: Why We Are the Way We Are.

Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1998.

Schooler, Carmi. ‘‘Birth Order Effects: Not Here, Not Now!’’ Psy-

chological Bulletin 78:161–175.

Sulloway, Frank. J. Born to Rebel: Birth Order Family Dynamics and

Creative Lives. New York: Pantheon, 1996.

Sutton-Smith, B., and B. G. Rosenberg. The Sibling. New York:

Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, 1970.

Toman, W. Family Constellation. New York: Springer, 1976.

James A. Troha

60 BIRTH ORDER AND SPACING