A Comprehensive Study of Firstborn Children

Abstract

Birth order research has long focused on the psychological and social disparities among firstborn children and their siblings. From a child’s degree of religiosity to his or her propensity to adopt radical ideological behaviors, decades of research have yet to supply a definitive answer as to whether or not birth order affects a child’s psychological or social development. This study aims to better understand firstborn children as a group, omitting the necessary prerequisite of biological relations so often required of birth order studies. We solicited participants from the local university and subjected them to a series of questionnaires in an attempt to gauge their familial connections. Participants checked ‘firstborn’ or ‘not firstborn’ when signing up for the study. The findings of this study should shed light on some of the pressures and emotions that firstborn children in any setting are subjected to.

A Comprehensive Study of Firstborn Children

The psychological and social effects of birth order as concerns the development of children has long been the focus of much research in many of the various disciplines in social science. While common sentiments in society often reflect thoughts that the firstborn among families with multiple children is the most responsible and down-to-earth, while ‘babies’ of the family are the crazy and spontaneous ones, the fact of the matter is that such determinations should stem from empirical, scientific research rather than society’s perceptions. Additionally, perhaps more than any other aspect, differences among siblings in regards to their emotional state and intellectual capacity are perhaps the most intriguing areas of research in regards to birth order. The majority of research regarding birth order and its impacts have focused on children's’ psychological state, the presence of radical behavior, their overall personality differences, and even the adult children’s political stance and manner of dealing with a family tragedy.

One component of birth order research that is often neglected in studies is the distinction between siblings of the firstborn, specifically the social and psychological differences that pertain to ‘middleborn’ and lastborn children. One recent study from Saroglou and Fiasse et al. that discusses some of the disparities among middleborn and lastborn children in regards to the children’s reception of religious doctrines noted that middleborn children were considered to be more rebellious and less religious than their siblings (2003, p. 19). While comprehensively understanding the impulses that affected later borns’ differences in religiosity clearly necessitates further research, it is not difficult to understand that middleborn children hold a unique place in the family structure. Most notably, their birth order as one who is simultaneously a younger sibling and an older sibling might serve as a source of internal psychological conflict in understanding his or her place in the family. As such, one can understand that middleborn children might channel such frustrations in opposition to other aspects of the family structure that have clearly defined roles and boundaries. The religious affiliation of the family, for example, something that for many families represents an integral part of the family’s association with the society, might seem like a good target for a number of reasons. Potentially more so than other reasons, the decidedly definite aspect a family’s religious affiliation—the manner in which they assert their beliefs or disbeliefs, the criteria against which the children’s upbringing is judged, etc—is a part of the family structure that middleborn children might inherently resent in lieu of their own confusion.

Another aspect of birth order research that is of much intrigue to many academics is the issue of disparity concerning radical ideological receptivity among siblings. In more simplistic vernacular, this area of study focuses on identifying why later-born siblings are seemingly more open to more progressive ideologies in society. In one study from Saad, Gill, and Nataraajan, research concluded that while firstborn children may be more susceptible to influence from their close circle of friends, later borns demonstrated much more willingness to embrace or ideas of innovations that potentially run counter to what society considers the norm (2005, p. 906). In essence, this particular research suggests that more progressive ideas—gay marriage, drug legalization, or open borders for example—might be more easily welcomed from later-born siblings than by firstborns children. Explanations surrounding this phenomenon are not above reproach, but generally, researchers have arrived at this conclusion citing various standardized tests designed to explore the birth order dynamics as concern the psychological development of children. Ultimately though, the end goal of this research tends to focus on applications for consumption-related industries with the emphasis being on more effective marketing strategies. Still, understanding that birth order does, in fact, seem to affect certain siblings’ reception or dismissal of ideas or products is fundamentally important in a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena.

The overall disparity of certain personality characteristics among children as relates to birth order is another area of study that has received much attention from the academic community. Indeed there are few who would contend the notion that oftentimes it seems there are common distinctions among siblings, namely when it comes to comparisons between firstborns and later borns. Still, there is evidence that refutes these claims which challenges that findings from other studies confirming such differences. One study in particular from Marini and Kurtz subjected participants to the NEO-FFI tests often employed for birth order studies and found no compelling evidence to suggest that birth order affects personality traits (2011, p. 913). NEO-FFI is the abbreviated form of the five-factor inventory and assesses participants on neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Moreover, the findings of this study are significant not only because they contradict what many other scientists have concluded regarding the impact of birth order on personality, but also because the parameters of the study were more robust than other studies of similar magnitude. Specifically, the children under study were evaluated based on a three-tier approach, incorporating the subjects’ own evaluation of himself or herself, a same-sex peer evaluation, and a parent’s evaluation. Taken in the aggregate, Marini and Kurtz reported no significant differences in any of the measured traits in relation to the subjects’ birth order.

Another interesting area of study relating to birth order is its impact on children's’ psychological development as concerns his or her political stance. Closely related to studies that focus on identifying personality disparities among siblings, some practitioners have emigrated their studies to the political realm in an effort to better understand whether birth order has any bearing on political radicalism. A study from Førland, Korsvik and Christopherson found that it was not birth order that necessarily affected the political mentality of students, but rather the students’ upbringing and his or her parents’ political affiliations (2012, p. 825). In fact, the study concluded that later borns had no higher propensity to engage in political protest than did firstborns (p. 825), evidently contradicting what many other studies on birth order have concluded—that later borns are in fact more prone to progressive ideologies and innovations. Still, other studies have emerged that appear to corroborate the findings of Førland, Korsvik, and Christopherson and the myriad other scientists who have reached similar conclusions regarding the impact of birth order on psychological and social development.

Other research on the impact of birth order has taken different approaches to furthering the understanding of this phenomenon. Rather than focusing on birth order as a factor of political affiliation or receptivity to progressive ideologies, some researchers have attempted to expand the parameters of their experiment in order to more fully assess the impact of birth order on children's psychological and social development. In contrast to the five traits of the NEO-FFI model generally employed to measure disparity among siblings, Dunkel, Harbke, and Papini’s study on birth order measured nine personality and identity outcomes of children and found that only one trait showed a statistically significant correlation between firstborns and lastborns, and that despite the statistical significance, the correlation was quite weak (2009, p. 164). With studies coming out that seem to suggest birth order is at best of little consequence concerning the psychological and social development of children, it seems that perhaps any curiosity surrounding the issue has been dispelled. Nonetheless, for each study that asserts the irrelevance of birth order in child development, there is another that confirms its significance.

One social construct that has more recently been examined through the lens of birth order is the manner in which siblings deal with parental care and surrogate decisions. Moreover, this might be one of more pertinent areas of research pertaining to birth order since times of tragedy and loss, with respect to a child’s parents, are often the times when firstborns are expected to assume an assertive and authoritative role in the treatment and care of both his or her parents and other siblings. Largely in with what society already understands from an intuitive standpoint, Su and Mcmahan et al. in their 2014 study found that firstborns are indeed subjected to much greater levels of stress, burden, and even loneliness when decisions of a surrogate nature are in the balance (p. 182). These findings were somewhat surprising since such is the case even if other siblings have served as the primary caregivers in the years leading up to an event where surrogate decisions become a reality. In considering the contradictory findings of many studies on the matter, it appears that many ideologies surrounding birth order which are conceptually accepted by society seem to fall apart under the scope of scientific examination.

For this reason, the study I propose will focus on a few key factors that tend to pervade many of the birth order studies already conducted but which were given relatively little weight in the studies’ findings. This study will closely mimic the methods of Dunkel, Harbke, and Papini (2009) with a few key distinctions that, because omitted, I believe might have significantly altered the outcome of the study. In particular, this study will focus solely on firstborn children and their psychological and social development with respect to siblings. We want to determine what pressures firstborn children are subjected to that later-born children are exempt from. We also aim to understand some of the overall expectations firstborn children have with regards to their younger siblings. Furthermore, this study will operate within the bounds of children who are not yet professionally established, as research from … indicates that differences with respect to birth order often diminish with time. Lastly, as this study aims to understand firstborn dynamics from a broad perspective, adopted children will not be excluded from the study, though certain limitations will need to be imposed.

Method

Subjects

In determining exactly how to would recruit participants for this study, it seemed that soliciting help from local professors here at the University would best serve my needs. To achieve a more ethnically and culturally diverse sample, volunteers will be recruited from multiple, introductory psychology and sociology sections offered during the fall and spring semesters. However, whereas other studies subject participants to questionnaires in a group setting, there may be certain environmental dynamics at play that affect the participants’ responses. For this reason, each of the volunteers in this study will complete the questionnaire individually, in sectioned cubicles, with no set time limit. Furthermore, the age-range of the study shall be limited to participants between the ages of 17 and 24. This limitation is imposed in consideration of the fact that by age 25, most adults have either completed their college education or already have an established career. Additionally, some of the measures via which we evaluate participants were designed to be used in studies with participants not young than 17 years old. The intent of this study is to focus on disparity among firstborns and later borns who are not yet established in the workplace, since many of the differences among siblings, we believe, are only applicable during this time and tend to dissipate in the later years of life.

Measures

Birth Order. As previously mentioned, the focus of this study is to better understand the processes via which firstborns are raised. In categorizing the participants of the study, volunteers will check “firstborn” or “not firstborn” when they sign up for the study. Further, where other studies exclude participants with siblings who are adopted, or who themselves are adopted, the goal of this study is to understand the dynamics subjected to firstborn children in any setting. The only exceptions are that firstborn children must be the oldest child in the family and either be biologically related to siblings or have been adopted before the age of three.

Maternal and Paternal Relations. A questionnaire will be administered to participants to gauge the degree to which they consider themselves to be either close to or rejected by their parents, or whether or not they themselves reject their parents. Using the standard 6-point Likert-type scale, volunteers will evaluate their maternal and paternal relationships based on a 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree) rating.

Child-Parent Identification. Since the goal of this study is to more fully understand the rigors associated with being a firstborn child, we will administer the Identification With Parents Scale in an attempt to assess to what degree, or if at all, children identify with their parents. This particular scale is similar to the Likert scale used to determine parental relations but with a 7-point scale rather than 6-point. Essentially, the questions in this scale are structured with the goal of understanding whether or not children are ‘on the same page’ with their parents.

Identity. Using the Identity Style Inventory-3 from Berzonsky (1992), subjects will be evaluated to assess their normative, informational and diffuse styles. An informational style represents someone who learns through discourse and exchange with others whereas a normative style is indicative of someone who turns to socially accepted norms in dealing with situations. Lastly, a diffuse style of identity represents the person who seems to lack direction or focus in life. Identity capital will likewise be assessed via the Identity Stage Resolution Index from Côtè (1997). These measures are rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Personality. In assessing the personalities of the participants, I intend to utilize the NEO-FFI-3 scale to measure the ‘Big Five’. The five personality traits that comprise this moniker are agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism, and were all evaluated in the 240-item questionnaire of the NEO-FFI-3. In addition to the five major traits measured, this scale also measures 6 sub-sections of each trait which provide a more robust evaluation of the participant.

Results

While it seems that much of the research in this area is divided on whether or not birth order realistically affects the psychological and social development of children and adolescents, I suspect that the results of our study will be quite conclusive. In particular, the parameters of our study, including the assessment of adopted children in regards to birth order dynamics, as well as our focus of children not yet established in the professional arena, represent perhaps the broadest analysis of birth order to date.

Discussion

Ultimately, at the conclusion of this study, I expect to uncover more comprehensive, concrete evidence to support the notion of birth order as a significant factor in the psychological and social development of children. Despite the fact that many studies confirm what society at large already intuitively understands—that there are indeed personality differences among firstborns and later borns—there is also a myriad of evidence that seemingly disproves such intuition. And while this study can in no manner identify all of the differences among firstborns and later borns, the broad nature of the experiment should provide much-needed insight into the general experiences and emotions that are unique to firstborn children.

To reiterate, the primary focus of this study was solely the assessment of firstborn children. We wanted to encompass a more complete spectrum of firstborn children since there are likely many families whose firstborn child is adopted or who later adopted after having biological children. Whatever the circumstance, we felt that children who were weaned together from a very young age likely would regard siblings, biological or adopted, as just that. On the other hand, older children whose parents decide to adopt might not experience the same pressures or emotions or connections that biologically firstborn children experience. Conversely, an older child adopted into a family with a younger child might similarly have disparate experiences with respect to the dynamics of firstborn children in more conventional home settings.

However, this study does present certain limitations not necessarily found in other studies on birth order. To begin with, our inclusion of adopted children as part of the study inherently presents difficulties in assessing the responses of such participants. This is because the dynamics of such families can be exponentially more complex than the dynamics of what psychology refers to as the ‘normal family’. Since measuring one variable generally necessitates that other variables be controlled, this might present certain irregularities in the data results.

Additionally, setting limits on the age of the participants represents an attempt to focus solely on children who are still considered ‘children’. Put another way, our intent was to focus on the effects of birth order among children who have yet to establish themselves as adults. While there was no simple way to approach this, it seemed that age was an appropriate filter through which to examine the participants at a university.

In addition to the age limitations of our study, and our attempt to study a family structure that comprises biological as well as adopted children in studying disparities among firstborns, perhaps the most inherently flawed aspect of the study was in the method itself. Questionnaires might not represent the most effective method for gauging a child’s psychological or social development in relation to his siblings. Even in lieu of our attempt to provide privacy during the assessment, incorporating a cubicle setting for the participants, the cookie-cutter approach to analyzing the psyche via standardized questions may be somewhat dated at this juncture.

Future research might be well directed towards the investigation of birth order as it relates to all families, regardless of biological relations amongst siblings or parents. To further understand the dynamics of being a firstborn it is necessary to examine firstborns in all types of family settings, not only those where relations among siblings are biological or based on a certain age bracket. In many families, a close acquaintance or distant relative can often serve as the proverbial ‘firstborn’, expected to lead by example and demonstrate good values to younger children. Sometimes, younger children may simply look up to an older child who does not biologically, or legally, belong to his or her own family, but nonetheless represents the role model so often ascribed to firstborn children. It is imperative the future research investigate these familial phenomena to further understand the dynamics of birth order.

The implications for understanding the psychological and social ramifications of birth order are far-reaching. Not only can understanding this phenomenon provide a better understanding of the family from a psychological and sociological standpoint but understanding the pressures and sentiments associated with being a firstborn has medical implications as well. Knowing whether or not firstborns are indeed more reserved and mild-tempered might facilitate improved communication between parents a child whom they simply think is shy or quiet. Moreover, a better understanding of a firstborn child’s psychology can provide future parents with the knowledge to raise their children in a manner such that no one child is more burdened or pressured than his or her siblings.

References

Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style inventory (113): Revised Version. Unpublished measure, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, Cortland.

Côtè, J. E. (1997). An empirical test of the identity capital model. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 577–597.

Dunkel, C. S., Harbke, C. R., & Papini, D. R. (2009). Direct and indirect effects of birth order on personality and identity: Support for the null hypothesis. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170(2), pp. 159–175.

Førland, T. E., Korsvik, T. R., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2012). Brought up to rebel in the sixties: Birth order irrelevant, parental worldview decisive. Political Psychology, 33(6), pp. 825–838.

Marini, V. A., & Kurtz, J. E. (2011). Birth order differences in normal personality traits: Perspectives from within and outside the family. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), pp. 910–914.

Saad, G., Gill, T., & Nataraajan, R. (2005). Are laterborns more innovative and nonconforming consumers than firstborns? A Darwinian perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), pp. 902–909.

Saroglou, V., & Fiasse, L. (2003). Birth order, personality, and religion: A study among young adults from a three-sibling family. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(1), pp. 19–29.

Su, C. T., Mcmahan, R. D., Williams, B. A., Sharma, R. K. & Sudore, R. L. (2014). Family matters: Effects of birth order, culture, and family dynamics on surrogate decision-making. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(1), pp. 175–182.