the birth order theory essay

The Reporter

New Evidence on the Impacts of Birth Order

What determines a child's success? We know that family matters — children from higher socioeconomic status families do better in school, get more education, and earn more.

However, even beyond that, there is substantial variation in success across children within families. This has led researchers to study factors that relate to within-family differences in children's outcomes. One that has attracted much interest is the role played by birth order, which varies systematically within families and is exogenously determined.

While economists have been interested in understanding human capital development for many decades, compelling economic research on birth order is more recent and has largely resulted from improved availability of data. Early work on birth order was hindered by the stringent data requirements necessary to convincingly identify the effects of birth order. Most importantly, one needs information on both family size and birth order. As there is only a third-born child in a family with at least three children, comparing third-borns to firstborns across families of different sizes will conflate the birth order effect with a family size effect, so one needs to be able to control for family size. Additionally, it is beneficial to have information on multiple children from the same family so that birth order effects can be estimated from within-family differences in child outcomes; otherwise, birth order effects will be conflated with other effects that vary systematically with birth order, such as cohort effects. Large Scandinavian register datasets that became available to researchers beginning in the late 1990s have enabled birth order research, as they contain population data on both family structure and a variety of child outcomes. Here, I describe my research with a number of coauthors, using these data to explore the effects of birth order on outcomes including human capital accumulation, earnings, development of cognitive and non-cognitive skills, and health.

Birth Order and Economic Success

Almost a half-century ago, economists including Gary Becker, H. Gregg Lewis, and Nigel Tomes created models of quality-quantity trade-offs in child-rearing and used these models to explore the role of family in children's success. They sought to explain an observed negative correlation between family income and family size: if child quality is a normal good, as income rises the family demands higher-quality children at the cost of lower family size. 1

However, this was a difficult model to test, as characteristics other than family income and child quality vary with family size. The introduction of natural experiments, combined with newly available large administrative datasets from Scandinavia, made testing such a model possible.

In my earliest work on the topic, Paul Devereux, Kjell Salvanes, and I took advantage of the Norwegian administrative dataset and set out to better understand this theoretical quantity-quality tradeoff. 2 It became clear that child "quality" was not a constant within a family — children within families were quite different, despite the model assumptions to the contrary. Indeed, we found that birth order could explain a large fraction of the family size differential in children's educational outcomes. Average educational attainment was lower in larger families largely because later-born children had lower average education, rather than because firstborns had lower education in large families than in small families. We found that firstborns had higher educational attainment than second-borns who in turn did better than third-borns, and so on. These results were robust to a variety of specifications; most importantly, we could compare outcomes of children within the same families.

To give a sense of the magnitude of these effects: The difference in educational attainment between the first child and the fifth child in a five-child family is roughly equal to the difference between the educational attainment of blacks and whites calculated from the 2000 Census. We augmented the education results by examining earnings, whether full-time employed, and whether one had a child as a teenager as additional outcome variables, and found strong evidence for birth order effects, particularly for women. Later-born women have lower earnings (whether employed full-time or not), are less likely to work full-time, and are more likely to have their first child as teenagers. In contrast, while later-born men have lower full-time earnings, they are not less likely to work full-time [Figure 1].

Birth Order and Cognitive Skills

One possible explanation for these differences is that cognitive ability varies systematically by birth order. In subsequent work, Devereux, Salvanes, and I examined the effect of birth order on IQ scores. 3

The psychology literature has long debated the role of birth order in determining children's IQs; this debate was seemingly resolved when, in 2000, J. L. Rodgers et al. published a paper in American Psychologist entitled "Resolving the Debate Over Birth Order, Family Size, and Intelligence" that referred to the apparent relationship between birth order and IQ as a "methodological illusion." 4 However, this work was limited due to the absence of large representative datasets necessary to identify these effects. We again used population register data from Norway to estimate this relationship.

To measure IQ, we used the outcomes of standardized cognitive tests administered to Norwegian men between the age of 18 and 20 when they enlist in the military. Consistent with our earlier findings on educational attainment but in contrast to the previous work in the literature, we found strong birth order effects on IQ that are present when we look within families. Later-born children have lower IQs, on average, and these differences are quite large. For example, the difference between firstborn and second-born average IQ is on the order of one-fifth of a standard deviation, or about three IQ points. This translates into approximately a 2 percent difference in annual earnings in adulthood.

The Effect of Birth Order on Non-Cognitive Skills

Personality is another factor that is posited to vary by birth order, a proposition that has been particularly difficult to assess in a compelling way due to the paucity of large datasets containing information on individual personality. In recent work on the topic, Erik Gronqvist, Bjorn Ockert, and I use Swedish administrative datasets to examine this issue. 5

In the economics literature, personality traits are often referred to as non-cognitive abilities and denote traits that can be distinguished from intelligence. 6 To measure "personality" (or non-cognitive skills), we use the outcome of a standardized psychological evaluation, conducted by a certified psychologist, that is performed on all Swedish men between the ages of 18 and 20 when they enlist in the military, and which is strongly related to success in the labor market. An individual is given a higher score if he is considered to be emotionally stable, persistent, socially outgoing, willing to assume responsibility, and able to take initiative. Similar to the results for cognitive skills, we find evidence of consistently lower scores in this measure for later-born children. Third-born children have non-cognitive abilities that are 0.2 standard deviations below firstborn children. Interestingly, boys with older brothers suffer almost twice as much in terms of these personality characteristics as boys with older sisters.

Importantly, we also demonstrate that these personality differences translate into differences in occupation choice by birth order. Firstborn children are significantly more likely to be employed and to work as top managers, while later-born children are more likely to be self-employed. More generally, firstborn children are more likely to be in occupations requiring sociability, leadership ability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, extraversion, and openness.

The Effect of Birth Order on Health

Finally, how do these differences translate into later health? In more recent work, Devereux, Salvanes, and I analyze the effect of birth order on health. 7 There is a sizable body of literature about the relationship between birth order and adult health; individual studies have typically examined only one or a small number of health outcomes and, in many cases, have used relatively small samples. Again, we use large nationally representative data from Norway to identify the relationship between birth order and health when individuals are in their 40s, where health is measured along a number of dimensions, including medical indicators, health behaviors, and overall life satisfaction.

The effects of birth order on health are less straightforward than other outcomes we have examined, as firstborns do better on some dimensions and worse on others. We find that the probability of having high blood pressure declines with birth order, and the largest gap is between first- and second-borns. Second-borns are about 3 percent less likely to have high blood pressure than firstborns; fifth-borns are about 7 percent less likely to have high blood pressure than firstborns. Given that 24 percent of this population has high blood pressure, this is quite a large difference. Firstborns are also more likely to be overweight and obese. Compared with second-borns, firstborns are 4 percent more likely to be overweight and 2 percent more likely to be obese. The equivalent differences between fifth-borns and firstborns are 10 percent and 5 percent. For context, 47 percent of the population is overweight and 10 percent is obese. Once again, the magnitudes are quite large.

However, later-borns are less likely to consider themselves to be in good health, and measures of mental health generally decline with birth order. Later-born children also exhibit worse health behaviors. The number of cigarettes smoked daily increases monotonically with birth order, suggesting that the higher prevalence of smoking by later-borns found among U.S. adolescents by Laura M. Argys et al. 8 may persist throughout adulthood and, hence, have important effects on health outcomes.

Possible Mechanisms

Why are adult outcomes likely to be affected by birth order? A host of potential explanations has been proposed across several academic disciplines.

A number of biological factors may explain birth order effects. These relate to changes in the womb environment or maternal immune system that occur over successive births. Beyond biology, parents could have other influences. Childhood inputs, especially in the first years of life, are considered crucial for skill formation. 9 Firstborn children have the full attention of parents, but as families grow the family environment is diluted and parental resources become scarcer. 10 In contrast, parents are more experienced and tend to have higher incomes when raising later-born children. In addition, for a given amount of resources, parents may treat firstborn children differently than second- or later-born children. Parents may use more strict parenting practices toward the firstborn, so as to gain a reputation for "toughness" necessary to induce good behavior among later-borns. 11

There are also theories that suggest that interactions among siblings can shape birth order effects. For example, based on evolutionary psychology, Frank J. Sulloway suggests that firstborns have an advantage in following the status quo, while later-borns — by having incentives to engage in investments aimed at differentiating themselves — become more sociable and unconventional in order to attract parental resources. 12

In each of these papers, we attempted to identify potential mechanisms for the patterns we observed. However, it is here we see the limitations of these large administrative datasets, as for the most part, we lack necessary detailed information on biological factors and on household dynamics when the children are young. However, we do have some evidence on the role of biological factors. Later-born children tend to have better birth outcomes as measured by factors such as birth weight. In our Swedish data, we took advantage of the fact that some children's biological birth order is different from their environmental birth order, due to the death of an older sibling or because their parent gave up a child for adoption. When we examine this subsample, we find that the birth order effect on occupational choice is entirely driven by the environmental birth order, again suggesting that biological factors may not be central.

Also in our Swedish study, we found that firstborn teenagers are more likely to read books, spend more time on homework, and spend less time watching TV or playing video games. Parents spend less time discussing school work with later-born children, suggesting there may be differences in parental time investments. Using Norwegian data, we found that smoking early in pregnancy is more prevalent for first pregnancies than for later ones. However, women are more likely to quit smoking during their first pregnancy than during later ones, and firstborns are more likely to be breastfed. These findings suggest that early investments may systematically benefit firstborns and help explain their generally better outcomes.

In the past two decades, with the increased accessibility of administrative datasets on large swaths of the population, economists and other researchers have been better able to identify the role of birth order in the outcomes of children. There is strong evidence of substantial differences by birth order across a range of outcomes. While I have described several of my own papers on the topic, a number of other researchers have also taken advantage of newly available datasets in Florida and Denmark to examine the role of birth order on other important outcomes, specifically juvenile delinquency and later criminal behavior. 13 Consistent with the work discussed here, later-born children experience higher rates of delinquency and criminal behavior; this is at least partly attributable to time investments of parents.

Researchers

How Does Birth Order Shape Your Personality?

Beware the stereotypes

Verywell Mind / Getty Images

What Is Adler’s Birth Order Theory?

First-born child, middle child.

Impact on Relationships

Debunking Myths and Limitations

Birth order refers to the order a child is born in relation to their siblings, such as whether they are first-born, middle-born, or last-born. You’ve probably heard people joke about how the eldest child is the bossy one, the middle child is the peace-maker, and the youngest child is the irresponsible rebel—but is there any truth to these stereotypes?

Psychologists often look at how birth order can affect development, behavior patterns, and personality characteristics, and there is some evidence that birth order might play a role in certain aspects of personality .

At a Glance

Researchers often explore how birth order, including the differences in parental expectations and sibling dynamics, can affect development and character. According to some researchers, firstborns, middle children, youngest-children, and only child-children often exhibit distinctive characteristics that are strongly influenced by how birth order shapes parental and sibling behaviors.

Early in the 20th century, the Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler introduced the idea that birth order could impact development and personality. Adler, the founder of individual psychology, was heavily influenced by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud .

Key points of Adler's birth order theory were that firstborns were more likely to develop a strong sense of responsibility, middleborns a desire for attention, and lastborns a sense of adventure and rebellion.

Adler also notably introduced the concept of the " family constellation ." This idea emphasizes the dynamics that form between family members and how these interactions play a part in shaping individual development.

Adler's birth order theory suggests that firstborns get more attention and time from their parents. New parents are still learning about child-rearing, which means that they may be more rule-oriented, strict, cautious, and sometimes even neurotic .

They are often described as responsible leaders with Type A personalities , a phenomenon sometimes referred to as " oldest-child syndrome ."

"Older siblings, regardless of gender, often feel more deprived or envious since they have experienced having another child divert attention away from them at some point in their lives. They tend to be more success-oriented,” explains San Francisco therapist Dr. Avigail Lev.

Firstborn children are often described as:

High-achieving (or sometimes even over-achieving )
Structured and organized
Responsible

All this extra attention firstborns enjoy changes abruptly when younger siblings come along. When you become an older sibling, you suddenly have to share your parent's attention. You may feel that your parents have higher expectations for you and look to you to set an example for your younger siblings.

Consider the experiences of the oldest siblings, who are frequently tasked with caring for younger siblings. Because they are often expected to help fill the role of caregivers, they may be more nurturing, responsible, and motivated to excel.

Such traits are affected not only by birth order but also by how your position in the family affects your parent's expectations and your relationship with your younger siblings.

Research has found that firstborn kids tend to have more advanced cognitive development , which may also confer advantages when it comes to school readiness skills. However, it's important to remember that being the oldest child can also come with challenges, including carrying the weight of expectations and the burden of taking a caregiver role within the family.

Adler suggested that middle children tend to become the family’s peacemaker since they often have to mediate conflicts between older and younger siblings. Because they tend to be overshadowed by their eldest siblings, middle children may seek social attention outside of the family.

In families with three children, the youngest male sibling is likely to be more passive or easy-going.

Middleborns are often described as:

Independent
Peacemakers
People pleasers
Attention-seeking
Competitive

While they tend to be adaptable and independent, they can also have a rebellious streak that tends to emerge when they want to stand apart from their siblings.

" Middle child syndrome " is a term often used to describe the negative effects of being a middle child. Because middle kids are sometimes overlooked, they may engage in people-pleasing behaviors as adults as a way to garner attention and favor in their lives.

While research is limited, some studies have shown that middle kids are less likely to feel close to their mothers and are more likely to have problems with delinquency.

Some research suggests that middle children may be more sensitive to rejection . As a middle child, you may feel like you didn't get as much attention and were constantly in competition with your siblings. You may struggle with feelings of insecurity, fear of rejection, and poor self-confidence .

Lastborns, often referred to as the "babies" of the family, are often seen as spoiled and pampered compared to their older siblings. Because parents are more experienced at this point (and much busier), they often take a more laissez-faire approach to parenting .

Last-born children are sometimes described as:

Free-spirited
Manipulative
Self-centered
Risk-taking

Adler's theory suggests that the youngest children tend to be outgoing, sociable, and charming. While they often have more freedom to explore, they also often feel overshadowed by their elder siblings, referred to as " youngest child syndrome ."

Because parents are sometimes less strict and disciplined with last-borns, these kids may have fewer self-regulation skills.

"If the youngest of many children is female, she tends to be more coddled or cared for, leading to a greater reliance on others compared to her older siblings, especially in larger families," Lev suggests.

Only children are unique in that they never have to share their parents' attention and resources with a sibling. It can be very much like being a firstborn in many ways. These kids may be doted on by their caregivers, but never have younger siblings to interact with, which may have an impact on development.

Only children are often described as:

Perfectionistic
High-achieving
Imaginative
Self-reliant

Because they interact with adults so much, only children often seem very mature for their age. If you're an only child, you may feel more comfortable being alone and enjoy spending time in solitude pursuing you own creative ideas. You may like having control and, because of your parents' high expectations, have strong perfectionist tendencies .

How Birth Order Influences Relationships

Birth order may affect relationships in a wide variety of ways. For example, it may impact how you form connections with other people. It can also affect how you behave within these relationships.

Dr. Lev suggests that the effects of birth order can differ depending on gender.

"For instance, in a family with two female siblings, the younger one often appears more confident and empowered, while the older one is more achievement-focused and insecure," she explains.

She also suggests that there is often a notable rivalry between same-sex siblings versus that of mixed-gender siblings. Again, this effect can vary depending on gender. Where an older sister might be less secure and the younger sister more secure, the opposite is often true when it comes to older and younger brothers.

"This could be because older sisters often assume a motherly role, while older brothers might take on more of a bully role. As a result, younger brothers are generally more insecure, whereas younger sisters tend to be more confident than their older siblings," she explains.

Some other potential effects include:

Communication

Birth order can affect how you communicate with others, which can have a powerful impact on relationship dynamics.

Firstborns and only children are often seen as more direct, which others can sometimes interpret as bossy or controlling.
Middle children may be less confrontational and more likely to look for solutions that will accommodate everyone.
Lastborns, on the other hand, may rely more on their sense of humor and charm to guide their social interactions.

Relationship Roles

Birth order may also influence the roles that you take on in a relationship.

Firstborns, for example, may be more likely to take on a caregiver role. This can be nurturing and supportive, but it can sometimes make partners feel like they are being "parented."
Middle children are more likely to be flexible and take a more easygoing approach.
Lastborns may be more carefree and less rigid.

Expectations

What we expect from relationships can sometimes also be influenced by birth order.

Firstborns often have high expectations of themselves and others, sometimes leading to criticism when people fall short.
Middle children are more prone to seek balance in relationships and want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and contributing equally.
Lastborns may place the burden of responsibility on their partner's shoulders while they take a more laissez-faire approach.

"Generally, older siblings are more likely to be in the scapegoat role, while the youngest siblings often have a more idealized view of the family," Lev explains.

Other Factors Play a Role

How birth order influences interpersonal relationships can also be influenced by other factors. Some of these include personality differences, parenting styles , the parents' relationship with one another, and even the birth order of the parents themselves.

While birth order theory holds a popular position in culture, much of the available evidence suggests that it likely only has a minimal impact on developmental outcomes. In other words, birth order is only one of many factors that affect how we grow and learn.

While some research suggests that there are some small personality differences between the oldest and youngest siblings, researchers have concluded that there are no significant differences in personality or cognitive abilities based on birth order.

Birth order doesn't exist in a vacuum. Genetics, socioeconomic status, family resources, health factors, parenting styles, and other environmental variables influence child development. Other family factors, such as age spacing between siblings, sibling gender, and the number of kids in a family, can also moderate the effects of birth order.

Adler’s birth order theory suggests that the order in which you are born into your family can have a lasting impact on your behavior, emotions, and relationships with other people. While there is some support indicating that birth order can affect people in small ways, keep in mind that it is just one part of the developmental puzzle.

Family dynamics are complex, which means that your relationships with both your parents and siblings are influenced by factors like genetics, environment, child temperament, and socioeconomic status.

In other words, there may be some truth to the idea that firstborns get more attention (and responsibility), that middleborns get less attention (and more independence), and that lastborns get more freedom (and less discipline). But the specific dynamics in your family might hinge more on things like resources and parenting styles than on whether you arrived first, middle, or last.

Individual aspects of your own personality are shaped by many things, but you may find it helpful to reflect on your own experiences in your family and consider the influence that birth order might have had.

Damian RI, Roberts BW. Settling the debate on birth order and personality . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . 2015;112(46):14119-14120. doi:10.1073/pnas.1519064112

Luo R, Song L, Chiu I. A closer look at the birth order effect on early cognitive and school readiness development in diverse contexts . Frontiers in Psychology . 2022;13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871837

Salmon CA, Daly M. Birth order and familial sentiment . Evolution and Human Behavior . 1998;19(5):299-312. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00022-1

Cundiff PR. Ordered delinquency: the "effects" of birth order on delinquency . Pers Soc Psychol Bull . 2013;39(8):1017-1029. doi:10.1177/0146167213488215

Çabuker ND, Batık HESBÇMV. Does psychological birth order predict identity perceptions of individuals in emerging adulthood? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences. 2020;12(5):164–176.

Damian RI, Roberts BW. The associations of birth order with personality and intelligence in a representative sample of U.S. high school students . Journal of Research in Personality . 2015;58:96-105. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.005

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Alfred Adler’s Theory of Individual Psychology and Personality

Riley Hoffman

Lab Manager at Yale University

B.A., Psychology, Harvard University

Riley Hoffman is the Lab Manager for the Emotion, Health, and Psychophysiology Lab at Yale University. She graduated from Harvard University in May 2023 with a B.A. in Psychology. In the future, Riley plans to pursue a Ph.D. in Psychology and/or law school. Her research interests lie at the intersection of psychology, health, and society.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

Alfred Adler’s Individual Psychology posits that humans are primarily motivated by social connectedness and a striving for superiority or success. He believed that feelings of inferiority drive individuals to achieve personal goals.
Early interaction with family members, peers, and adults helps to determine the role of inferiority and superiority in life.
Adler believed that birth order had a significant and predictable impact on a child’s personality, and their feeling of inferiority.
All human behavior is goal-orientated and motivated by striving for superiority. Individuals differ in their goals and how they try to achieve them.
A natural and healthy reaction to inferiority is compensation: efforts to overcome real or imagined inferiority by developing one’s own abilities.
If people cannot compensate for normal feelings of inferiority, they develop an inferiority complex.
The overarching goal of Adlerian psychotherapy is to help the patient overcome feelings of inferiority.

Individual Psychology

Alfred Adler’s school of individual school of psychology created a chasm in the field of psychology, which had been dominated by Freud’s psychoanalysis.

While Freud focused on only the internal processes — mainly sexual conflicts — that affect a person’s psychology, Adler was adamant that to fully understand a person, a psychologist must also consider other internal and external factors.

This is why he named his school of psychology individual; the word is intended to evoke a meaning of indivisibility, derived from the Latin individuum (Mosak et al., 1999, p. 6).

Alfred Adler’s Theory of Individual Psychology posits that individuals are motivated primarily by social interests and a striving for superiority or self-improvement.

Childhood experiences, especially feelings of inferiority, drive this striving, but in a healthy individual, it manifests as a desire to contribute to the welfare of others.

Maladaptive behaviors arise when this striving becomes self-centered or when inferiority feelings are overwhelming. Adler emphasized the uniqueness of the individual and the role of social connections in shaping behavior.

Compensation, Overcompensation, and Complexes

Adler thought that the basic psychological element of neurosis was a sense of inferiority and that individuals suffering with the symptoms of this phenomenon spent their lives trying to overcome the feelings without ever being in touch with reality (White, 1917)

Compensation for Weaknesses

According to Adler (2013b), all infants have a feeling of inferiority and inadequacy immediately as they begin to experience the world.

These early experiences, such as the need to gain the parents’ attention, shape the child’s unconscious, fictive goals. They give the child a need to strive towards rectifying that inferiority — a need to compensate for weakness by developing other strengths.

There are several outcomes that can occur in a child’s quest for compensation. First, if the child receives adequate nurturing and care, the child can accept his challenges, and learn that they can be overcome with hard work. Thus, the child develops “normally” and develops the “courage to be imperfect” (Lazarsfeld, 1966, pp. 163-165).

Overcompensation

However, sometimes, the process of compensation goes awry. One way in which this happens is that the feelings of inferiority become too intense, and the child begins to feel as though he has no control over his surroundings. He will strive very strenuously for compensation, to the point that compensation is no longer satisfactory.

This culminates in a state of overcompensation, where the child’s focus on meeting his goal is exaggerated and becomes pathological.

For example, Adler (1917) uses the ancient Greek figure Demosthenes, who had a terrible stutter but ended up becoming the “greatest orator in Greece” (p. 22).

Here, Demosthenes started off with inferiority due to his stutter, and overcompensated by not just overcoming his stutter, but taking up a profession that would normally be impossible for a stutterer.

Inferiority Complex

Overcompensation can lead to the development of an inferiority complex. This is a lack of self-esteem where the person cannot rectify his feelings of inferiority.

According to Adler (2013a), the hallmark of an inferiority complex is that “persons are always striving to find a situation in which they excel” (p. 74). This drive is due to their overwhelming feelings of inferiority.

There are two components of these feelings of inferiority: primary and secondary. Primary inferiority is the “original and normal feeling” of inferiority an infant maintains (Stein & Edwards, 2002, p. 23). This feeling is productive, as it motivates the child to develop.

Secondary inferiority, on the other hand, is the inferiority feeling in the adult results when the child develops an exaggerated feeling of inferiority (p. 23). These feelings in the adult are what is harmful, and they comprise the inferiority complex.

Superiority Complex

The superiority complex occurs when a person has the need to prove that he is more superior than he truly is. Adler (2013a) provides an example of a child with a superiority complex, who is “impertinent, arrogant and pugnacious” (p. 82).

When this child is treated through Adlerian therapy , it is revealed that the child behaves impatiently because he feels inferior.

Adler (2013a) claims that superiority complexes are born out of inferiority complexes; they are “one of the ways which a person with an inferiority complex may use a method of escape from his difficulties” (p. 97).

Personality Typology, or Styles of Life

Adler did not approve of the concept of personality types; he believed this practice could lead to neglecting each individual’s uniqueness.

However, he did recognize patterns that often formed in childhood and could be useful in treating patients who fit into them. He called these patterns styles of life.

Adler (2013a) claimed that once a psychologist knows a person’s style of life, “it is possible to predict his future sometimes just on the basis of talking to him and having him answer questions” (p. 100)

Adler and his followers analyze a person’s style of life by comparing it to “the socially adjusted human being” (p. 101).

Birth Order

The term birth order refers to the order in which the children of a family were born. Adler (2013b, pp. 150-155) believed that birth order had a significant and predictable impact on a child’s personality:

First-born children have inherent advantages due to their parents recognizing them as “the larger, the stronger, the older.”

This gives first-born children the traits of “a guardian of law and order.” These children have a high amount of personal power, and they value the concept of power with reverence.

Second-born

Second-born children are constantly in the shadow of their older siblings. They are incessantly “striving for superiority under pressure,” driven by the existence of their older, more powerful sibling.

If the second-born is encouraged and supported, he will be able to attain power as well, and he and the first-born will work together.

Youngest Child

Youngest children operate in a constant state of inferiority. They are constantly trying to prove themselves, due to their perceptions of inferiority relative to the rest of their family.

According to Adler, there are two types of youngest children.

The more successful type “excels every other member of the family, and becomes the family’s most capable member.”

Another, more unfortunate type of youngest child does not excel because he lacks the necessary self-confidence. This child becomes evasive and avoidant towards the rest of the family.

Only children, according to Adler, are also an unfortunate case.

Due to their being the sole object of their parent’s attention, the only child becomes “dependent to a high degree, constantly waits for someone to show him the way, and searches for support at all times.”

They also come to see the world as a hostile place due to their parents’ constant vigilance.

Critical Evaluation

As with all psychodynamic approaches to human psychology, Adlerian individual psychology receives criticism for being unscientific and difficult to prove empirically. Specifically, its focus on the unconscious fictive goal makes it arguable that Adlerian psychology is unfalsifiable.

Though Adler’s theories are difficult to definitively prove, recent neuroscience has provided some support.

A recent study summarizing modern neuroscientific evidence, and how it relates to Adlerian psychology, agreed with a statement made by Maslow in 1970:

“Adler becomes more and more correct year by year. As the facts come in, they give stronger and stronger support to his image of man” (Miller & Dillman Taylor, 2016, p. 125).

In regards to Adlerian therapy, the modern-day attitude is that while the practice is simple and easy for the layman to understand, it is flawed because it is not empirically based.

Adler’s form of counseling is criticized for its lack of depth, notably, its lack of a foundation that deals with issues not related to concepts such as birth order and early recollections (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2016, p. 142).

How did Adler Disagree with Freud?

Aspect	Sigmund Freud	Alfred Adler
Motivation of Behavior	Internal biological drives (sex and aggression)	Social influence and striving for superiority
Choice in Personality Development	People have no choice	People are responsible for who they are
Behavior Influence	Present behavior is caused by the past (e.g. childhood)	Present behavior is shaped by the future (goals orientation)
Conscious Awareness	Emphasis on unconscious processes	People are aware of what they are doing and why
Personality Structure	Split into components (id, ego, superego)	Studied as a whole (holism)
Primary Relationships	Relationship with same-sex parent	Wider family relationships including with siblings

Adler, A. (2013a). The Science of Living (Psychology Revivals). Routledge.

Adler, A. (2013b). Understanding Human Nature (Psychology Revivals). Routledge.

Adler, A., Jelliffe, S. Ely. (1917). Study of Organ Inferiority and its Psychical Compensation: A Contribution to Clinical Medicine. New York: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.

Capuzzi, D. & Stauffer, M. D. (2016). Counseling and Psychotherapy: Theories and Interventions . Germany: Wiley.

Lazarsfeld, S. (1966). The courage for imperfection. American Journal of Individual Psychology, 22 (2).

Miller, R. & Dillman Taylor, D. (2016). Does Adlerian theory stand the test of time?: Examining individual psychology from a neuroscience perspective. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 55 : 11-128. doi:10.1002/john.12028

Mosak, H. H., Maniacci, M., Maniacci, M. P. (1999). A Primer of Adlerian Psychology: The Analytic-Behavioral-Cognitive Psychology of Alfred Adler . United Kingdom: Brunner/Mazel.

Stein, H. T. & Edwards, M. E. (2002). Adlerian psychotherapy. In Herson, M. & Sledge, M. H. (1st Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy (Vol. 1, pp. 23-31). Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

White, W. A. (1917). The theories of Freud, Jung and Adler: III. The Adlerian concept of the neuroses. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 12 (3), 168.

August 8, 2019

Does Birth Order Affect Personality?

Researchers examine the old adage that birth order plays a significant role in shaping who we are

By Corinna Hartmann & Sara Goudarzi

Kristy-Anne Glubish Getty Images

In spite of sharing genes and environments, siblings are often not as similar in nature as one might think. But where do the supposed differences come from? Alfred Adler, a 19th- and early 20th-century Austrian psychotherapist and founder of individual psychology, suspected that birth order leads to differences in siblings.

Adler considered firstborns to be neurotic, because they don’t have to share their parents for years and are essentially dethroned once a sibling comes along. He also considered oldest children dutiful and sometimes conservative. According to Adler, the youngest children are ambitious, while middle children are optimally positioned in the family and are characterized by emotional stability. Adler himself was the second of seven children.

American psychologist Frank J. Sulloway, who, in the mid-1990s, combed history books for leading figures who were firstborns and rebellious ones who were born later, saw a similar trend. Among the later borns, he found lateral thinkers and revolutionaries, such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Mahatma Gandhi. Among firstborns, he discovered leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini. His explanation? Every child occupies a certain niche within the family and then uses his or her own strategies to master life. Firstborn and single children had less reason to quarrel with the status quo and identify more strongly with the worldview of their fathers and mothers. Younger siblings are less sure of their parents’ view and therefore more often choose alternative paths in life.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Such categorizations are popular because they’re rather intuitive, and one can always find an example of the sensible big sister or the rebellious young brother in their circle of acquaintances. As such, Adler’s words still appear regularly in educational guides and continue to reverberate in the minds of parents.

Furthermore, some studies confirmed the idea that sibling position can shape personality. For example, a 1968 study showed that, compared with later borns, first borns are less likely to participate in dangerous sports because of fears of physical injury. And a 1980 study of 170 female and 142 male undergraduates showed lower anxiety and higher ego in firstborns, as measured by the Howarth Personality Questionnaire. At times, however, these investigations used questionable methods. For example, members of the same family were often asked to assess themselves in terms of extraversion, openness to experiences, conscientiousness, tolerance and neuroticism. The catch is these surveys were conducted at only one point in time. The older siblings were therefore not only born first but also simply older. It has long been known that adolescents become more conscientious as they age. This trend could account for a large part of the results. Another methodological flaw was that only one person judged his or her own personality and that of his or her siblings. This detail is important because self-perception and the perception of others can sometimes differ considerably. In addition, the test subjects may have subconsciously incorporated the cliché of dutiful older siblings and cosmopolitan later borns into their evaluation and could have thus brought about the expected result themselves.

Meanwhile scientists who analyzed large, transnational data and compared different families with each other have found the effect of sibling succession on personality disappears almost completely. Researchers led by psychologist Julia Rohrer of the University of Leipzig in Germany evaluated data from more than 20,000 interviewees from Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. They compared the personality profiles of siblings but also of people with different birth orders who had never met. The Leipzig psychologists did not discover any systematic differences in personality.

In such studies, researchers must be particularly cautious because, in addition to age, the size of one’s family is another factor that’s intertwined with sibling position. A child from a family of four has a 50 percent chance of being a firstborn; the more siblings, the lower the probability. For example, the fact that many astronauts are firstborns does not necessarily speak to the special qualities of those born first. It’s likely that many astronauts come from smaller families. To better understand these influences, Rohrer and her team controlled forthe number of siblings. That’s because when there are more of them, there are more later borns. So the researchers hypothesized later borns may more often appear in families of lower socioeconomic classes—which could account for differences between children of different-sized families.

The larger the sample, the more likely even very small effects will be detected. For example, in a 2015 study, which included 377,000 high school students, psychologist Rodica Damian and her colleague Brent W. Roberts, both then at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign discovered that firstborns tended to be more conscientious, extraverted and willing to lead. Contrary to expectations, they were also more tolerant and emotionally stable than adolescents with older siblings. Yet the differences were very small, and the researchers concluded that the importance that is generally attached to sibling position in shaping one’s character is exaggerated.

“It is quite possible that the position in the sibling sequence shapes the personality—but not in every family in the same way,” says Frank Spinath, a psychologist at Saarland University in Germany. “In other words, there may be an influence but not a systematic one. Nevertheless, other influences weigh more heavily when it comes to the differences in character of siblings. In addition to genes, the so-called undivided environment also plays a role. For siblings who grow up in the same family, this includes the respective circle of friends, for example.” Further, parents do not treat their children the same regardless of their birth rank. Studies show that parents react sensitively to the innate temperament of their offspring and adapt their upbringing accordingly.

Damian’s study also found that on average, firstborns enjoy a small IQ advantage over their younger siblings. Those born first also tend to complete their education with a higher degree and opt for traditionally prestigious careers, such as medicine or engineering.

How does this intellectual advantage come about? Adler may be right that the undivided attention given to the first child in early life promotes cognitive abilities. This advantage is already apparent by the age of two. Norwegian researchers Petter Kristensen and Tor Bjerkedal cleverly showed that the difference in intelligence is not linked to biological factors (some had suspected it might be related to physical conditions during pregnancy). They tested children whose older siblings had died early. The researchers’ assumption was that although these children were biologically younger siblings, they assumed the role of the firstborn in the family. Compared with other younger siblings, they achieved better results in intelligence tests.

Does Birth Order Really Determine Personality? Here’s What the Research Says

O ne Friday afternoon at a party, I’m sitting next to a mother of two. Her baby is only a couple of weeks old. They’d taken a long time, she tells me, to come up with a name for their second child. After all, they’d already used their favorite name: it had gone to their first.

On the scale of a human life, it’s small-fry, but as a metaphor I find it significant. I think of the proverbs we have around second times—second choice, second place, second fiddle, eternal second. I think of Buzz Aldrin, always in the shadow of the one who went before him, out there on the moon. I think of my sister and my son: both second children.

I was the first child in our family. I was also fearful of failure, neurotic, a perfectionist, ambitious—undoubtedly to the point of being unbearable. My sister didn’t study as hard and went out more, worked at every trendy bar in town and spent many an afternoon in front of the TV.

I’d long attributed the differences in our characters to the different positions we held in our family. It seemed to me, all things considered, better to be the firstborn: you had to work harder to expand the boundaries your parents set for you, had a greater sense of responsibility, more persistence, and emerged, in the end, more self-confident.

That theory worked in my favor, but during my second pregnancy, I started to feel sorry for my son. Through no fault of his own, he’d missed out on the enviable position of firstborn. It took that sense of pity for me to realize that I could try to uncover the basis of my ideas about the personality traits of first and second children—and whether there was anything to them.

It was 1874, and Francis Galton , an intellectual all-rounder and a half cousin of Charles Darwin, published English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture . In his book, he profiled 180 prominent scientists, and in the course of his research Galton noticed something peculiar: among his subjects, firstborns were overrepresented.

Galton’s observation was the first in a long line of scientific and pseudoscientific publications on the birth-order effect. The greater chance of success for firstborns, in Galton’s view, was because of their upbringing, an explanation that fitted in with the mores of the Victorian era: eldest sons had a greater chance of having their education paid for by their parents, parents gave their eldest sons more attention as well as responsibility, and in families of limited financial resources, parents might care just a little bit better for their firstborns.

Read more: I Raised Two CEOs and a Doctor. These Are My Secrets to Parenting Successful Children

The distribution system at the foundation of this is called primogeniture: the right of the eldest son (or less frequently, the eldest daughter) as heir. Among Portuguese nobility in the 15th and 16th centuries, for example, second- and later-born sons were sent to the front as soldiers more often than firstborn sons. Second and subsequent daughters were more likely than eldest daughters to end up in the convent. In Venice in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was generally the eldest brother who was permitted to marry, after which younger brothers would live with him and his family, dependent and subservient.

Apart from a few royal families, primogeniture is no longer the norm in Western countries. Somewhere in the course of the last century, most residents of industrialized countries became convinced that love, attention, time and inheritance should be divided equally and fairly among our offspring.

That’s what my partner and I strive to achieve: equal treatment of our two children. But we can’t get around the fact that first, second and subsequent children have slightly different starting points. The question is what consequences that has, exactly – and how insurmountable they are.

At the start of the 20th century, Alfred Adler, Freud’s erstwhile follower, the one who believed that the arrival of a younger sibling meant the dethronement of the firstborn, introduced the birth-order effect into the domain of personality psychology. According to Adler, the eldest identifies most with the adults in his environment and therefore develops both a greater sense of responsibility and more neuroses. The youngest has the greatest chance of being spoiled and is also, often, more creative. All children in the middle—Adler was a middle child—are emotionally more stable and independent: they’re the peacemakers, used to sharing from the start.

After Galton and Adler, the idea that family position affects personality has been subjected to many a scientific test. These tests generated factoids that undoubtedly still fly across the table at Christmas dinners: that firstborn children are overrepresented as Nobel Prize winners, composers of classical music, and, funnily enough, “prominent psychologists.” Subsequent children, on the other hand, were more likely to have supported the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution.

There are so many assumptions, there’s so much research, and still there are very few hard conclusions to be drawn.

A friend, the eldest of four, presses into my hands a book that her mother claims to have been all the rage during the 1990s. The title is Brothers and Sisters: The Order of Birth in the Family , and it was written in the mid-20th century by the Viennese pediatrician and anthroposophist Karl König.

What strikes me from the very first pages is the certainty with which König characterizes first, second and third children. For example, he quotes a study that found firstborns to be “more likely to be serious, sensitive,” “conscientious,” and “good” and—this is my favorite—“fond of books.” Later on, these firstborns can become “shy, even fearful,” or they become “self-reliant, independent.” A second child, by contrast, is “placid, easy-going, friendly [and] cheerful”—unless they are “stubborn, rebellious, independent (or apparently so)” and “able to take a lot of punishment.” These typologies most resemble horoscopes, in the sense that it can’t be very hard to recognize yourself – or your children – at least partially in any of them.

By now, studies looking into the birth-order effect number in the thousands. There’s no shortage of popular publications either: titles such as Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives and Birth Order Blues: How Parents Can Help Their Children Meet the Challenges of Birth Order have helped spread the idea that your place in the family determines who you are.

In 2003, two U.S. and two Polish psychologists asked hundreds of participants what they knew about birth order. The majority of respondents were convinced that those born earlier had a greater chance of a prestigious career than those born later, and that those different career opportunities had to do with their specific birth-order-related character traits.

In sum, a century after the possible existence of the birth-order effect was first proposed, it had become common knowledge. That knowledge is now so common, in fact, that it lends itself to satire: “Study Shows Eldest Children Are Intolerable Wankers,” a headline on a Dutch satirical news website quipped in 2018.

Read more: I Was Constantly Arguing With My Child. Then I Learned the “TEAM” Method of Calmer Parenting

There is, however, plenty of criticism of birth-order theories and the associated empirical research. It’s not at all straightforward, critics point out, to know what you’re measuring when you try to unravel the factors that shape an individual human life. It’s also very hard to exclude all the “noise,” as physicists in a laboratory would be able to do more easily. This means that traits we might attribute to a person’s birth order may in fact have more to do with, say, socioeconomic status, the size or ethnicity of the family, or the values of a particular culture.

In the early 1990s, a group of political scientists observed with barely concealed exasperation that birth order had been “linked to a truly staggering range of behaviors.” They tried to debunk the myth that even a person’s political preferences were determined by their position in the family by reviewing studies that addressed, among other things, whether firstborns had “an uncommon tendency to enter into political careers,” were more conservative than those born later, and were more likely to hold political office. Their meta-analysis failed to find consistent patterns—but did find myriad methodological flaws.

There are so many assumptions, there’s so much research, and still there are very few hard conclusions to be drawn, although I suppose the latter is often the case, in the social sciences. They tend to provide more nuance rather than painting things in black and white— and rightly so.

Still, I’d like to know if there’s a counterargument to be made, in response to the certainty with which a friend remarks that second children are always “much more chill” than first children. Or to the way a family member takes it for granted that our son, independent and sociable as he is, is a “typical second child.”

Most Popular from TIME

The end of 2015 saw the publication of two studies in which the methodological shortcomings of previous birth-order research (unrepresentative sample sets, incorrect inferences) were largely obviated. In one of these studies, two U.S. psychologists analyzed data about the personality traits and family position of 377,000 secondary-school pupils in the United States. They did find associations between birth order and personality, but besides being so tiny as to be “statistically significant but meaningless,” as one of the researchers formulated it, they also partially ran counter to those predicted by the prevailing theories. For instance, firstborn children in this data set might be a little more cautious, but they were also less neurotic than later-born children.

The other study looked for associations between personality and birth order in data from the United States, Britain and Germany for a total of more than 20,000 people, comparing children from different families as well as siblings from the same family and correcting for factors such as family size and age. Here, the researchers found no relationship between a person’s place in the family and any personality trait whatsoever.

Other recent studies, conducted mostly by economists, do find an association between birth order and IQ: on average, firstborns score slightly higher on IQ-tests – they also tend to get more schooling. This may be due, researchers speculate, to the fact that parents are able to devote more undivided time and attention to their firstborns when they are very small. It’s an effect that has less to do with innate characteristics and more with parental treatment.

For me, it feels as if my children have been given a little extra wiggle room, a more level playing field. Whoever my son is or will become, his personality has not, or in any case not only, been determined by the coincidental fact of his having arrived second. My relief is conditional, of course—science has a tendency to change its mind.

Even so, the authors of one of those 2015 studies cherish little hope of ridding the world of the belief that birth order determines personality. After all, they wrote in an accompanying piece, it takes forever for academic insights to trickle down to the general public. And we tend to be swayed less by scientific results than by our own personal experiences.

My second child is quicker to anger, I once told another mother in a parenting course. But hadn’t my daughter been just as irascible when she was my son’s age?

One of the reasons belief in the birth-order effect is so persistent, they suggest, is because it’s so easily confused with age. Pretty much everyone can see with their own eyes that older children behave differently from younger children. And there’s a good chance that a first child, when compared with a second child, will appear more cautious and anxious. It’s just that this difference probably has more to do with age than with birth order.

My second child is quicker to anger, I once told another mother in a parenting course. But hadn’t my daughter been just as irascible when she was my son’s age? I’d described my son, who was almost 2 years old at the time, as more emotionally stable. Perhaps what I’d meant is that I can easily discern his emotions: they’re still so close to the surface. He sulks when something doesn’t go his way, bows his head and looks askance when he’s doing something he knows he shouldn’t, throws everything within reach on the floor when he’s angry. When he’s excited, he wags—it doesn’t matter that he lacks a tail. His sister’s feelings have already grown more subtle and complex, and the way they’re expressed has become hard to read, for her own 5-year old self as well as for me.

That difference in age might also be the reason that children from the same family are often assigned specific roles, a Dutch developmental psychologist tells me when I present her with the hypothesis of the two U.S. researchers. That way, even if there are no fixed differences in personality , we might still impose differences in behavior . Parents tell the eldest to be responsible, and the youngest to listen to the eldest. The behavior that follows from this is an expression of that role, not of a person’s character.

I think of the way we tried to prepare my daughter for the arrival of her little brother. How we told her that soon there would be someone who couldn’t do anything at all. She’d be able to explain everything to him, we’d said, because she already knew so much. The prospect had appealed to her. Little did we know we were talking her into a stereotype-perpetuating role.

Of course, all the circumstances in which a child comes into the world—whether they’re born male or female, in war or peace, into relative poverty or exorbitant wealth—end up making a person who they are. But the birth-order effect seems to particularly enthuse and preoccupy us.

Perhaps because it’s so concrete: it’s rather more fun and more satisfying to attribute a baby’s generous smile to the fact that he’s a second child than to a vague interplay of personality and environment, expectations and discernment.

And perhaps that’s also what makes it so tempting to attribute the effect to ourselves. It absolves us for a moment of the responsibility for who we are and the duty to turn ourselves into who we want to become: my being neurotic isn’t my fault, it’s just because I’m the eldest.

My son began to dole out little smiles when he was barely 4 weeks old. They were not just twitches or reflexes, I knew for sure, but outright attempts at contact. He began smiling earlier than his sister had, and this made sense to me: he was the second child, and so the more sociable one, just like my own sister.

It didn’t occur to me in that moment that my interpretation of his smile was founded on stories we’d been passing on for generations. It’s only now that I’m beginning to understand that those stories have a history. And that, without us really realizing it, they might shape our children’s present as well as their future.

Excerpted from Second Thoughts: On Having and Being a Second Child by Lynn Berger. Published by Henry Holt and Company, April 20th 2021. Copyright © 2020 by Lynn Berger English translation copyright © 2020 Anna Asbury. All rights reserved.

More Must-Reads from TIME

How Kamala Harris Knocked Donald Trump Off Course
Introducing TIME's 2024 Latino Leaders
What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
33 True Crime Documentaries That Shaped the Genre
Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
Your Questions About Early Voting , Answered
Column: Your Cynicism Isn’t Helping Anybody
The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024

Birth Order

Living reference work entry
First Online: 28 August 2020
Cite this living reference work entry

Destiny Cunic 3 &
Kevin Bennett 4

89 Accesses

Family constellation ; Family order ; Sibling order

The idea that the order in which a child is born within their family has influence over their development and personality.

Introduction

Birth order theory is the idea that the order in which a child is born within their family has influence over their development and personality. The theory was originally introduced by psychotherapist Alfred Adler in the 1920s (Eckstein and Kaufman 2012 ). Since Adler’s initial research, others have attempted to make contributions to the theory. However, research has resulted in inconsistent findings attributed to confounding factors that arise from the multifactorial context of family environment, thus, leaving birth order’s influence on development and personality a debated scientific topic.

Cognitive Development

Some studies suggest that cognitive development, such as intelligence, personality, and sexuality, can be affected by the order of an individual’s birth within their...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Belmont, L., & Marolla, F. (1974). Birth order, family size, and intelligence. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 29 (6), 409.

Article Google Scholar

Blanchard, R. (2001). Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 40 (2), 105–114.

Bogaert, F. (2003). The interaction of fraternal birth order and body size in male sexual orientation. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117 (2), 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.117.2.381 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Eckstein, D., & Kaufman, J. (2012). The role of birth order in personality: An enduring intellectual legacy of Alfred Adler. Journal of Individual Psychology, 68 (1), 60–74.

Google Scholar

Krombholz, H. (2006). Physical performance in relation to age, sex, birth order, social class, and sports activities of preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102 , 477–484. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.102.2.477-484 .

Rohrer, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. (2015). Examining the effects of birth order on personality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112 (46), 14224–14229. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1506451112 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Silles, A. (2010). The implication of family size and birth order for test scores and behavioral development. Economics of Education Review , 29 (5), 795–803. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775710000233

Sulloway, F. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives . New York: Vintage.

Zajonc, R., & Sulloway, F. (2007). The confluence model: Birth order as a within-family or between-family dynamic? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (9), 1187–1194.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pennsylvania State University, Beaver Campus, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Destiny Cunic

Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, Beaver, Monaca, PA, USA

Kevin Bennett

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Destiny Cunic .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Todd K. Shackelford

Rochester, MI, USA

Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Section Editor information

Oklamoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

Jaimie Arona Krems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Cunic, D., Bennett, K. (2020). Birth Order. In: Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_678-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_678-1

Received : 06 January 2020

Accepted : 14 January 2020

Published : 28 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-16999-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-16999-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Silhouette of three boys from the side standing in line,

Does being the oldest or youngest sibling really shape your personality?

The psychological debate about sibling order has persisted for decades—but it might be time to break up with the popular theory.

Are you a responsible oldest child, an overlooked middle, or a free-wheeling baby? For those who adhere to the theory that birth order influences personality, the answer to that question may hold the key to who you are as a person. At parties, family dinners, and therapy sessions, people can use birth order as a kind of shorthand for personality traits—an only child’s selfishness, perhaps, or a middle child’s struggle for visibility.

But though your personal experiences may very well indicate that birth order forms the personalities around you, psychologists beg to differ. Here’s why it might be time to drop the stereotypes.

Origins of the psychological theory of birth order

The idea that birth order influences a child’s personality might be as old as people themselves. After all, various societies have long privileged—or overlooked—people based on where they stand in their family.

In many ancient societies, for example, the arrival of a first child—and thus a parent’s transition to the head of a family—often translated to a higher social status. It also gave rise to ceremonies like special baths for first-time mothers in Micronesia and the traditional pidyon haben ceremony in Judaism, during which a first-born son is “redeemed” by paying five silver coins to a priest.

( Siblings can have surprisingly different DNA ancestry. Here's why .)

Birth order has also long determined inheritance rights and royal lines of succession, as in the British monarchy which has long demanded a first-born “heir” and one or more “spares” as backups should something happen to the heir.

But the psychological theory of birth order didn’t develop until the early 20th century, when psychologist Alfred Adler theorized that birth order influenced not just social status, but a child’s development and personality. Known as the father of individual psychology, Adler theorized that an individual’s “family constellation” results in predictable personality traits. “The position in the family leaves an indelible stamp upon the individual’s life style,” Adler wrote in 1931.

According to Adler, the birth of a sibling deprives oldest children of their parents’ undivided attention—and as a result they are neurotic, more prone to conservatism, and inclined to imitate their elders. Second children are competitive attention-grabbers, while youngest children are pampered and lazy. Finally, he theorized that people who grow up without siblings have a “mother complex” and are in rivalry with their father.

Famous for his international lectures, popular psychology texts, and psychotherapeutic techniques, Adler’s influence still resounds throughout the field of psychology—and as a result, generations of psychologists undertook research that attempted to prove his theory of birth order.

What the research actually says about birth order

Studies conducted since Adler’s time have found associations between birth order and everything from educational attainment to sexuality to middle children’s success in team sports.

Frank Sulloway, one of the theory’s most prominent modern advocates, looked at adults and their careers in the 1990s and 2000s to assess the influence of birth order. He found a tendency for conservative research among famous firstborn scientists, with more radical research, such as the theory of evolution and relativity, more common among famous scientists born later in their family order. He also found differences between military and political strategies among militant firstborns like Maximilien Robespierre and moderate, nonviolent methods among famous middle-borns.

Is becoming a dad good for your health?

Asking for help is actually really good for you, according to science

Boredom can actually help people reach their creative potential. Here's how.

But the studies that most applicable to personality development look at the “big five” personality traits of openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. And more recent birth order studies throw cold water on the theory that your birth order can shape your personality.

( Not an extrovert or an introvert? There's a word for that .)

Rodica Damian, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Houston, conducted one of the largest such studies in 2015, using data from a longitudinal study of over 440,000 U.S. high school students. After controlling for socioeconomic status, sex, and age, the study showed that “the association between birth order and personality traits is as close to zero as you can get,” she says.

Another 2015 study underscored Damian’s findings: After analyzing three nationally representative samples from the U.S., Great Britain, and Germany, researchers wrote “we consistently found no birth-order effects on extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, or imagination.”

But both teams of researchers found evidence for one trait that would please firstborn children (and dismay their younger siblings): The studies each showed that firstborns were slightly more likely to have high verbal intelligence.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that firstborns are smarter or learn more easily, Damian says. More likely it’s because firstborns spend more time around adults in their early childhood—and she points out that in her study, the difference was a matter of a single IQ point.

Overall, the other study team wrote, “we must conclude that birth order does not have a lasting effect on broad personality traits outside of the intellectual domain.”

What really makes a personality?

As a scientist, Damian is cautious about claiming that any theory has been “disproven.” However, she says that modern research essentially debunks the theory that birth order affects personality—which she calls a “zombie theory” because it just won’t die. So why does the idea still enchant the public—and why do researchers continue to plumb the question? 

“Everybody has an opinion on it because everybody has a birth order, even only children,” says Damian. And part of the reason we just can’t quit birth order psychology may have to do with our own experiences that will always appear to support it. Older children will always seem to be more responsible and sophisticated than their younger siblings because they are more developmentally mature.

( How much does your name influence your future? It might surprise you .)

“Even though you see this and it's true, you don't have a magic lens to go back in time and observe the children at the [exact] same age,” Damian explains. It’s a “perfect confound,” she and her colleagues write—and it’s “one circumstance where personal experience will be wrong and the truth can only be discovered through good scientific reasoning and investigation.”

In truth, the science of personality development is anything but settled. Modern research using twin studies suggests that personality formation is about 40 percent due to genetics. The rest may be a matter of a complex combination of environment and cultural practices that help shape the disposition with which we’re born.

Though researchers can measure the “big five” personality traits, it’s harder to quantify the subjective experiences that shape our everyday lives and, perhaps, our personalities. Damian is currently studying the possible effects of people’s life narratives —the stories they tell themselves about their own experiences—on the people they become. But for much of the public, teasing out the complex web of nature and nurture is far less fun than teasing our siblings.

Why do we blindly follow trends—even when they’re bad for us?

We swapped baths for showers—but which one is better for you?

It's hard to reconnect with old friends. Science may have a solution.

Just one pregnancy can add months to your biological age

IVF revolutionized fertility. Will these new methods do the same?

Environment
Paid Content

History & Culture

History & Culture
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Your US State Privacy Rights
Children's Online Privacy Policy
Interest-Based Ads
About Nielsen Measurement
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Nat Geo Home
Attend a Live Event
Book a Trip
Inspire Your Kids
Shop Nat Geo
Visit the D.C. Museum
Learn About Our Impact
Support Our Mission
Advertise With Us
Customer Service
Renew Subscription
Manage Your Subscription
Work at Nat Geo
Sign Up for Our Newsletters
Contribute to Protect the Planet

Share full article

Supported by

Student Opinion

Has Your Birth Order Shaped Who You Are?

Does it matter if you’re the firstborn, the middle child, the youngest or somewhere in between?

An illustration of four nesting dolls in a row in a blue background. In descending height from left to right, the dolls have faces descending in age, with the one on the far right in white diapers with hands clasped at the front. Compared with the other dolls’ faces that look happy, the face of the doll on the far left looks sad. It is adorned with medals and a ribbon that says “1.”

By Jeremy Engle

Where do you fall in the family birth order? Are you the eldest? The middle child? The youngest? Or are you an only child? Do you think your placement has affected your life and how your family sees and treats you?

In “ Why Your Big Sister Resents You, ” Catherine Pearson explores the question of whether birth order shapes who we are or not:

In a TikTok video that has been watched more than 6 million times, Kati Morton, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Santa Monica, Calif., lists signs that she says can be indicative of “eldest daughter syndrome.” Among them: an intense feeling of familial responsibility, people-pleasing tendencies and resentment toward your siblings and parents. On X, a viral post asks : “are u happy or are u the oldest sibling and also a girl.” Firstborn daughters are having a moment in the spotlight , at least online, with memes and think pieces offering a sense of gratification to responsible, put-upon big sisters everywhere. But even mental health professionals like Ms. Morton — herself the youngest in her family — caution against putting too much stock in the psychology of sibling birth order, and the idea that it shapes personality or long-term outcomes. “People will say, ‘It means everything!’ Other people will say, ‘There’s no proof,’” she said, noting that eldest daughter syndrome (which isn’t an actual mental health diagnosis) may have as much to do with gender norms as it does with birth order. “Everybody’s seeking to understand themselves, and to feel understood. And this is just another page in that book.”

The article examines what the research says about birth order:

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Search term Advanced Search Citation Search
Individual login
Institutional login

BIRTH ORDER IS AN IMPORTANT INFLUENCE ON PERSONALITY

M. Brent Donnellan

Richard E. Lucas

Birth order is an intuitively appealing explanation for why genetically similar siblings are so different. The neo-Freudian psychotherapist Alfred Adler was a vocal proponent of the idea that birth order was a significant determinant of personality. Evidence that birth order is a systematic predictor of personality is weak. When adequate tests of birth-order effects are performed, the evidence usually fails to support strong birth-order effects on personality. The idea that birth order accounts for a substantial amount of the variation in personality differences is a myth. Although the literature is somewhat inconsistent, the effect sizes from the very best studies are small (at best). This indicates that other factors are likely to be much more important than birth order for understanding why people are different from one another (in general) and why children in the same family often have different personalities.

Adler, A. ( 1927 ). Understanding human nature . Oxford, England : Greenberg. Google Scholar
Adler, A. ( 1928 ). Characteristics of the first, second, and third child . Children , 3 , 14 – 52 . Google Scholar
Bleske-Rechek, A. , & Kelley, J. A. ( 2014 ). Birth order and personality: A within-family test using independent self-reports from both firstborn and laterborn siblings . Personality and Individual Differences , 56 , 15 – 18 . 10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.011 Web of Science® Google Scholar
Damian, R. I. , & Roberts, B. W. ( 2015 ). The associations of birth order with personality and intelligence in a representative sample of U.S. high school students . Journal of Research in Personality , 58 , 96 – 105 . 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.005 Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ernst, C. , & Angst, J. ( 1983 ). Birth order: Its influence on personality . Berlin, Germany : Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-68399-2_4 Google Scholar
Harris, J. R. ( 2000 ). Context-specific learning, personality, and birth order . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 9 , 174 – 177 . 10.1111/1467-8721.00087 Web of Science® Google Scholar
Plomin, R. ( 2011 ). Commentary: Why are children in the same family so different? Non-shared environment three decades later . International Journal of Epidemiology , 40 , 582 – 592 . 10.1093/ije/dyq144 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Plomin, R. , & Daniels, D. ( 1987 ). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 10 , 1 – 16 . 10.1017/S0140525X00055941 Web of Science® Google Scholar
Plomin, R. , & Daniels, D. ( 2011 ). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? International Journal of Epidemiology , 40 , 563 – 582 . 10.1093/ije/dyq148 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Rodgers, J. L. ( 2000 ). The birth order trap . Politics and the Life Sciences , 19 , 167 – 170 . Google Scholar
Rodgers, J. L. , Cleveland, H. H. , van den Oord, E. , & Rowe, D. C. ( 2000 ). Resolving the debate over birth order, family size, and intelligence . American Psychologist , 55 , 599 – 612 . CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Rohrer, J. M. , Egloff, B. , & Schmukle, S. C. ( 2015 ). Examining the effects of birth order on personality . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 112 ( 46 ), 14224 – 14229 . 10.1073/pnas.1506451112 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sulloway, F. J. ( 1996 ). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives . New York, NY : Pantheon Books. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00042.x Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sulloway, F. J. ( 2011 ). Why siblings are like Darwin's finches: Birth order, sibling competition, and adaptive divergence within the family . In D. M. Buss & P. H. Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences (pp. 86 – 119 ). New York, NY : Oxford. Google Scholar
Wichman, A. L. , Rodgers, J. L. , & MacCallum, R. C. ( 2006 ). A multilevel approach to the relationship between birth order and intelligence . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 32 ( 1 ), 117 – 127 . 10.1177/0146167205279581 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Great Myths of Personality

Information

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

Log in to Wiley Online Library

Change password, your password must have 10 characters or more:.

a lower case character,
an upper case character,
a special character

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create a new account

Forgot your password.

Enter your email address below.

Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Birth Order Dating Theory: How Sibling Rank Affects Romantic Relationships

Share Content on Facebook
Share Content on LinkedIn
Share Content on Flipboard
Share Content on Reddit
Share Content via Email

Dating couple walking through the woods holding hands

Have you ever found yourself inexplicably drawn to a certain type of partner, only to realize that they share the same birth order as your own siblings? Or perhaps you've experienced friction in a relationship that seemed to stem from fundamental differences in how you and your significant other approach life. If so, you may be experiencing the influence of the birth order dating theory - a psychological concept that has recently gained significant traction on social media platforms like TikTok.

The birth order dating theory posits that the order in which we are born into our families can have a profound impact on our personality traits, behaviors, and ultimately, our romantic compatibility with others. Rooted in the pioneering work of Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler in the early 20th century, this theory suggests that each birth order position - firstborn, middle child, youngest, or only child - comes with its own set of unique characteristics that can either complement or clash with those of a potential partner.

As the birth order theory continues to captivate the public imagination, it's time to delve deeper into the research and insights that underpin this intriguing concept. In this comprehensive article, we'll explore the distinct personality profiles associated with each birth order, examine how these traits can influence romantic dynamics, and uncover the potential pitfalls and benefits of dating someone with a different or similar birth order to your own.

The Foundations of Birth Order Theory

Firstborns: the natural leaders, middle children: the peacemakers, youngest siblings: the charmers, only children: the unique blend, opposites attract: the compatibility of birth orders, the pitfalls of same-birth order pairings, the birth order dating theory in practice, embracing uniqueness: beyond the birth order dating theory, birth order is not an exact science.

The birth order dating theory is grounded in the pioneering work of Alfred Adler, a renowned Austrian psychologist who lived from 1870 to 1937. Adler believed that an individual's position within their family hierarchy - whether as the eldest, middle, youngest, or only child - could shape their personality, interpersonal tendencies, and even their life outcomes.

According to Adler's theory, each birth order position comes with its own set of unique characteristics that can have a profound impact on an individual's development and behavior. Firstborns, for instance, are often described as responsible, achievement-oriented, and natural leaders, while middle children are typically seen as peacemakers, diplomats, and independent thinkers. Lastborns, on the other hand, are frequently associated with traits like charm, sociability, and a flair for the dramatic, while only children can exhibit a mix of firstborn and youngest sibling qualities.

Adler's work on birth order has since been the subject of extensive research and debate within the field of psychology. While some studies have found evidence to support the theory's core premises, others have questioned the strength of the relationship between birth order and personality. Nonetheless, the birth order dating theory continues to capture the public's imagination, with many individuals reporting a sense of resonance with the traits associated with their birth order position.

At the top of the birth order hierarchy are the firstborns, often described as the "responsible" and "achievement-oriented" siblings. According to the birth order dating theory, these individuals tend to exhibit a range of personality traits that can significantly impact their romantic relationships.

Firstborns are typically characterized as natural leaders, problem-solvers, and caretakers. They often feel a strong sense of responsibility to their younger siblings, which can translate into a desire to take charge and control the dynamics of their romantic partnerships. Firstborns may also be perfectionists, striving for excellence in all aspects of their lives, including their relationships.

In the context of dating, this drive for control and success can be both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, firstborns can bring a sense of structure, organization, and reliability to their relationships, making them appealing partners for those who value stability and direction. However, their need to be in charge can also lead to power struggles, as they may clash with partners who seek more autonomy or a more balanced decision-making process.

To navigate these dynamics, experts suggest that firstborns learn to relinquish some control and be more open to compromise. They should also strive to actively listen to their partner's needs and perspectives, rather than automatically assuming they know what's best. By fostering a more collaborative approach, firstborns can leverage their natural leadership skills to create harmonious and fulfilling romantic partnerships.

While firstborns may excel at taking charge, middle children often find themselves in a more challenging position within the family hierarchy. Sandwiched between the demands of older and younger siblings, middle children are frequently described as the "peacemakers" of the family, adept at navigating complex social dynamics and conflict resolution.

According to the birth order dating theory, middle children tend to develop a range of personality traits that can significantly impact their romantic relationships. They are often skilled communicators, diplomats, and compromisers, able to see multiple perspectives and find common ground. Middle children may also be more independent and self-reliant, having learned to carve out their own space within the family.

However, this tendency to avoid conflict and prioritize harmony can also be a double-edged sword in romantic relationships. Middle children may struggle to assert their own needs and desires, preferring to defer to their partner or bottle up their emotions rather than engage in difficult conversations. This can lead to resentment, miscommunication, and a lack of emotional intimacy in the relationship.

To address these challenges, experts suggest that middle children work on developing stronger communication skills and learning to advocate for their own needs. They may also benefit from being more intentional about setting boundaries and creating a safe space for open and honest dialogue with their partner. By embracing their natural diplomatic abilities while also cultivating a greater sense of self-worth, middle children can forge more fulfilling and balanced romantic partnerships.

At the bottom of the birth order hierarchy are the youngest siblings, often described as the "babies" of the family. According to the birth order dating theory, these individuals tend to exhibit a unique set of personality traits that can significantly impact their romantic relationships.

Youngest siblings are frequently associated with traits like charisma, social skills, and a flair for the dramatic. They may have grown up feeling a sense of freedom and indulgence, as their parents and older siblings often doted on them and shielded them from responsibility. This can translate into a more carefree, spontaneous, and attention-seeking approach to life and relationships.

In the context of dating, youngest siblings can bring a sense of excitement and adventure to their partnerships. They may be skilled at keeping their partner entertained, spontaneously planning romantic outings, and infusing the relationship with a youthful energy. However, this can also lead to potential issues, such as a tendency towards codependency, a lack of structure or follow-through, and a reluctance to take on their fair share of domestic or financial responsibilities.

To navigate these dynamics, experts suggest that youngest siblings work on developing a greater sense of independence and self-discipline, while also learning to communicate their needs and expectations more effectively with their partner. By striking a balance between their natural charm and a more mature, responsible approach to relationships, youngest siblings can create fulfilling and sustainable romantic partnerships.

While the birth order dating theory primarily focuses on the dynamics between firstborns, middle children, and youngest siblings, it also acknowledges the unique position of only children. These individuals, who grow up without the presence of siblings, can exhibit a blend of characteristics from across the birth order spectrum.

On one hand, only children may share some of the traits commonly associated with firstborns, such as a strong sense of responsibility, a drive for achievement, and a tendency to be perfectionists. They may also exhibit the independent and self-reliant nature of middle children, having learned to entertain themselves and navigate the world without the presence of siblings.

However, only children can also display the attention-seeking and social tendencies of youngest siblings, having been the sole focus of their parents' affection and resources. This can lead to a heightened sense of entitlement or a desire for constant validation and care from their romantic partners.

In the context of dating, only children may struggle with certain aspects of relationship dynamics, such as communication, conflict resolution, and the ability to share time and resources. They may also have a harder time adapting to the give-and-take nature of a partnership, as they are used to having their needs met without compromise.

To address these challenges, experts suggest that only children work on developing greater empathy, flexibility, and communication skills. They may also benefit from actively seeking out opportunities to collaborate and compromise, both within their romantic relationships and in other areas of their lives. By cultivating a more balanced and self-aware approach, only children can navigate the unique dynamics of their birth order position and forge fulfilling partnerships.

One of the core tenets of the birth order dating theory is the idea that opposites often attract when it comes to romantic compatibility. The theory suggests that individuals are typically drawn to partners who possess complementary birth order traits, as these differences can create a sense of balance and harmony within the relationship.

For example, the birth order dating theory posits that firstborns are often most compatible with lastborns, as the former's need for control and structure can be balanced by the latter's more spontaneous and easygoing nature. Similarly, middle children may find success in relationships with either firstborns or lastborns, as their diplomatic skills can help mediate the potential power struggles or conflicts that may arise.

This concept of "opposites attract" is supported by research, which has found that birth order combinations like firstborn-lastborn and middle child-firstborn tend to have higher relationship satisfaction and lower divorce rates compared to same-birth order pairings.

However, it's important to note that the birth order dating theory is not a one-size-fits-all approach to finding love. Every individual and relationship is unique, and there are always exceptions to the rule. Additionally, factors such as personality, values, and life experiences can play a significant role in determining romantic compatibility, regardless of birth order.

While the birth order dating theory suggests that opposites often attract, it also highlights the potential challenges that can arise when individuals with the same birth order position enter into a romantic relationship.

According to the theory, same-birth order pairings can be prone to power struggles, communication breakdowns, and a lack of balance within the relationship. For example, two firstborns may both strive to be the dominant partner, leading to constant power struggles and an inability to compromise. Similarly, two middle children may struggle to assert their needs and desires, leading to a lack of emotional intimacy and resentment.

In the case of two lastborns or two only children, the relationship may be characterized by a heightened sense of entitlement, a reluctance to take on responsibilities, and a difficulty in finding a healthy balance between independence and interdependence.

To navigate these challenges, experts suggest that individuals in same-birth order relationships work on developing greater self-awareness, communication skills, and a willingness to compromise. They may also benefit from seeking guidance from a therapist or counselor who can help them identify and address the unique dynamics at play within their partnership.

While the birth order dating theory provides a fascinating framework for understanding romantic compatibility, it's important to remember that it is not a definitive or deterministic approach to finding a partner. Every individual and relationship is unique, and there are always exceptions to the "rules" outlined by the theory.

That being said, many individuals have reported finding resonance with the personality traits and relationship dynamics associated with their birth order position. For example, TikToker @iammichailatyson shared her experience as an eldest daughter who has exclusively dated youngest sons, noting that the "mothering" dynamic felt familiar and comfortable to her.

Similarly, @Jordan_The_Stallion8's viral TikTok video on the birth order dating theory struck a chord with many viewers, who shared their own experiences of dating someone with a different birth order position. One commenter, a self-proclaimed middle child, expressed surprise at the realization that they had only ever dated firstborns.

These anecdotal experiences suggest that while the birth order dating theory may not be a foolproof predictor of romantic compatibility, it can provide valuable insights into the underlying dynamics that shape our interpersonal relationships. By understanding the unique traits and tendencies associated with each birth order position, individuals can gain a deeper awareness of their own strengths, challenges, and potential compatibility with a partner.

As with any psychological theory, it's important to approach the birth order dating concept with a critical and nuanced perspective. While the theory can offer valuable insights, it should not be treated as a rigid or deterministic framework for finding love.

Each individual is a complex and multifaceted person, shaped not only by their birth order but also by a myriad of other factors, such as their upbringing, life experiences, values, and personal growth. It's crucial to remember that the traits associated with each birth order position are broad generalizations, and that every person will exhibit a unique blend of characteristics that may or may not align with the theory.

Moreover, the birth order dating theory should not be used as a means to pigeonhole or judge potential partners. Rather, it should be viewed as a tool for self-reflection and a starting point for understanding how our family dynamics may have influenced our approach to relationships.

By embracing the nuances and complexities of the birth order dating theory, individuals can gain valuable insights into their own tendencies and preferences, while also remaining open-minded and adaptable in their pursuit of romantic fulfillment. Ultimately, the key to successful relationships lies not in rigid adherence to birth order archetypes, but in cultivating mutual understanding, respect, and a willingness to grow and evolve together.

Ultimately, the birth order dating theory should be viewed as a starting point for self-reflection and understanding, rather than a definitive guide to finding a partner. Each individual and relationship is unique, shaped by a multitude of factors beyond just birth order. By embracing this nuance and complexity, we can gain valuable insights into our own tendencies and preferences, while remaining open-minded and adaptable in our pursuit of lasting love and fulfillment.

This article was created using AI technology.

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

Birth Order Theory: Insights Into Your Personality

Personality can develop from various sources and influences in a child's life, including birth order. Studying personality and its formation has interested researchers, psychologists, and scientists for centuries. Enduring characteristics, traits, and behavior can shape each person's unique adjustment to life.

Birth order theory suggests that while personality is mainly unpredictable, specific general characteristics can be linked to a person's birth order in their family. Birth order refers to the rank of siblings in relation to age. It's thought that parents intentionally or unintentionally assign roles based on birth order, which may impact a child’s personality development.

In this article, we'll explore the theories and studies behind personality development, focusing on birth order theory.

Birth order theory: Why it matters

Theories on personality formation, adaptation, and environmental influences across cultures vary. The concept of birth order is often credited to Austrian psychoanalyst Alfred Adler in the early 1900s. He was one of the first to explore the idea that a person's place in their family tree could predict personality traits.

Adler believed that firstborn children typically have higher expectations placed upon them by parents and thus develop a greater sense of responsibility and ambition. He proposed that later-born siblings, on the other hand, were often treated more leniently by their parents compared to firstborns, leading them to become more rebellious and independent.

However, it is important to note that Adler's theories are not universally accepted, and a person's place in their family tree does not always dictate their personality traits. Ultimately, each person is unique and should be treated as such. Each person has strengths and weaknesses independent of their birth order.

What birth order theory is not

Birth-order personality traits are not necessarily present when a child is born into a family. For example, firstborn children are not necessarily born with niche or particular personality traits ingrained in their psyche. Instead, in birth order theory, Adler illustrates how family environments and dynamics can shape individual psychology during a child's formative years. Although every family is different, there are similarities in the interactions between parents and children and siblings.

The family's role in birth order personality traits

Birth order research and studies show several influences shaping personality in addition to birth order. Common factors include:

Biological: Children tend to inherit many traits and features from their parents. These can include intelligence, courage, and physical characteristics.
Social: By interacting with others in an individual's social circle, children learn behaviors and thought patterns from their experiences, like those in the education system and beyond.
Cultural: A child growing up within a culture consciously or unconsciously can adopt traits consistent with the culture's beliefs, ideas, and norms.
Physical Environment: An individual's surroundings often impact the development of personality. For example, the personalities of those growing up in a rural area may differ from those living in an urban environment.
Situational: As a child grows up, they face different situations, which may help them adapt and change their personality. These situations could include meeting new friends, experiencing trauma, or welcoming a new sibling.

When looking at these factors, we see family life can incorporate all of these. Since most children's lives are, at first, shaped by everything going on in the family, it makes sense that some psychologists have remained interested in birth order theory throughout the years since Adler first proposed his idea.

How birth order may affect personality

The following traits are general examples of how birth order differences and personality may be related. Of course, many other factors could impact the development of a child's personality; some of these reasons will be discussed further below.

These children tend to get much more attention from adults than a child with siblings does. This means many of their early interactions involve individuals significantly older than them. These interactions can make them feel like "tiny adults," and they can seem more mature than their peers with siblings. Traits may include:

Maturity for their age
Sensitivity
Use of adult language
Self-centeredness
A tendency to enjoy being the center of attention
Refusal to cooperate with others
A tendency to feel unfairly treated when not getting their way
A desire to be more like adults, so may not relate well with peers

First child

Since the firstborn child is used to being an only child until siblings come along, they may exhibit some of the characteristics of an only child. Also, the firstborn may have these birth order personality traits:

Achiever and leader
Feelings of superiority over other children
Difficulty when the second child is born, such as feeling unloved or neglected
A tendency to be controlling and focused on being correct about results
Use of good (or bad) behavior to regain parents' attention
A tendency to be bossy or authoritarian about rules
A desire to please others
Reliability

Second child

Second-born and middle children begin their lives with their parents' attention on the firstborn. Having an older sibling as a role model makes second-born and middle children try to catch up with older children. Adler believes the second child can be better adjusted. A second child may:

Be more competitive
Lack of the undivided attention of parents
Be a people pleaser
Be a peacemaker
Develop abilities the first child doesn't exhibit to gain attention
Be rebellious
Be independent and not need the support of others

Middle child

Many have heard of the "middle child syndrome" and the difficulties these children can present. They may become frustrated or resentful of the significant changes they experience early in life. Not only do they lose their "youngest child" status, but they also must compete for attention with older and later-born children.

Middle-born children in larger families are typically less competitive than single middle children. Their parents' attention can be spread thinner due to the dynamics of a bigger family. Middle children in bigger families may be more prone to use cooperation to get what they want. Middle children may demonstrate the following tendencies:

Can feel life is unfair
Can be even-tempered
May feel unloved or left out
May not have the rights and responsibilities of the oldest sibling or the privileges of the youngest
May be adaptable
Can be impatient
May be outgoing and rambunctious
May treat younger siblings more roughly
Can feel "squeezed" in the family environment

Youngest child

The "baby" of the family tends to get more attention from parents since the older siblings are developing and becoming more independent. Traits of the youngest child may include the following:

May be charming and outgoing
Can be an attention seeker
Behaves like the only child
Feels inferior, like everyone is bigger or more capable
Expects others to make decisions and take responsibility
May not be taken seriously
Can become "speedier" in development to catch up to other siblings

Other factors that may influence birth order personality

Each family is different and has unique dynamics. The subject of birth order positions alone will not determine the complexities of a person’s personality. Certain circumstances or measures may impact a child's personality as children and families develop and evolve. Across different families, children of the same birth order can show diverse personality differences, especially across a large representative sample.

Blended or step-families

When two parents remarry, especially when children are in their formative years, the family of origin often goes through a period of disorientation and competition. For example, two firstborns in the new family may search for their "place" and may compete to keep their "firstborn status."

Differences in ages

When there is an age gap of three or more years between siblings, it is common for the birth orders to restart. In a family with many children, this could create birth order subgroups with varying birth order effects.

Health and mental issues

A child born with significant physical or neurodevelopmental disabilities can seem to remain in the "youngest" position regardless of birth order. It may impact the psychological birth order position of the other children.

Gender of siblings

Most psychological competition tends to occur between children of the same gender and similar ages. The competition, partly for parental attention , can start in childhood and move into young adulthood and beyond.

Death of a sibling

The impact of a child's death can be devastating for families. Some children may adapt by developing overindulgent tendencies. Also, a glorification of the deceased child can occur, whereby other siblings may never live up to the image of the deceased sibling. It can profoundly alter the birth order effect.

An adopted child often has special circumstances in the family dynamic. Having an adopted child may be seen as a special gift for parents with difficulties conceiving. These parents may have a greater tendency to spoil or overindulge the child. When an adopted child comes into an established family, they may find difficulties fitting into the dynamic.

Does a correlation between birth order and personality exist?

Multiple factors, including socioeconomic status, parental attitudes, gender roles, and social influences, can also shape an individual's personality. In a study of more than 20,000 participants, however, details revealed no significant effects of birth order of the Big Five personality traits: extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.

However, some research has linked higher intelligence to a family's older children. It could be because parents have more emotional and intellectual resources to give when fewer children are present in the home.

Gain additional insights into your personality in therapy

If you’d like to gain more insight into your personality or how your birth order shapes it, consider working with a mental health professional. With a therapist, you can explore how your early childhood experiences shape your current behavior and develop coping skills to help you navigate life’s challenges. Your therapist can also provide evidence-based strategies for managing challenging emotions and building healthy relationships.

If you are not interested in traditional in-person therapy, consider using online counseling through BetterHelp . Online therapy can be a convenient way to get mental health care. Research suggests that online treatment is as effective as in-person therapy and can often fit into your schedule more easily. You can speak with a therapist from your home or anywhere you have internet connection.

How does birth order affect the development of our personality?

According to Alfred Adler’s psychological theories, birth order affects personality development through its impacts on relationship dynamics, including both sibling relationships and parent-child interactions. Since a person’s family is almost always their first experience of connections with other people, it may shape the assumptions, habits, and strategies that individuals carry throughout their lives.

For example, Adler believed that eldest children were more prone to neuroticism. He thought that their experience of undivided parental attention in their early years, followed by the appearance of younger siblings who competed for attention, could lead to a sense of insecurity. On the other hand, he also believed firstborn children tended to form leadership skills early on due to the experience of teaching and protecting younger siblings.

There might also be biological effects of birth order. Some researchers have suggested that changes to a woman’s immune system following repeated births might have developmental impacts on the personalities of children born later. However, the evidence for this theory is currently very limited, and some research seems to contradict it .

In twins, birth order might appear to affect personality because the larger and healthier twin is often born first . This can mean that younger twins are more likely to have health and developmental problems, which may have long-term psychological impacts.

How does birth order affect socialization?

Birth order might affect socialization because of the different roles that siblings of different ages tend to assume within a family. The oldest child might feel a sense of responsibility for their younger siblings, causing them to develop a greater propensity for leadership. Youngest children, in contrast, might have to struggle for their independence when their older siblings get bossy. This could lead them to be more rebellious in later interactions. Middle children might find themselves taking on the role of mediators, causing them to develop strong interpersonal skills.

Is birth order an important factor in determining intelligence myth?

Some studies have found a possible birth order effect on intellectual achievement. A 2015 research paper reported that older children appeared to score slightly higher on measures of intelligence, as well as rating their own intelligence higher. Later borns tended to display slightly lower IQ along with lower intellectual confidence.

However, while the observed effect was statistically significant, it was quite small. There’s little evidence that birth order plays a major role in determining a person’s intelligence.

What are three arguments made to support that birth order does affect our personalities?

One common argument in favor of the idea that birth order can shape personality is that early childhood experiences are known to be important for many different long-term psychological outcomes, such as relationship attachment styles. Since the experiences of siblings may be different depending on their position in the family, it might make sense to expect them to be important in personality formation.

Another argument in favor of birth order effects is that parental attention may be important in forming cognitive abilities. Because children with fewer siblings receive more of their parents’ focus, they might have a slight advantage in building certain mental skills, which could in turn affect their personalities.

The third main argument supporting birth order personality effects is that this idea is backed by research. Although the birth order effects found so far have been small, many important shifts in scientific theories begin with the observation of seemingly minor phenomena.

Does birth order affect one's personality impression?

There’s currently not much evidence that birth order affects the kinds of personality traits that are most important in determining the impression an individual makes on others. Even in the study offering the strongest support for the effect of birth order on intelligence, researchers found no relationship between birth order and characteristics such as:

Agreeableness
Willingness to try new experiences
Extraversion
Emotional stability
Imagination
Conscientiousness

How can birth order impact a child's attitude and behavior?

Birth order might affect a child’s behavior through the differences in parental expectations for different family members. Parents may consciously or unconsciously assign older siblings to a leadership role, expecting them to care for and instruct their younger brothers or sisters. Younger children might receive less discipline because their parents are older or have less ability to monitor an individual’s behavior within a large family.

Predicting the exact outcomes of these kinds of expectations may be difficult, though. An eldest child expected to act as a teacher and protector for their siblings might embrace this role. However, if they’re given poor support from their parents or punished for their siblings’ misbehavior, it could lead to resentment and avoidance of responsibility.

Birth order might also play a role in determining mental health, which could have important behavioral effects. A 2021 study reported that later-born children appeared to have lower rates of mental disorders and higher rates of happiness and prosocial attitudes.

Some theories of birth order suggest that “psychological birth order” might matter more than actual birth order. In other words, a child’s perception of their place within the family might be the most important factor. It’s often said that if a child is born five years or more after their next-oldest sibling, their personality characteristics will be more similar to a firstborn.

Can birth order determine success or failure?

Despite the prevalence of stories in popular media about how many astronauts or Nobel Prize winners are firstborn children, birth order is unlikely to be a major factor in a person’s success or failure in life.

While many psychologists used to consider it very important, more recent studies with better methodological design have found little evidence for strong effects. Other elements, such as genetics, socioeconomic standing, developmental health, and life experiences, are likely to be substantially more important.

Does birth order seem like a good way to describe personality?

Many people use birth order as a shorthand for personality makeup, such as describing someone as a “typical middle child”. Yet many people have very different ideas about what this means in practice. For instance, some sources may describe oldest children as outgoing and independent, while others say that these people tend to be shy and cautious.

Because of these differences, and the lack of strong evidence in favor of birth order effects, these stereotypes may not be useful ways to describe someone’s personality.

Does birth order affect self-concept?

Some theories of birth order effects have suggested that a person’s family position might affect their self-concept. In these frameworks, older and only children were thought to have the highest self-esteem, while middle children were believed to have the lowest. Several studies in the 1980s and 1990s tested these theories in middle and high school students with mixed results. While some researchers reported significant birth order effects, others found that the evidence was weak and inconsistent.

More recent investigations have found little support for the idea that self-esteem is affected by birth order. There may not be enough evidence to definitively state that oldest, middle, and youngest children have different self-concept strengths.

Does birth order affect the behavior of children?

Birth order may have some effects on childhood behavior. Research on children aged 9-10 found the highest rates of cooperative, prosocial behavior among those who were latest in birth order. Eldest children seemed to be more prone to conduct problems and disruptive behavior. That said, these findings may need to be replicated before it’s possible to say definitively that birth order impacts behavior.

Defining Your Family Of Origin And How It Impacts You Medically reviewed by Audrey Kelly , LMFT
Six Family Types And Their Unique Dynamics Medically reviewed by Andrea Brant , LMHC
Relationships and Relations

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

The Relationship of Birth Order and Gender with Academic Standing and Substance Use Among Youth in Latin America

Pilar horner.

1 School of Social Work, Michigan State University

Fernando Andrade

2 School of Education, University of Michigan

Jorge Delva

3 School of Social Work, University of Michigan

Andy Grogan-Kaylor

Marcela castillo.

4 Instituto de Nutrición y Tecnología de los Alimentos (INTA), Universidad de Chile

Alfred Adler attempted to understand how family affects youth outcomes by considering the order of when a child enters a family ( Adler, 1964 ). Adler’s theory posits that birth order formation impacts individuals. We tested Adler’s birth order theory using data from a cross-sectional survey of 946 Chilean youths. We examined how birth order and gender are associated with drug use and educational outcomes using three different birth order research models including: (1) Expedient Research, (2) Adler’s birth order position, and (3) Family Size theoretical models. Analyses were conducted with structural equation modeling (SEM). We conclude that birth order has an important relationship with substance use outcomes for youth but has differing effects for educational achievement across both birth order status and gender.

Introduction

Studies indicate that family dynamics play an important role with regard to drug use and educational outcomes for youth ( Allison, 1992 ; Bachman et. al., 2008 ; Bergen, Martin, Roeger, & Allison, 2005 ; Chilcoat, Dishion, & Anthony, 1995 ; Hill, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott, & Guo, 2005 ; Yu, 2003 ). One theory developed by Alfred Adler attempts to understand how family matters by considering the order of when a child enters a family ( Adler, 1964 ). Adler’s theory posits that different positions in a family birth order may be correlated both positive and negative life outcomes. For example, researchers have noted that first-born children have an increased susceptibility to both drug use as well as positive educational outcomes ( Laird & Shelton, 2006 ). Though limited in scope, new studies have indicated that Adler’s theory may have relevance with other cultures. The first born son may have more positive life outcome expectations due to prevailing cultural sentiments, which includes decision making for the family ( Galanti, 2003 ). Birth order status may also be affected by gender, for example, roles in the family may be correlated with birth order and with expectations of caregiving and/or decision making. For the purposes of this paper, we examined the influence of youth sex and birth order on drug use and education outcomes. We tested the Adlerian Individual Psychology theory to evaluate the importance of birth order and gender on education and whether or not youth had ever used cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana with a sample of youths living in Santiago, Chile. Adlerian theory has not been widely applied to diverse populations, and none in South America, therefore this theoretical framework could illuminate how family characteristics impact culturally different populations.

Birth Order and Adlerian Theory

Alfred Adler “was the first to develop a comprehensive theory of personality, psychological disorders and psychotherapy, which represented an alternative to the views of Freud” ( Adler, 1964 , p. ix–x). One facet of his complex body of work involves the importance of birth order for youth outcomes. Adlerian Theory suggests that birth order and the number of siblings affect a child’s potential. Adler called upon the importance of understanding the “Family Constellation”:

“It is a common fallacy to imagine that children of the same family are formed in the same environment. Of course there is much which is the same for all in the same home, but the psychic situation of each child is individual and differs from that of others, because of the order of their succession” ( Adler, 1964 , p. 96).

Scholars have shown that both psychological and actual birth order impact individual outcomes. They note that “although researchers have examined the effects of birth order on intelligence, achievement, and personality, many of these studies have insuperable flaws, and the best work has produced weak or inconsistent results” ( Freese & Powell, 1998 , p. 57). Issues that arise include “methodological difficulties, the likelihood of very small effect sizes (if any), and the uncertain theoretical status of birth position” ( Stagner, 1986 , p. 377). Contrary to these findings, more recent work holds to the strength of birth order as an important factor associated with different outcomes, especially for first-born individuals. For example, Sulloway (1996) studied evidence that examined the question of why some individuals—for him revolutionary scientists—rebel and achieve remarkable breakthroughs in their fields (i.e., Darwin). In his book he developed a strong theoretical stance on how birth order influences children’s outcomes within families. Sulloway (1996) claims that birth order has been criticized unfairly due largely to methodological issues, His discussion takes into account family dynamics of age, gender, class, and wealth to support the conclusion that “siblings raised together are almost as different in their personalities as people from different families” (p. xiii). From this point of view, Sulloway goes on to develop a complex narrative that interweaves biological and social sciences to show how family and birth order impact children’s outcomes. However, other scholars have suggested that across many outcomes, variation between siblings may be greater than variation between families, suggesting that much territory remains to be explored to understand the complex family dynamics which do affect life outcomes for individuals ( Conley, 2004 ). In addition, Freese, Powell, & Steelman (1999) argue that birth order effects that extend beyond personal attributes to social attitudes are minimal. Still they note that “although we find no evidence supporting Sulloway’s theoretical claims, our results cannot be taken as an indictment of evolutionary perspectives” ( Freese, Powell, & Steelman (1999) , p. 236).

This paper looks at the effects of actual birth order on several variables. We recognize that Adler suggested that psychological birth order is of vital importance to understanding a subject’s interpretation of their situation in an environment (such as the family) ( Adler, 1937 ). Studies have pointed to the usefulness in understanding psychological birth order; for example, one project looked at 134 school aged children using the White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory instrument and found support that psychological birth order effects coping skills ( Pilkington, White, & Matheny, 1997 ). The validity of the White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory Instrument to further observe that psychological birth order effects may trump actual birth order has also been noted ( Stewart & Campbell, 1998 ). Other more recent studies have examined psychological birth order with college students looking at: family atmosphere and personality ( Stewart, Stewart, & Campbell, 2001 ); lifestyle issues ( Gfroerer, Gfroerer, Curlette, White, & Kern, 2003 ); and multidemensional perfectionism ( Ashby, LoCicero, & Kenny, 2003 ). However, research has consistently shown that looking at actual birth order offers useful insights. In his review of birth order articles from 1960 to 1999, Eckstein (1998) reported statistically significant birth order studies (though not psychological birth-order studies) and offers some support for works looking at actual birth order. His review specifically notes that research has shown personality differences among subjects according to four major categories: oldest, middle, youngest, and single (p. 482). As Adler suggested, individuals in families experience difference environments within the same family and some of those differences can be attributed to birth-order ( Sullivan & Schwebel, 1996 ). In a study looking at ninety-three never-married firstborn, middle-born, and last-born undergraduate students, Sullivan & Schwebel found consistency with Adler’s theory in individuals’ relationship-cognitions (1996, p. 60). Another study looked at 154 students at a large southern univeristy to asses actual birth order on internal and external attributions and found that attributions differed by birth order for positive attributions ( Phillips & Phillips, 1998 ). One study examined 900 undergraduates who were asked to locate their birth order, the birth order of the parents and that of their best friend. This study provided evidence that showed individuals who shared the same birth order were more likely to be romantically involved or have close relationships with other similar birth order individuals ( Hartshorne, Salem-Hartshorne, & Hartshorne, 2009 ).

The field remains contentious. Other researchers have critized birth order scholarship on predicting only positive outcomes such as success in careers, test scores, and income ( Argys, Rees, Averrett, & Witoonchart, 2006 ). Researchers suggest that useful information about youth outcomes can also be understood by examining risky behavior for children, such as drug use and sexual activity. For instance, a recent study, examined how understanding birth order within family dynamics could impact young African American college students:

“Connecting a link between birth order and alcohol would constitute a “within family” measure study. The concept of “within family” concentrates on individual siblings and their sibling birth positions. Investigation factors such as an individual’s sibling position in relation to alcohol consumption may facilitate a better understanding of college drinking patterns and other high-risk behaviors” ( Laird & Shelton, 2006 , p. 19).

Thus, it is helpful to approach international settings using Adler’s theories in order to examine if there are effects that the children’s birth order roles have on both positive (educational outcomes) and negative (high-risk drug use patterns) life choices.

Adler’s work has rarely been applied to an international context, but recent work points to its persisting relevance. From a study that took data from the Department of Human Services from various years (2003–2007) of over 95,000 people from twelve Sub-Saharan Countries researchers developed a framework using fixed effect regressions per country for understanding how birth order affects first born educational outcomes while accounting for SES and gender Tenikue & Verheyden, 2010 .

Understanding how birth order and gender function within the context of diverse populations, in this case an international context, can be an important and vital area for researchers to explore. First, these studies further explain and improve culturally competent approaches for mental health practitioners and others interested in evidence-based work. Secondly, such work can contribute to the overall theory and literature on birth order.

However, assessing the effects of birth order have had mixed success ( Solloway, 1996 ). To further contribute to our understanding of birth order effects on youth behaviors, and building upon the work of prior researchers ( Jordan, Whiteside, & Manaster, 1982 ), we tested whether three theoretical models of birth order differentially accounted for variation in academic standing and substance use among community-dwelling adolescents in Santiago, Chile. These models were first suggested by Jorden, Whiteside, and Manaster (1982) as a way to test for possible birth order effects. These authors note that models were taken from previous research and consist of three slightly different ways of measuring birth order. The first model is called “research expedient” and takes into account first child only, the middle child, and the youngest including children who are the second child of only two children ( Falbo, 1977 ; 1981 ). The second model is called “Adler’s birth order positions” and looks again at ‘only child’, but adds new levels of first child, the second child, the middle of at least three children in a family, and the youngest child not including the second child of two children ( Shulman & Mosak, 1977 ). Finally, we used Shulman and Mosak (1977) as cited in Jordan, et. al (1982) family size model that takes into account family size (small, medium, or large) and then looks again at the birth order within those levels of family size. For example, this model considers the only child of a small, medium, or large family; then the model continues with first born; second born, middle children, and youngest children each within a small, medium, and large family. We chose the dependent variables, youth substance use and educational outcomes for the following reasons: first, studies have shown that these variables have some correlation with birth order ( Laird & Shelton, 2006 ); secondly, drug use has been seen as a rising issue for populations in Latin America, and one way to treat this problem is through examining educational outcomes.

In the present study we used these three definitions of birth order to account for differing opinions as to the efficacy of birth order studies. This work then can contribute to the birth order literature by testing models that take into account the expedient research, Adler’s birth order position, and family size definitions of birth order. To date, we are not aware of any studies that have tested more than one model of birth order simultaneously and that have examined Latin American populations for understanding how birth ordering and gender may be associated with youth educational outcomes and substance use and misuse.

This study used cross-sectional data from the Santiago Longitudinal Study, a NIDA-funded study of adolescents and their families in Santiago Chile. Participants included 946 youth (mean age 14 years, 50% male) from municipalities of mid- to low- socioeconomic status. Participants were recruited from a sample of approximately 1,200 youth who several years earlier had participated in a study of iron and nutritional status at INTA (Lozoff, et al., 2003). In 2008–2010, youth completed assessments that consisted of a 2-hr interviewer-administered questionnaire with comprehensive questions on drug use, drug opportunities, and a range of individual, familial, and contextual variables. Youth and their parental caregiver (usually the mother) were brought to the interview site where the survey was administered by a licensed psychologist.

Dependent measurements

We used two latent factors as dependent variables. One is a latent factor representing substance use while the second is a latent factor measuring academic standing. The substance use latent factor is composed by three indicators of substance use – whether the respondent had ever used alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana. Each of these three indicators is a dummy-coded variable recording whether or not the adolescent has ever consumed alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana, respectively.

The academic standing latent factor is composed by four indicators about adolescents’ self report on their academic standing compared to their classmates. These four indicators correspond to four subjects; language arts, history, mathematics and science. These questions are from the Youth Self Report ( Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001 ) whereby for each of these subjects, adolescents were asked to indicate how they were doing in comparison to their peers. Response categories were as follows: “1=Failing”, “2=Below average”, “3=Average”, “4=Above average”.

Independent measurements

The main independent variable is birth order . As indicated earlier, in this study we tested theoretical models using three definitions of birth order: research expedient, Adler’s birth order position, and family size ( Jordan, Whiteside, & Manaster, 1982 ).

According to the ‘Research Expedient’ operationalization of birth order, there are four categories: First born, only child, middle children and youngest including the 2nd of two. In our study we used first born as the reference category. Using “Adler’s birth order” definition, we operationalize birth order as having five categories: Only child, first born, second child, middle children at least of three and youngest excluding seconds. The reference category was first born. Finally, using a “Family size” definition, birth order is operationalized based on the combination of family size and birth order. Small families are defined as having only one or two children, middle families having three to four children and large families as having five or more children. Based on this categorization of family size there are twelve categories of birth order. However, because in our sample there were few cases in some of these categories we collapsed them into seven categories of birth order. These seven categories are: Only child, first of a small family, first of middle or large family, second of a small family, second of a medium or large family, third of a medium or large family and the youngest. The reference category is first of a small family.

The variables, age and socioeconomic status (SES), two continuous measures, were included as covariates. We used gender, based on youth self-report, as a grouping variable to test different estimations of the birth effect for males and females.

Analytic Methods

Using Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Covariates with categorical indicators and a threshold structure ( Muthén & Muthén, 2009 ), we tested for gender differences in the effect of birth order on substance use -alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use-; and adolescent academic standing. The models -following standard practices of confirmatory analyses with covariates- were estimated in two steps: the measurement part of the model and the pathways. As for the measurement part, we confirmed the factor structure of both outcomes substance use and academic standing using confirmatory factor analyses. The measurement part also assumed presence of non-invariance in both factors structures, which was verified by the robust chi-square difference test with mean and variance adjusted test statistics as proposed by ( Asparouhov & Muthén, 2006 ).

The second part of the estimations tested for gender differences using multiple group estimations with covariates by gender. In this part, we tested three multi group models, one model for each of the three definitions of birth order (research expedient, Adler’s birth order, and Family size) to test for gender differences between the birth order categories. .In this part of the modeling the differential effects of birth order by gender were tested individually using one model per coefficient that was significant per type of birth order definition. Then, we combined all gender differences into one model and tested it against a model that assumes no gender differences. This step is critical to determine the existence of differential e effects by gender. Note that if a coefficient is significant in the model for males or females, it does not imply that the difference between the male coefficient and female coefficient is significant. The gender differences were tested against a model that assumes no gender differences. The test used for nested models was the robust chi-square difference test with mean and variance adjusted test statistics ( Asparouhov & Muthén, 2006 ).

Given that the factor indicators are categorical, the estimator used was WLSMV a weighted least square parameter estimate using a diagonal weight matrix with standard errors and mean- and variance-adjusted chi-square test statistic that uses a full weight matrix, (Muthén & Muthén, 1998– 2009 ). All models were estimated using MPLUS 5.21 ( Muthén & Muthén, 2010 ).

Tables 1a and 1b display the descriptive characteristics of the sample and variables. Most of the adolescents reported that they performed at an average or above average level regardless of their gender except in the case of mathematics where male adolescents reported standing above the average more than female adolescents. More than fifty percent of adolescent had not consumed alcohol, cigarette and more than eighty percent had not consumed marijuana.

a Distribution of Substance Use Indicators and Academic Standing Indicators by Gender (481 Males and 465 Females)

	Male %	Female %		Male %	Female %


Failing	6	4	Not consumed	65	64
Below average	16	14	Consumed	35	36
Average	59	59
Above average	19	23	Not consumed	54	58
			Consumed	46	42
Failing	4	3
Below average	17	14	Not consumed	84	89
Average	55	60	Consumed	16	11
Above average	25	23

Failing	10	9
Below average	18	24
Average	46	48
Above average	26	19

Failing	4	3
Below average	12	15
Average	58	59
Above average	26	23

b Distribution of Birth Order and Mean and Standard Deviation for Age by Gender (481 Males and 465 Females)

	Male %	Female %


Only	7	10
First	30	28
Middle	28	26
Youngest	35	37

Only	7	10
First	30	28
Second	34	33
Middle	11	9
Youngest	18	20

Only Child	7	10
First of small family	20	17
First of medium/large family	11	11
Second of small family	17	16
Second of medium/large family	17	17
Third order with at least one younger sibling	11	9
Youngest med family	18	20

Mean	14.29	14.36
Std. dev.	1.43	1.41

Table 2 shows the results of the gender comparison of the significant birth order coefficients for each one of the three birth order definitions. Figures 1 to to3 3 depict the results for each one of the three set of models estimated by gender. Each is described next.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms345930f1.jpg

Notes . Solid lines indicate significant path or correlations at p<0.05 otherwise indicated (p<0.01). Dotted lines indicate non significant paths. The coefficients for second, middle and young on substance use were constrained to be equal among male and female adolescents. All coefficients are standardized and numbers in parenthesis report non-standardized coefficients.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms345930f3.jpg

Notes . Solid lines indicate significant path or correlations at p<0.05 otherwise indicated (p<0.01). Dotted lines indicate non significant paths. The coefficients for middle and young on substance use were constrained to be equal among male and female adolescents. All coefficients are standardized and numbers in parenthesis report non-standardized coefficients.

Model Comparison Test Based on Constraining Birth Order Coefficients to be Equal Between Male and Females (481 Males and 465 Females)

Coefficient tested	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	Chi-Square Test for Difference Testing
				Value	DF

Young on academic standing	0.989	0.985	0.031	3.689	1
Only on substance use	0.986	0.981	0.034	9.755	1
Middle on substance use	0.991	0.988	0.027	1.126	1
Young on substance use	0.992	0.989	0.026	0.514	1
Model with combined constraints	0.989	0.986	0.029	5.935	3
Full non invariant model	0.991	0.988	0.027

Second on academic standing	0.988	0.984	0.030	3.104	1
Young on academic standing	0.987	0.982	0.032	4.722	1
Only on substance use	0.987	0.982	0.031	4.993	1
Second on substance use	0.991	0.988	0.026	0.000	1
Middle on substance use	0.990	0.987	0.027	0.534	1
Young on substance use	0.991	0.988	0.026	0.024	1
Model with combined constraints	0.990	0.987	0.026	3.233	4
Full non invariant model	0.990	0.986	0.028

Young on academic standing	0.985	0.982	0.028	3.805	1
Only on substance use	0.986	0.983	0.028	3.902	1
Second small on substance use	0.989	0.987	0.025	0.457	1
Second/med/large on substance use	0.988	0.986	0.025	1.060	1
Third small/med/large on substance use	0.989	0.986	0.025	0.778	1
Young on substance use	0.989	0.987	0.024	0.005	1
Model with combined constraints	0.986	0.983	0.028	6.990	5
Full non invariant model	0.988	0.986	0.025

Notes . All models were nested in and compared to the full non-invariant model. All constraints in coefficients are set to be equal coefficient for male and female adolescents.

The results shown in Table 2 indicate that the effect of birth order varies by gender in two coefficients, according to the robust chi-square difference test with mean and variance adjusted test statistics ( Asparouhov & Muthén, 2006 ). These two coefficients are ‘only child’ on ‘substance use’ and ‘young’ on ‘academic achievement’. The effect of ‘only child’ on ‘substance use’ compared to ‘first child’ depends on gender across the three types of birth order definitions Research expedient (χ 2 = 9.755, p < 0.05), Adler (χ 2 = 4.993, p < 0.05) and Family size (χ 2 = 3.902, p < 0.05). The effect of young on academic standing varies by gender only in the case of Adler’s definition of birth order. . Below we describe in detail each one of these three models.

Research expedient model

Figure 1 depicts the results for this model. The overall fit of the model was very good (CFI = 0. 986, TLI=0. 986 and RMSEA = 0.029). Compared to first born adolescents, adolescents who were the only child (β = 0.563, p < 0.05), or were born in between siblings (β = 0.322, p < 0.05), or were the youngest (β = 0.221, p < 0.05) were more likely to have ever consumed substances (alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana). From these three coefficients, only the coefficient for being the only child was different between males and females. A significant association was present only in the case of female adolescents while in the case of males there was no difference in the consumption of substances between being only child and being the first born.

Adler’s birth order position model

Figure 2 displays the results for this model. The overall fit of the model was very good (CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.987 and RMSEA = 0.026). Compared to adolescents who were born first, there were associations with substance use for the other four birth order possibilities, a finding similar to those of the Research Expedient described above. Essentially, when compared to adolescents who were born first, those who were an only child (β = 0.561, p < 0.05), second order (β = 0.259, p < 0.05), were born between siblings (β = 0.373, p < 0.05), or were the youngest (β = 0.227, p < 0.05) were more likely to have ever consumed substances. From these four associations, only those of being the only child varied by gender. Females who were only child were more likely to have ever consumed substances (alcohol, cigarette, or marijuana) while male adolescents born as only child did not differ on their consumption of substances compared to first born adolescents. In addition, we also found differential associations for the case of being the last child on academic standing. Specifically, only male adolescents who were the last born were less likely to express better academic standing than male adolescents who were born in first order (β = −0.365, p < 0.05).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms345930f2.jpg

Notes . Solid lines indicate significant path or correlations at p<0.05 otherwise indicated (p<0.01). Dotted lines indicate non significant paths. The coefficients for second small, second med/large, third and young on substance use were constrained to be equal among male and female adolescents. All coefficients are standardized and numbers in parenthesis report non-standardized coefficients.

Family size model

Figure 3 presents the results for this model. The overall fit of the model is very good (CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.983 and RMSEA = 0.028). As was the case with the Research Expedient and Adler’s models, there were only differential or moderated associations in the case of adolescents who were born as an only child compared to being the first child in a small family. Female adolescents were at greater risk of having ever consumed substances (β = 0.608, p < 0.05), while there was no association for male adolescents. In addition, this model shows detrimental effects for those adolescents who were born second in a small family (β = 0.285, p < 0.05), born second in a medium or large family (β = 0.366, p < 0.05), born in third order in a medium or large family (β = 0.438, p < 0.05), and being the youngest (β = 0.284, p < 0.05). All of these adolescents were more likely to have consumed substances than first born adolescents in small families.

We found support for the Adlerian theory of individual psychology in the context of a large sample drawn from a non-U.S. population. This study adds some insights into how family dynamics within a Latin American population may contribute to youth educational and substance use outcomes. For all models tested (Research Expedient, Adler’s birth order, and Family Size), being the first born male was a protective factor against substance use. This was also true for first born females. For educational outcomes, birth order plays a different role. The research expedient model and the family size order showed no significance. However, under Adler’s birth order model being the first born does have an effect on better academic standing compared only to the youngest. In other words, being the youngest places the adolescent at risk of performing less well compared to older adolescents in their classrooms. One possible reason is that adolescents who are the youngest might be raised in more disadvantaged conditions than adolescents born first, especially in the case of poor families in Santiago, Chile. First born children may benefit not only from more parental attention, but also these children may receive more financial resources that can be allocated to their education. However, the results of our analyses controlling for SES and not controlling for SES were practically identical suggesting that SES may not serve to explain the findings. Furthermore, being a younger or youngest child may impact the amount of parental attention (in this case less), while also not receiving financial supports due to the possibility that low-income families may struggle with meeting the basic needs of a larger family.

We conclude that birth order may play some role with regard to substance use outcomes for youth in the Latin American country of Chile. Adler’s theory does indeed explain outcomes for a population of Santiago youths. Further studies taking into account family influences are recommended, especially in understanding the complexities of family relationships and motivations with regards to education and substance use. In addition, this information provides useful information for health care practitioners (psychologists, social workers, health care providers, and others) who work with Hispanic/ Latino populations in the United States and for those working with populations in South America. Understanding the importance of birth order and the strains and privileges of individual children within their birth order may help guide proper treatment and services. Finally, the contribution of looking at three different models of testing birth order (Research Expedient, Adler’s birth order, and Family Size), offered some useful insights for future researchers. We conclude that more attention should be given to the research design and methods used to address birth order effects. Also, such studies would benefit from addressing psychological birth order effects rather than only actual birth order effects; the inability of our dataset to address psychological birth order effects (which is at the heart of Adler’s theory) is indeed a limitation of our work. Other limitations impact our dependent variables. We used two latent factors as dependent variables. One is a latent factor representing substance use while the second is a latent factor measuring academic standing. We note that results considering birth order profile out whether the subject uses substances habitually or if this were only a one time use, and this might obscure the outcomes. We call for future work to include more refined measurements in the survey instruments to account for these differences. Also, the education variable is self-reported and is difficult to interpret. We would have preferred to have used standardized test scores results or some other objective measure, but we were unable to attain those data. Regardless, the results from this study do indicate that Adler’s framework can be an important doorway into studying international populations.

Achenbach TM, Rescorla L. Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: ASEBA; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Adler A. Position in family constellation influences lifestyle. International Journal of Individual Differences. 1937; 3 :211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
Adler A. In: Problems of Neurosis: A Book of Case Histories. Mairet P, editor. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
Allison K. Academic stream and tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use among Ontario high school students. The International Journal of the Addictions. 1992; 27 :561–570. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Argys LM, Rees DI, Averrett SL, Witoonchart B. Birth Order and Risky Adolescent Behavior. Economic Inquiry. 2006; 44 (2):215–233. [ Google Scholar ]
Ashby JS, LoCicero KA, Kenny MC. The Relationship of Multidimensional Perfectionism to Psychological Birth Order. Journal of Individual Psychology. 2003; 59 (1):42–51. [ Google Scholar ]
Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Robust Chi-Square Difference Testing with Mean and Variance Adjusted Test Statistics. 2006 Retrieved 2010 йил 25-August from Mplus Web Notes: No. 10: http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote10.pdf .
Bachman J, O’Malley P, Schulenberg J, Johnston L, Freedman-Doan P, Messersmith E. The education-drug use connection: How sucesses and failures in school relate to adolescent smoking, drinking, drug use, and delinquency. New York: L. Erlbaum Associates; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
Bergen H, Martin G, Roeger L, Allison S. Perceived academic performance and alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use: Longitudinal relationships in young community adolescents. Addictive Behaviors. 2005; 30 :1563–1573. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blendy JA, Maldonado R. Genetic analysis of drug addiction: the role of cAMP response element binding protein. Journal of Molecular Medicine. 1998; 76 (2):1432–1440. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Broadhead RS, Hechathorn DA. AIDS Prevention Outreach among Injection Drug Users: Agency Problems and New Approaches. Society for the Study of Social Problems. 1994; 41 (3):473–495. [ Google Scholar ]
Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Chilcoat H, Dishion T, Anthony J. Parent monitoring and the incidence of drug sampling in urban elementary school children. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1995; 141 :25–31. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Conley D. The Pecking Order: A Bold New Look at How Family and Society Determine Who We Become. New York, New York: Vintage Books: A Division of Random House, Inc.; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Eckstein D. Empirical Studies Indicating Significant Birth-Order-Related Personality Differences. Journal of Individual Psychology. 1998; 56 (4):481–494. [ Google Scholar ]
Falbo T. Relationships between birth category, achievement and interpersonal oreintation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981; 41 :121–131. [ Google Scholar ]
Falbo T. The only child: a review. Journal of Individual Psychology. 1977; 33 :47–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Freese J, Powell B. Review of Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives by Frank J. Sulloway. Contemporary Sociology. 1998; 27 (1):57–58. [ Google Scholar ]
Freese J, Powell B, Steelman LC. Rebel Without A Cause or Effect: Birth Order and Social Attitudes. American Sociological Review. 1999; 64 (2):207–231. [ Google Scholar ]
Galanti G-A. The Hispanic Family and Male-Female Relationships: An Overview. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2003; 14 (3):180–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Galea S, Ahern J, Vlahov D, Coffine PO, Fuller C, Leon AC, et al. Income distribution and risk of fatal drug overdose in New York City neighborhoods. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2003; 70 (2):139–148. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gfroerer KP, Gfroerer CA, Curlette WL, White J, Kern RM. Psychological Birth Order and the BASIS-A Inventory. Journal of Individual Psychology. 2003; 59 (1):30. [ Google Scholar ]
Hartshorne JK, Salem-Hartshorne N, Hartshorne TS. Birth order effects in the formation of long-term relationships. Journal of Individual Psychology. 2009; 65 (2) [ Google Scholar ]
Hays S. Structure and Agency and the Sticky Problem of Culture. Sociological Theory. 1994; 12 (1):57–72. [ Google Scholar ]
Hill K, Hawkins J, Catalano R, Abbott R, Guo J. Family influences on the risk of daily smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005; 37 :202–210. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jordan E, Whiteside M, Manaster G. A practical and effective research measure of birth order. Individual Psychology, Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research and Practice. 1982; 38 :253–260. [ Google Scholar ]
Kozel NJ, Adams EH. Epidemiology of Drug Abust: An Overview. Science. 1986; 234 :970–974. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kumpfer K, Alvarado R, Smith P, Bellamy N. Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptation in Family-Based Prevention Interventions. Prevention Science. 2002; 3 (3):241–246. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Laird TG, Shelton AJ. From an Adlerian Perspective: Birth Order, Dependency, and Bing Drinking on a Historically Black University Campus. The Journal of Individual Psychology. 2006; 62 (1):18–35. [ Google Scholar ]
Lara M, Gamboa C, Kahramanian MI, Morales LS, Bautista DE. Acculturation and Latino Health in the United States: A Review of the Literature and its Sociopolitical Context. Annual Review of Public Health. 2005; 26 :367–397. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Leman K. The New Birth Order Book: Why you are the way you are. Revell; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Muthén L, Muthén B. Mplus User's Guide, Sixth Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
Muthén L, Muthén B. Mplus User's Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Phillips AS, Phillips CR. Birth-Order Differences in Self-Attributions for Achievement. Journal of Individual Psychology. 1998; 56 (4):474–480. [ Google Scholar ]
Pilkington LR, White J, Matheny KB. Perceived Coping Resources and Psychological Birth Order in School-Aged Children. Individual Psychology. 1997; 53 (1):42–57. [ Google Scholar ]
Shulman B, Mosak H. Birth order and ordinal position: Two Adlerian views. Journal of Individual Psychology. 1977; 33 :114–121. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Solloway FJ. Born to Revel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Pantheon; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Stagner BH. The Viability of Birth Order Studies in Substance Abuse Research. The International Journal of the Addictions. 1986; 21 (3):377–384. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stewart AE, Campbell LF. Validity and Reliability of the White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory. Journal of Individual Psychology. 1998; 54 (1):41–60. [ Google Scholar ]
Stewart AE, Stewart EA, Campbell LF. The Relationship of Psychological Birth Order to the Family Atmosphere and to Personality. Journal of Individual Psychology. 2001; 57 (4):363–387. [ Google Scholar ]
Sullivan BF, Schwebel AI. Birth-Order Position, Gender, and Irrational Relationship Beliefs. Journal of Individual Psychology. 1996; 52 (1):54–64. [ Google Scholar ]
Table 1a. Projected Population of the United States, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050. U.S. Census Bureau; 2000. Jan, йил, From. [ Google Scholar ]
Tenikue M, Verheyden B. Birth Order and Schooling: Theory and Evidence from Twelve Sub-Saharan Countries. Journal of African Economies. 2010; 00 (00):1–37. [ Google Scholar ]
Williams GH. The determinants of health: structure, context, and agency. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2003; 25 :131–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yu J. association between parental alcohol-related behaviors and children's drinking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2003; 69 :253–262. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Philosophy Of Science

An Analysis of Empirical Validity of Alfred Adler’s Theory of Birth Order

January 2017

Caldwell University

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
Faiza Khaliq

Dr Saima Batool
Ruth Imbuye
Risper Konzolo
Johyn Masinde
Florence Chemayiek

Marcela Castillo
Robert B. Zajonc
Nicholas C. Herrera

Bogdan Cichomski
J Indiv Psychol

Judith Rich Harris

Ulrike Zach
Heinz L. (Ed) Ansbacher
Rowena R. (Ed) Ansbacher

Alfred About
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

IMAGES

What Your Birth Order Says About Your Personality
Does Birth Order Effect Our Personalities?
Birth Order Theory
Birth Order: Which one are you in your family?
Here's How Your Birth Order Affects Your Personality
PPT

VIDEO

A New Doctrine of Initial Creation, Dr. Thomas Jay Oord
Birth Order Personality Types 🧐😶‍🌫️🥸 w OnlyJayus
Every Wonder About The Birth Order Theory? 5 Quick Facts Coming in Hot! #shorts #facts #siblings
Personality & Birth Order Theory (Psychology)
Birth order chronicles: another mystery SOLVED! #comedy #parentcomedy #birthorder
birth order psychology

COMMENTS

Settling the debate on birth order and personality
In the last year, two definitive papers have emerged to show that birth order has little or no substantive effect on personality. In the first paper, a huge sample was used to test the relation between birth order and personality in a between-family design, and the average effect was equal to a correlation of 0.02 .
New Evidence on the Impacts of Birth Order
The psychology literature has long debated the role of birth order in determining children's IQs; this debate was seemingly resolved when, in 2000, J. L. Rodgers et al. published a paper in American Psychologist entitled "Resolving the Debate Over Birth Order, Family Size, and Intelligence" that referred to the apparent relationship between ...
Examining the effects of birth order on personality
By contrast, the search for birth-order effects on personality has resulted in a vast body of inconsistent findings, as documented by reviews in the 1970s and 1980s (9, 10). Nearly 70 y after Adler's observations, Frank Sulloway revitalized the scientific debate by proposing his Family Niche Theory of birth-order effects in 1996 .
How Does Birth Order Shape Your Personality?
Adler, the founder of individual psychology, was heavily influenced by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Key points of Adler's birth order theory were that firstborns were more likely to develop a strong sense of responsibility, middleborns a desire for attention, and lastborns a sense of adventure and rebellion.
Settling the debate on birth order and personality
In the last year, two definitive papers have emerged to show that birth order has little or no substantive effect on personality. In the first paper, a huge sample was used to test the relation between birth order and personality in a between-family design, and the average effect was equal to a correlation of 0.02 .
Alfred Adler Theory Of Individual Psychology & Personality
Alfred Adler's Theory of Individual Psychology posits that individuals are motivated primarily by social interests and a striving for superiority or self-improvement. ... The term birth order refers to the order in which the children of a family were born. Adler (2013b, pp. 150-155) believed that birth order had a significant and predictable ...
Does Birth Order Affect Personality?
For example, a 1968 study showed that, compared with later borns, first borns are less likely to participate in dangerous sports because of fears of physical injury. And a 1980 study of 170 female ...
Does Birth Order Really Determine Personality Traits?
But the birth-order effect seems to particularly enthuse and preoccupy us. Perhaps because it's so concrete: it's rather more fun and more satisfying to attribute a baby's generous smile to ...
Birth Order
Introduction. Birth order theory is the idea that the order in which a child is born within their family has influence over their development and personality. The theory was originally introduced by psychotherapist Alfred Adler in the 1920s (Eckstein and Kaufman 2012). Since Adler's initial research, others have attempted to make ...
Does Birth Order Impact Personality? I Psych Central
Alfred Adler's birth order theory suggests that your personality is affected by the order in which you were born in your family. We've all heard the clichés. You might tell someone who's ...
Birth order theory: Personality traits and more
Summary. Birth order theory suggests that birth order changes the way a family perceives and treats a child, which in turn affects their personality development. The Austrian psychotherapist ...
Does being the oldest or youngest sibling really shape your personality?
Frank Sulloway, one of the theory's most prominent modern advocates, looked at adults and their careers in the 1990s and 2000s to assess the influence of birth order.
Examining the effects of birth order on personality
Nearly 70 y after Adler's observations, Frank Sulloway revitalized the scientific debate by proposing his Family Niche Theory of birth-order effects in 1996 ().On the basis of evolutionary considerations, he argued that adapting to divergent roles within the family system reduces competition and facilitates cooperation, potentially enhancing a sibship's fitness—thus, siblings are like ...
A Closer Look at the Birth Order Effect on Early Cognitive and School
Introduction. The effect of birth order on early childhood development has attracted extensive research interests in the past decades. While the classic birth order theories (Blake, 1981; Zajonc, 1983) recognize the limitation of family resources and propose a firstborn advantage, the social learning theories highlight the supportive role of older siblings through positive sibling ...
Has Your Birth Order Shaped Who You Are?
In " Why Your Big Sister Resents You, " Catherine Pearson explores the question of whether birth order shapes who we are or not: In a TikTok video that has been watched more than 6 million ...
Birth Order Is an Important Influence on Personality
Birth order is an intuitively appealing explanation for why genetically similar siblings are so different. The neo-Freudian psychotherapist Alfred Adler was a vocal proponent of the idea that birth order was a significant determinant of personality. Evidence that birth order is a systematic predictor of personality is weak.
Birth Order Essay
Birth Order, as in the order a child is born in their family, has been a popular topic for researchers and the general public for decades. Originally it was claimed that personality was determined by birth order and even now there are many stereotypes of the firstborn being mature and driven while the youngest child is often described as wild and rebellious (Bleske-Rechek and Kelley, 2013).
Birth Order Dating Theory: How Sibling Rank Affects Romantic
The birth order dating theory posits that the order in which we are born into our families can have a profound impact on our personality traits, behaviors, and ultimately, our romantic compatibility with others. Rooted in the pioneering work of Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler in the early 20th century, this theory suggests that each birth ...
Birth Order Theory: Insights Into Your Personality
Birth order theory: Why it matters. Theories on personality formation, adaptation, and environmental influences across cultures vary. The concept of birth order is often credited to Austrian psychoanalyst Alfred Adler in the early 1900s. He was one of the first to explore the idea that a person's place in their family tree could predict personality traits.
The Relationship of Birth Order and Gender with Academic Standing and
Birth Order and Adlerian Theory. Alfred Adler "was the first to develop a comprehensive theory of personality, psychological disorders and psychotherapy, which represented an alternative to the views of Freud" (Adler, 1964, p. ix-x).One facet of his complex body of work involves the importance of birth order for youth outcomes.
An Analysis of Empirical Validity of Alfred Adler's Theory of Birth Order
the theory since its necessity is inevitable to account for. the changes that occur in society as time passes. There-. fore, a thorough analysis of the comprehensive data. shows that Adler' s ...

New Evidence on the Impacts of Birth Order

Birth Order and Economic Success

Birth Order and Cognitive Skills

The Effect of Birth Order on Non-Cognitive Skills

The Effect of Birth Order on Health

Possible Mechanisms

Researchers

How Does Birth Order Shape Your Personality?

What Is Adler’s Birth Order Theory?

Debunking Myths and Limitations

At a Glance

How Birth Order Influences Relationships

Communication

Relationship Roles

Expectations

Other Factors Play a Role

Alfred Adler’s Theory of Individual Psychology and Personality

Key Takeaways

Individual Psychology

Compensation, Overcompensation, and Complexes

Compensation for Weaknesses

Overcompensation

Inferiority Complex

Superiority Complex

Personality Typology, or Styles of Life

Birth Order

Second-born

Youngest Child

Critical Evaluation

How did Adler Disagree with Freud?

Does Birth Order Affect Personality?

On supporting science journalism

Does Birth Order Really Determine Personality? Here’s What the Research Says

Most Popular from TIME

More Must-Reads from TIME

Birth Order

Introduction

Cognitive Development

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

Does being the oldest or youngest sibling really shape your personality?

Origins of the psychological theory of birth order

What the research actually says about birth order

You May Also Like

Is becoming a dad good for your health?

Asking for help is actually really good for you, according to science

Boredom can actually help people reach their creative potential. Here's how.

What really makes a personality?

Related Topics

Why do we blindly follow trends—even when they’re bad for us?

We swapped baths for showers—but which one is better for you?

It's hard to reconnect with old friends. Science may have a solution.

Just one pregnancy can add months to your biological age

IVF revolutionized fertility. Will these new methods do the same?

History & Culture

Has Your Birth Order Shaped Who You Are?

BIRTH ORDER IS AN IMPORTANT INFLUENCE ON PERSONALITY

Information

Log in to Wiley Online Library

Password Changed Successfully

Create a new account

Request Username

Birth Order Dating Theory: How Sibling Rank Affects Romantic Relationships

The Foundations of Birth Order Theory

Birth Order Theory: Insights Into Your Personality

Birth order theory: Why it matters

What birth order theory is not

The family's role in birth order personality traits

How birth order may affect personality

First child

Second child

Middle child

Youngest child