Psychological birth order

Birth order differences on school performance and educational achievement of children was investigated by Modin in his 2002 study. The data taken from 14,192 boys and girls in Sweden revealed that school marks deteriorated with increasing birth order. More specifically, children born later in the sibship had lower marks in the areas of arithmetic and Swedish. The likelihood of having completed upper secondary school decreased with increasing birth order, and laterborns were overrepresented in those children that were required to repeat a grade in school.

This study controlled for gender, child’s age, birth year, mother’s age, social factors at birth (social class and mother’s marital status), and biological factors at birth (birth weight and gestational age). Modin (2002) suggests that even if parents treat their children equally with respect to amount of time spent with each child doing homework . and studying, laterborns will still be affected negatively simply because of the fact that there are other children in need of parents’ time in the home, whereas firstborns had the chance to experience more educational time with parents without having to share them with siblings.

A limitation of this study was that it was not possible to control for family size and birth spacing. A drawback of much of the research done on the effects of birth order is the use of actual birth order instead of psychological birth order. Birth order personalities are suspected to be formed early in life. As siblings grow and mature, each one selects a different niche in the family. As each progressive sibling chooses a niche, the younger or laterborn children select different ones. This niche selection process has been used to explain the differences in traits and personality characteristics that siblings exhibit (Adler, 1956).

This concept of psychological birth order is in accordance with Adlerian theory which emphasizes how each individual has a self-perceived position in his or her family, and this position may or may not be the individual’s sequential position in the family. Gfroerer, Gfroerer, Curiette, White, and Kem (2003) investigated the relationship among psychological birth order, actual birth order, and lifestyle. They found that there was a stronger relationship between psychological birth order and lifestyle than between actual birth order and lifestyle. Gfroerer et al.

(2003) used the Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Success – Adult Form (BASIS-A Inventory) to identify how one’s lifestyle, based on one’s perceptions and beliefs of early childhood experience, contributes to how one solves various problems related to work, social, and intimate relationships. They found that the psychological position of the youngest child (the individual perceiving oneself as the youngest) is positively related to measures of belonging/social interest, entitlement, striving for perfection, and softness, and negatively related to being cautious.

The researchers also found that nine out of the ten scales on the BASIS-A were related to psychological birth order position. This demonstrates the importance of psychological birth order rather than actual birth order in this kind of research. A limitation of this study was that the sample mainly consisted of young, single, Caucasian, female college students. The researchers’ cite a further limitation of this study in that they did not examine siblings’ gender or age spacing between siblings.

Psychological birth order reflects the individual’s perception of the position and role played within the family, thus psychological birth order reflects environmental influences rather than genetic variables. A number of researchers have attempted to discount the effects of birth order on personality, behavior, and other variables. The only study found to date attempting to link the exact constructs of birth order and sensation seeking is one by Crazier and Bridsey (2003).

This study examined the relationship between birth order position and shyness or sensation seeking, being that novelty is an essential element in both of these traits. Although not established empirically, the timidity and inhibition of shyness seems to be the opposite of the impulsiveness, risk-taking, and search for novel stimuli that is characteristic of sensation seeking. The authors suggest that laterborn children may experience more pressure to develop social skills and therefore develop greater confidence in order to effectively compete with their older siblings.

The findings revealed that “shyness is negatively correlated with sensation seeking in the social realm rather than with a tendency to seek for novel and intense sensations and experiences more generally” (Crozier & Birdsey, 2003, p. 132). The authors make a reference to Sulloway’s theory and Darwin who presents an example of a soldier who is brave in battle but shy before strangers, suggesting that shyness is a social phenomenon and is not necessarily linked with weariness and timidity in other areas of life.

This study did not find a correlation between birth order and sensation seeking, but the authors state that this is not to be presented as an argument against the importance of birth order on personality characteristics or specific social behaviors as many other studies do predict such relationships. Conclusion Both Adler and Sulloway agree that birth order has an effect on the personality development of the individual. The family environment is of great importance as the individual adapts to his or her position in order to attract parental resources.

Firstborns tend to be classified as traditional, conforming to parental expectations, conscientious, dominant and rule abiding. Laterborn children are seen as more liberal, rebellious and open-minded. Adler’s theory comes from a relational, family context frame of reference while Sulloway’s theory is based on evolutionary principles. In fact, these theories serve as a basis for current research on birth order effect on the personality. Three studies examined within this paper confirm this completely: while Crozier and Birdsey’s (2003) study elaborated on Sulloway’s theory, Modin’s (2002) and Gfroerer’s et al.

(2003) studies are based on Adler’s theory. References Adler, A. (1958). What life should mean to you. New York, NY: Capricorn Books. Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. Edited by Heinz Ansbacher and Rowena Ansbacher. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Crozier, W. R. & Birdsey, N. (2003). Shyness, sensation seeking and birth order. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 127-134. Abstract: The study found no relationship between birth-order position and shyness or sensation seeking in a sample of 250 students.

Shyness was significantly negatively correlated with total sensation seeking scores and scores on the four subscales, but closer analysis showed that this relationship was mediated by the correlation between shyness and disinhibition. This pattern implies that shyness is wariness specifically in social situations. Gfroerer, Gfroerer, Curlette, White, & Kem (2003). Psychological birth order and the BASIS-A Inventory. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(1), 30-41.

Abstract: The relationships between psychological birth order position variables and lifestyle themes as measured by the BASIS-A Inventory (Wheeler, Kern, & Curlette, 1993) were examined. The White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory (Campbell, White, & Stewart, 1991) and the BASIS-A Inventory were administered to 125 women at a college in the southeastern United States. Statistically significant Pearson correlations were found between some psychological birth order variables and lifestyle themes. Nine out of ten of the scales on the BASIS-A Inventory were related to psychological birth order position.

These relationships further support and elaborate Adlerian theory, which has long associated an individual’s perception of his or her place within the family and that person’s lifestyle. Modin, B. (2002). Birth order and educational career: A study of school performance and achieved education of children born in early-twentieth-century Sweden. Journal of Family History, 27(1), 25-39. Abstract: This study examines birth order differences in third-grade school marks and achieved education based on the 14,192 boys and girls who were born at the Uppsala Academic Hospital, Sweden, during the period 1915-29.

The methods used for the corresponding analyses are OLS regression and logistic regression. In the analysis of third-grade school marks, a subsample is used. The results showed that school marks worsened and the chances of having completed upper secondary school declined with increasing birth order. Neither biological nor social factors at birth explained the quite dramatic differences found between birth order categories. Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics and creative lives. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

The place of the individual within the family, the first social group encountered, has been suggested to be a contributing factor in shaping human personalities and influencing behavior and socialization. Researchers have defined birth order terms that continue to be …

Conversely, the youngest can be lazy, choosing to remain the baby and be taken care of. Adler describes a kind of paradox in which youngest children are both ambitious and lazy. He states that youngest children are often spoiled, and …

Brain tumor according to researches is dependent on birth order. Researches show that last borns are more affected that first borns and that the disease prevalence depends on the number of children in a family so, the bigger the number …

This paper ought to review and study the possible connection between child order and personality, with respect to the theory as proposed by Alfred Adler. The paper would take a look at what the theory is all about and whether …

David from Healtheappointments:

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/chNgQy