Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Birth order

Birth order refers to an individual's ordinal position by age among siblings within a family, encompassing categories such as firstborn, middle-born, last-born, and only child. This concept, one of the most ubiquitous aspects of human family structure, has intrigued psychologists and researchers for over a century due to hypotheses that it shapes cognitive, personality, and behavioral development through differential parental treatment, sibling dynamics, and resource allocation.^[1] Early investigations, beginning with Francis Galton's 1874 observation of firstborn overrepresentation among prominent English scientists, laid the groundwork for exploring birth order's potential influences on achievement and intellect.^[1] Alfred Adler, a pioneering psychoanalyst, extended these ideas in the 1920s by proposing that birth order profoundly affects personality formation, with firstborns often developing traits like responsibility and conservatism due to initial parental focus, while later-borns might exhibit greater openness and competitiveness from vying for attention.^[1] Adler's framework, part of his broader individual psychology theory, categorized siblings into distinct psychological profiles and influenced subsequent studies on family dynamics. However, empirical research has yielded inconsistent results, with early anecdotal and small-scale studies supporting Adlerian claims, but larger, more rigorous analyses revealing limited or null effects on most outcomes.^[2] Contemporary large-scale studies, including meta-analyses and nationally representative samples from multiple countries, indicate that birth order has a small but consistent positive association with intelligence, where firstborns score approximately 1 to 2 IQ points higher than later-borns, potentially attributable to greater parental investment in early education and tutoring.^[1] In contrast, effects on core personality traits—such as the Big Five dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness—appear negligible when controlling for family size and socioeconomic factors, challenging popular stereotypes like the "responsible oldest" or "rebellious youngest."^[1] Some evidence points to modest within-family differences in areas like educational attainment and risk-taking, where later-borns may show slightly higher propensity for novelty-seeking behaviors during adolescence, though these diminish in adulthood.^[3]^[4] Overall, while birth order remains a topic of ongoing debate, modern consensus emphasizes its subtle role overshadowed by genetic, environmental, and cultural influences.^[5]

Historical and Theoretical Foundations

Alfred Adler's Theory

Alfred Adler, an Austrian psychiatrist and founder of individual psychology, introduced the concept of birth order as a significant influence on personality development in his 1927 book Understanding Human Nature. He posited that a child's position within the family constellation shapes their psychological makeup through the dynamics of sibling interactions and parental expectations, emphasizing how these early experiences foster feelings of inferiority and the drive for superiority. Adler's framework departed from Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic emphasis on sexual drives, instead highlighting social and environmental factors in Vienna's working-class families, where he conducted extensive clinical observations of children and adults.^[6] Central to Adler's theory are the distinct personality traits emerging from each birth order position. Firstborn children, initially the sole recipients of parental attention, often develop responsible, conservative, and ambitious qualities, valuing power and tradition as guardians of family norms; however, the "dethroning" by a younger sibling can instill jealousy and a heightened sensitivity to competition. Second-born or middle children, motivated to differentiate from their older siblings, tend to become competitive, diplomatic, and socially adept, excelling in cooperation and mediation to secure affection and significance within the family. Youngest children, frequently pampered and seen as the "baby" of the family, may exhibit creative, rebellious, or attention-seeking behaviors, leveraging unconventional strategies to assert themselves amid established sibling hierarchies. Only children, without siblings to rival, often mature early and appear self-reliant but can become self-centered and overly dependent on parental approval, struggling with independence in later life. Adler described "birth order compensation" as the mechanism by which children adopt unique roles to overcome perceived inferiorities and avoid direct conflict with siblings, such as the firstborn's shift from pampered status to authoritative figure upon the arrival of the next child. This dethroning process, observed in his Viennese clinic, triggers a lifelong striving for superiority, where individuals compensate for early displacements by emphasizing strengths like intellectual achievement or social charm. For instance, a second-born might counter the firstborn's dominance by forming alliances outside the family, fostering diplomatic skills. These ideas, drawn from Adler's qualitative analyses of family dynamics rather than empirical quantification, laid the groundwork for understanding personality as a holistic response to social positioning.^[7]

Modern Theoretical Developments

In the mid-20th century, birth order research evolved beyond clinical observations, incorporating evolutionary psychology and sociological frameworks to explain sibling dynamics as adaptive strategies within families. Building on Alfred Adler's foundational ideas of ordinal position influencing personality, modern theorists emphasized empirical testing and interdisciplinary integration.^[8] A seminal contribution came from Frank Sulloway's 1996 book Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives, which posits birth order as an evolutionary adaptation shaped by sibling competition for limited parental resources. Sulloway argued that firstborns, facing no rivals initially, tend to align with authority and conform to parental expectations to secure investments, while later-borns develop innovative and rebellious traits to differentiate themselves and gain favor, a pattern evidenced through historical analyses of over 6,000 scientists and revolutionaries where later-borns were disproportionately represented among paradigm-shifters like Darwin and Marx.^[9] Parallel to evolutionary models, the resource dilution hypothesis emerged as a sociological explanation for birth order effects, suggesting that parental time, attention, and economic investments diminish with each additional child, disproportionately impacting later-borns' development. This model gained robust support from Sandra E. Black, Paul J. Devereux, and Kjell G. Salvanes' 2005 analysis of comprehensive Norwegian administrative data covering over 240,000 siblings, which demonstrated that birth order accounts for much of the negative association between family size and educational outcomes, as later-borns receive diluted resources compared to firstborns.^[10] Early birth order theories, including Adler's, faced significant criticisms for relying on small, non-representative samples and retrospective self-reports prone to bias, prompting a methodological shift toward large-scale, longitudinal designs in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. For instance, a 2015 study using data from over 20,000 participants across three national panels highlighted how prior research overstated effects due to inadequate controls for family confounds, urging reliance on within-family comparisons. This trend culminated in a 2024 PNAS analysis of over 710,000 adults from international English-speaking samples, which employed advanced statistical modeling to identify novel personality variations, such as higher levels of Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness in middle-borns compared to only children, underscoring the value of massive datasets in resolving debates.^[11] Contemporary developments have integrated birth order with attachment theory, originally formulated by John Bowlby, to elucidate how ordinal position modulates sibling rivalry and parental favoritism through early bonding patterns. Bowlby-inspired models view firstborns as primary attachment figures for later siblings, fostering caretaking roles but also intensifying competition for parental affection, while parental differential treatment—often favoring firstborns—can disrupt secure attachments and exacerbate rivalry, as documented in longitudinal studies of family interactions where birth order predicts variations in emotional security and conflict resolution.^[8]

Effects on Personality and Behavior

Core Personality Traits

Empirical research on birth order and personality has increasingly focused on the Big Five traits—openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—using large-scale datasets to identify small but consistent patterns. A 2024 analysis of over 785,000 adults from two independent samples revealed modest differences across birth order positions, with effect sizes typically ranging from d = 0.10 to 0.27.^[11] Firstborns and only children scored higher on openness to experience compared to middleborns and lastborns (d ≈ 0.10), potentially reflecting greater exposure to parental intellectual stimulation without sibling competition. Laterborns, particularly middleborns, showed elevated extraversion relative to only children (d ≥ 0.10), aligning with adaptive strategies for social differentiation in family dynamics. However, no significant birth order effects emerged for conscientiousness or neuroticism (emotionality equivalent) in this study, though earlier smaller-scale investigations have occasionally noted slight elevations in conscientiousness among firstborns. Sibling de-identification, a process where siblings diverge in traits to minimize rivalry and secure unique family niches, particularly influences middle children. This mechanism fosters higher agreeableness among middleborns, as they develop cooperative orientations to navigate conflicts between older and younger siblings, evidenced by their elevated scores on agreeableness and related honesty-humility dimensions (d = 0.24–0.27 vs. only children) in large adult samples.^[11]^[8] These patterns are synthesized in recent reviews, which highlight support for middleborns' prosocial adaptations as a response to resource competition in multi-child families. Gender interactions moderate these effects, with stronger birth order differences observed in mixed-gender sibling groups due to heightened rivalry and role differentiation. For instance, firstborn boys exhibit greater agreeableness when their next younger sibling is a girl, suggesting gender composition amplifies de-identification pressures.^[12] Only children, lacking siblings, often mirror firstborns in achievement-oriented traits like conscientiousness but display heightened autonomy and independence, stemming from undivided parental attention that encourages self-reliance. Longitudinal evidence indicates these personality differences remain relatively stable from childhood through early adulthood but tend to diminish thereafter, as individuals exit the family environment and broader social influences dominate. A 2023 study tracking children aged 10–13 into middle adulthood found birth order-linked traits, such as those tied to family niche specialization, fade post-adolescence, consistent with evolutionary models like Sulloway's, which posits sibling competition shapes early personality but not lifelong rigidity.^[4]^[1]

Behavioral Tendencies and Achievement

Birth order influences behavioral tendencies related to risk-taking, with later-born children displaying higher propensity for risk in familial interactions compared to firstborns, though these differences do not extend to external environments. A 2023 specification-curve analysis of data from 49,621 children aged 10-13 years revealed that such effects are prominent during early adolescence but diminish as siblings leave the family home, suggesting that intra-family dynamics drive these patterns rather than inherent traits.^[4] In terms of achievement motivation, firstborns are more inclined to seek leadership positions, aligning with their roles as family pacesetters, while youngest children often exhibit elevated creativity, particularly in artistic domains. Frank Sulloway's historical examination of Nobel laureates supports this, showing firstborns overrepresented in conventional fields like literature and medicine, whereas later-borns predominate in innovative areas such as physics and chemistry, where creative disruption is key.^[13] Sibling rivalry fosters these motivational differences by encouraging niche specialization to minimize competition for parental resources. Sibling dynamics further shape career orientations through competitive processes, leading firstborns toward established, traditional professions and later-borns toward entrepreneurial paths that leverage risk tolerance. Recent research underscores the nuanced nature of these effects, emphasizing contextual rather than universal influences.

Cognitive and Educational Outcomes

Intelligence Differences

Research on birth order and cognitive abilities has primarily focused on differences in IQ scores and problem-solving performance, revealing small but consistent patterns favoring firstborn children. The dilution hypothesis posits that later-born siblings receive less undivided parental attention and intellectual stimulation, resulting in modestly lower cognitive development. According to Zajonc's 1976 confluence model, this resource dilution within larger families leads to later-borns scoring approximately 1-3 IQ points lower than firstborns, as intellectual environments become progressively less enriched with each additional child.^[14] This model has been empirically supported and refined using large-scale registry data; for instance, a 2017 analysis of Norwegian administrative records confirmed an average IQ advantage of about 3 points for firstborns over second-borns, attributing it to within-family dynamics rather than between-family confounds.^[15] Empirical findings across diverse populations indicate a small negative linear effect of birth order on cognitive measures, where each subsequent birth position is associated with slightly lower IQ scores, though the firstborn advantage diminishes notably in smaller families. A large-scale study of over 20,000 German adults found firstborns outperforming later-borns by roughly 1.5 IQ points on average, with effects weakening as family size decreases due to sustained parental investment.^[1] Similarly, analyses adjusting for modern trends like educational expansion show that while later-borns face a cognitive penalty in larger sibships, this gap narrows in two-child families, where resource dilution is minimal.^[16] Potential testing artifacts may contribute to observed differences, as firstborns often demonstrate superior performance on novel or fluid intelligence tasks within IQ assessments, possibly due to greater exposure to structured learning environments early on. However, no robust birth order differences emerge in adult crystallized intelligence, which relies on accumulated knowledge rather than novel problem-solving, suggesting that any early gaps largely equalize over time through life experiences.^[1] Recent reviews highlight that birth order effects explain only about 10% of the variance in cognitive outcomes linked to family size, with socioeconomic factors such as parental education and income serving as significant confounders that amplify or mask these within-family patterns.^[16]

Educational and Career Attainment

Research on birth order reveals consistent associations with educational outcomes, where firstborn children tend to achieve higher levels of schooling compared to their later-born siblings. Analyses indicate firstborns complete approximately 0.2 to 0.6 years more of education on average than later-borns, a gap attributed to within-family variations in parental investment and support.^[17]^[15] These educational disparities extend into career trajectories, with firstborns overrepresented in leadership and top managerial roles, reflecting their advantages in academic preparation and credentialing. In contrast, later-borns are more likely to pursue creative or riskier career paths, including entrepreneurship and self-employment, as evidenced by extensions of Frank Sulloway's framework to contemporary labor market data. Firstborns also show higher rates of employment in top managerial roles, while later-borns gravitate toward innovative fields that reward nonconformity.^[15]^[18] Mechanisms underlying these patterns include elevated parental expectations for firstborns, who often receive undivided attention and encouragement toward achievement-oriented goals. Resource allocation within families further favors firstborns, diluting investments in education for subsequent children due to time and financial constraints. In contexts like China's one-child policy, implemented from 1979 to 2015, these effects were amplified, as only children—effectively perpetual firstborns—benefited from concentrated parental resources, leading to elevated educational outcomes compared to multi-child families post-policy relaxation.^[19]^[20]^[21] Recent trends indicate that birth order effects on educational and career attainment are weakening, particularly in societies advancing gender equality and experiencing smaller family sizes, as shown in 2024 analyses of global data.^[22] Adjustments for educational expansion and gendered sibling structures reveal diminishing net impacts, as egalitarian norms reduce traditional firstborn advantages in resource distribution and expectations. Intelligence differences may partially mediate these associations, though environmental factors dominate observed outcomes.^[23]^[23]^[24]

Other Psychological Influences

Sexual Orientation

The fraternal birth order effect refers to the observation that the probability of a male developing a homosexual orientation increases with the number of older biological brothers born to the same mother. According to a meta-analysis of 20 studies involving over 7,000 homosexual and heterosexual men, each additional older brother raises the odds of homosexuality in a later-born male by approximately 33%. This effect has been replicated consistently across diverse populations and is estimated to account for 15-29% of male homosexuality cases.^[25] The leading explanation for this phenomenon is the maternal immune hypothesis, which posits that a mother's repeated exposure to male-specific fetal proteins, such as the Y-linked antigen NLGN4Y, triggers an immune response that strengthens with each successive male pregnancy. This immunological reaction may influence fetal brain development, potentially affecting sexual orientation in later-born sons. Direct evidence supporting this hypothesis comes from a study measuring anti-NLGN4Y antibodies in maternal blood, which found higher levels in mothers of homosexual sons compared to those of heterosexual sons, independent of the number of male fetuses.^[26] Recent analyses have confirmed the effect's robustness across populations.^[27] No comparable fraternal birth order effect has been reliably observed in females, where sibling order shows little to no association with lesbian orientation. Similarly, data on non-binary individuals remain limited and do not indicate a strong link. Recent cross-cultural studies, including those in non-Western societies like Samoa, demonstrate that the effect persists across diverse environments, minimizing the role of cultural confounds such as family dynamics or societal norms.^[28]^[29] Criticisms of the fraternal birth order effect include potential biases from small or non-representative samples in early studies, which may inflate effect sizes. Additionally, the effect is not deterministic, explaining only a subset of cases, and its interplay with genetic predispositions suggests multifactorial causation rather than a singular mechanism. Some analyses propose it may arise as a statistical artifact.^[30]

Mental Health and Well-Being

Research indicates that birth order effects on mental health are generally small and inconsistent, with variations across studies and populations. A 2025 study of Chinese adolescents under the three-child policy found that firstborns exhibited significantly higher mental health problem scores on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), including elevated emotional symptoms (β=0.22, p<0.05) and conduct issues (β=0.18, p<0.01), linked to less emotionally warm parenting (β=−0.54, p<0.001) and reduced parental company time (β=−0.26, p<0.001). These findings suggest that the pressure of being the eldest, combined with comparatively stricter or less supportive parenting, contributes to increased anxiety and distress among firstborns.^[31] Later-born children, including middle and youngest siblings, show mixed outcomes in mental health, with potential disadvantages in larger families but some advantages in adaptability. Middle-borns in the same 2025 Chinese cohort experienced more neglectful parenting (β=0.40, p<0.01) and heightened peer relationship problems, potentially exacerbating depressive symptoms through feelings of being overlooked. Rebellious tendencies, more common among later-borns in multi-child families, have been associated with increased depression risks, particularly when family dynamics foster competition or inconsistent discipline. Conversely, later-borns often report higher life satisfaction due to greater flexibility in parental expectations, allowing for more autonomous emotional development, though this benefit diminishes in sibships larger than three where resource dilution heightens distress by 5-10%.^[31]^[32] Sibling interactions further influence mental health, with rivalry and bullying posing notable stressors, especially for middle children. Frequent coercive conflicts or bullying among siblings correlate with poorer psychological adjustment, including elevated internalizing symptoms like anxiety and depression, as middle children often navigate heightened rivalry without the focused attention given to firstborns or youngest. These dynamics can amplify stress, leading to long-term emotional vulnerabilities if not addressed through family interventions.^[33]^[34] Only children demonstrate greater resilience in mental health outcomes compared to those with siblings, though they may encounter loneliness risks. A 2025 analysis highlights that only children thrive emotionally and socially, benefiting from undivided parental resources that foster secure attachments and lower overall distress levels, countering stereotypes of inherent isolation. However, in contexts of limited peer exposure, they face potential loneliness, which can subtly impact well-being if not mitigated by external social opportunities.^[35]^[36] Recent 2025 evidence underscores that birth order effects on mental health are generally small and net modest, with later-borns showing 5-10% higher distress in families with more than three children, largely moderated by parenting quality. Supportive, warm parenting buffers these risks across positions, while suboptimal styles amplify vulnerabilities, as seen in mediation analyses where parenting explains up to 30% of birth order-mental health links.^[31]^[37] Meta-analyses and large-scale studies indicate these effects are subtle and often overshadowed by genetic, environmental, and socioeconomic factors.^[38]

Cultural and Familial Contexts

Traditional Naming Practices

In traditional European naming practices, particularly in 19th-century Scandinavia, children were often named according to a strict birth order pattern honoring grandparents. The firstborn son was typically named after the paternal grandfather, the second son after the maternal grandfather, the firstborn daughter after the maternal grandmother, and the second daughter after the paternal grandmother.^[39]^[40] This system reinforced family lineage and continuity, with variations persisting in rural areas into the early 20th century.^[41] Across African and Asian cultures, birth order influenced naming through titles, suffixes, or shared generational markers. Among the Igbo people of Nigeria, the eldest daughter is designated as "Ada," meaning "first daughter," while the firstborn son is "Opara" or "Diokpara," signifying the heir and leader; subsequent children receive titles like "Ulu" for the second daughter or "Iberendu" for later-born sons, embedding their position within the family hierarchy.^[42] In China, families traditionally assigned a generational name (bèi fèn), a single character shared by all siblings in the same birth cohort, drawn from a pre-determined poem or cycle spanning multiple generations to denote lineage progression.^[43]^[44] These practices highlighted communal identity and familial roles, with the eldest often bearing names evoking primacy.^[45] Religious traditions further shaped order-based naming, often prioritizing the firstborn in honoring deceased kin. In Jewish Ashkenazic customs, children were named after deceased relatives, often grandparents, to preserve memory and invoke spiritual continuity, a practice rooted in Eastern European communities.^[46]^[47] Islamic naming varied regionally, blending patrilineal structures (nasab) with local customs; in pre-Islamic African Muslim societies like the Tagoi of Sudan, birth order names (e.g., suffixes indicating eldest or youngest) transitioned to Arabic-Islamic forms post-conversion, though some communities retained order indicators in titles or compound names.^[48]^[49] In the modern West, these birth order-based practices have largely declined since the post-1950s era, giving way to individualized names influenced by popular culture and personal preference, though they persist in immigrant communities from Scandinavia, Africa, and Asia as a way to maintain cultural heritage.^[50]^[51]

Cross-Cultural Variations

Birth order effects on personality and behavior exhibit notable variations across cultures, influenced by societal values, family structures, and policies. In individualistic cultures such as those in the United States and Western Europe, studies often report modest associations between birth order and traits like conscientiousness, with firstborns tending to score higher on achievement-oriented characteristics, though recent large-scale analyses indicate these effects are small and inconsistent for broad personality dimensions like the Big Five.^[1] ^[11] In contrast, collectivist cultures like China show negligible impacts on personality traits, but birth order significantly moderates mental health outcomes, particularly under evolving family policies; for instance, a 2025 study of Chinese adolescents found firstborns facing elevated risks of anxiety and depression due to suboptimal parenting styles and reduced parental time (as of the three-child policy era post-2016), while last-borns benefit from more permissive environments that support better emotional well-being.^[52] ^[53] Family size plays a critical role in amplifying or diminishing these effects, particularly in regions with varying fertility rates. In high-fertility contexts like India and sub-Saharan Africa, where large families are common, laterborn children experience resource dilution, leading to poorer educational attainment and cognitive outcomes that may indirectly affect psychological development, such as increased stress from limited parental investment.^[54] ^[55] Conversely, in low-fertility societies like Japan and much of Europe, smaller family sizes and higher rates of only children minimize sibling competition, resulting in attenuated birth order effects; for example, Scandinavian register data reveal persistent but smaller gaps in educational choices for laterborns compared to higher-fertility settings, attributed to egalitarian welfare systems that buffer familial resource disparities.^[56] ^[57] Gender dynamics and governmental policies further shape these variations. China's former one-child policy (1979–2015) fostered distinct traits in only children, such as higher openness to experience but lower agreeableness and trustworthiness compared to those with siblings, effects that linger in post-policy cohorts.^[58] ^[59] In matrilineal societies, such as certain ethnic groups in India and Africa, birth order effects on males are often weakened, as inheritance and authority flow through the female line, reducing traditional firstborn male privileges and potentially equalizing psychological pressures across siblings.^[60] Recent large-scale analyses, such as a 2024 study using HEXACO traits, indicate birth order influences cooperative traits—such as higher agreeableness in middle- and last-borns—with moderate effect sizes (Cohen's d ≈ 0.20–0.36), though generalizability beyond English-speaking samples remains limited.^[11]

References

[1]
Examining the effects of birth order on personality - PNAS
Half a century later, Alfred Adler, the second of six children, extended the psychology of birth order to personality traits (2).
[2]
Settling the debate on birth order and personality - PMC - NIH
Birth order is one of the most pervasive human experiences, which is universally thought to determine how intelligent, nice, responsible, sociable, ...
[3]
Birth order differences in education originate in postnatal ...
Empirically, firstborn siblings have slightly higher intelligence (4–6), educational achievement (7, 8), and income (9, 10) than their siblings born later.
[4]
Birth‐order effects on risk taking are limited to the family environment
Nov 20, 2023 · The empirical evidence for birth-order effects on human psychology is inconsistent. In contrast to the influential view that competitive ...Abstract · INTRODUCTION · METHODS · RESULTS<|control11|><|separator|>
[5]
Analysing effects of birth order on intelligence, educational ...
Dec 2, 2020 · Our estimated effect sizes are consistent with the emerging account of birth order as having relatively little impact on intelligence, Big Five, and risk ...
[6]
Revitalizing Alfred Adler: An Echo for Equality - PMC - PubMed Central
Mar 5, 2021 · Adler was a feminist who fought for social reform; this was the reason for his break with Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis (Bankart 1997). That ...
[7]
Effects of Birth Order upon Personality Development of Twins
Birth order and personality research began with Alfred Adler's clinical studies of a natural rivalry between the first born child and successive sib- lings ...
[8]
Theoretical Perspectives on Sibling Relationships - PMC
Grounded in the early writings of John Bowlby (e.g., Bowlby, 1969), attachment theory purports to explain developmental changes, but primarily individual ...
[9]
[PDF] Birth Order (1999) - Frank J Sulloway
Darwin's theory of natural selection offers an explanation for this part of the story, because it tells us that siblings are biologically driven to compete for.
[10]
Personality differences between birth order categories and ... - PNAS
Dec 23, 2024 · Here we investigate mean levels of personality traits in adults as a function of their birth order and their sibship size.
[11]
Full article: Birth Order and Divergent Thinking: A Meta-Analysis
Apr 20, 2021 · This meta-analysis examined the association of birth order and divergent thinking (DT). The main purpose was to examine how ordinal position (only, first, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[12]
Does sibling gender affect personality traits? - ScienceDirect.com
We study the effect of the second-born's gender on the first born's personality. We find that boys are more agreeable if their next-born sibling is a girl.
[13]
http://www.sulloway.org/borntorebel.html
[14]
Born to Rebel - Frank J Sulloway
Birth order places children in different 'niches,' requiring disparate modes of competition for maximal success. Sulloway's substantial birth-order effects ...Missing: laureates | Show results with:laureates
[15]
[PDF] The Effects of Birth Order and Sibling Dynamics on the Future
Apr 10, 2025 · Through a quantitative approach, the researchers examined how first and second born children attained education as compared to each other, as.Missing: entrepreneurship | Show results with:entrepreneurship
[16]
Family Configuration and Intelligence | Science
Family Configuration and Intelligence: Variations in scholastic aptitude scores parallel trends in family size and the spacing of children.
[17]
New Evidence on the Impacts of Birth Order | NBER
More generally, firstborn children are more likely to be in occupations requiring sociability, leadership ability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional ...
[18]
Effects of Siblings on Cognitive and Sociobehavioral Development
Nov 24, 2023 · This study offers the most comprehensive evidence on how sibship size is tied to cognitive and sociobehavioral development.Missing: variance | Show results with:variance
[19]
Are 'born to rebel' last-borns more likely to be self-employed?
Aug 7, 2025 · This paper investigates birth order effects on adult self-employment. Drawing on Sulloway's 'born to rebel' thesis, we test whether or not ...
[20]
Birth order, family size and educational attainment - ScienceDirect.com
These results indicate that the allocation of parental resources is a potential mechanism behind the birth order effects. Introduction. Many studies indicate ...Missing: expectations | Show results with:expectations
[21]
[PDF] Birth Order Effects and Educational Achievement in the Developing ...
This section presents three main theories that explain why birth order effects surface: (i) resource dilution theory, (ii) confluence theory, and (iii) ...<|separator|>
[22]
[PDF] When Fewer Means More: Impact of One-Child Policy on Education ...
May 1, 2016 · Figure 1a shows that the senior high school completion rate for women almost doubled from 13 to 24 percent among those born between 1945 and ...
[23]
Outlier or Not? The Birth Order Effects on Educational Attainment in ...
Jul 28, 2025 · This study examines birth order effects in China using sibling fixed-effect models and cohort analysis. It reveals that birth order's net ...
[24]
Birth order differences in education originate in postnatal ...
We investigate whether birth order differences in education are caused by biological differences present at birth, that is, genetic differences or in utero ...
[25]
How Many Gay Men Owe Their Sexual Orientation to Fraternal Birth ...
The results showed that roughly 1 gay man in 7 owes his sexual orientation to the fraternal birth order effect. ... Meta-Analysis of Studies Spanning 25 Years.
[26]
Male homosexuality and maternal immune responsivity to the Y ...
Dec 19, 2017 · The results suggest an association between a maternal immune response to NLGN4Y and subsequent sexual orientation in male offspring.Sign Up For Pnas Alerts · Results · Materials And Methods
[27]
Male androphilia, fraternal birth order, and female fecundity in Samoa
Dec 12, 2023 · The fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) is a widely established finding that each biological older brother a male has increased the probability
[28]
Male androphilia, fraternal birth order, and female fecundity in Samoa
Dec 4, 2023 · The fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) is a widely established finding that each biological older brother a male has increased the probability ...
[29]
Examining the Fraternal Birth Order Effect and Sexual Orientation
Jun 13, 2024 · In this preregistered study, our primary objective was to demonstrate the fraternal birth order effect (FBOE), which assumes a higher prevalence of older ...
[30]
The fraternal birth-order effect as a statistical artefact - PeerJ
Aug 18, 2023 · The fraternal-birth order effect (FBOE) is a research claim which states that each older brother increases the odds of homosexual ...
[31]
Birth Order and Chinese Adolescent Mental Health within the ...
Jul 30, 2025 · In Western contexts, a population-based longitudinal study in the UK demonstrated that later-born children were associated with higher risks of ...
[32]
Siblings and childhood mental health: Evidence for a later-born ...
The social and health sciences have often emphasised the negative impacts of large sibship size and late birth order on childhood.
[33]
Sibling Relations and Their Impact on Children's Development
Mar 27, 2023 · Coercive and frequent sibling conflict and bullying in childhood are also associated with poorer adjustment both concurrently16,91 and later in ...
[34]
Sibling Bullying in Middle Childhood is Associated with ... - NIH
Jul 22, 2019 · Children who reported being involved in sibling bullying as a bully-only at age 11 had more externalising symptoms at age 14. Again, this effect ...
[35]
How to Parent Your Only Child Without Guilt | Psychology Today
Oct 30, 2025 · Many parents worry only children are lonely or less social—but research shows they thrive emotionally, socially, and cognitively.
[36]
The Only Child and Loneliness: What Parents Can Do - Neuro
Jul 6, 2025 · Many believe only children are lonelier - but new research says otherwise. Learn what truly drives child loneliness and nurture connection.
[37]
Association of Birth Order With Mental Health Problems, Self-Esteem ...
Apr 13, 2021 · This study aimed to investigate the association of birth order with mental health problems, self-esteem, resilience, and happiness among children aged 9–10 ...
[38]
Scandinavian Naming Patterns - Introductory Guide
Apr 22, 2019 · Cultural Rules for Naming Scandinavian Children ; Child, Named After ; First-born son, Paternal grandfather ; Second-born son, Maternal grandfather.
[39]
Naming Traditions Across Multiple Cultures - Family Tree Magazine
the first son was named after the paternal grandfather; the second son, after the maternal grandfather; the first daughter, after the maternal grandmother; the ...
[40]
Scandinavian Naming Practices - Genealogy Research in ...
Oct 9, 2022 · They would often name the first son after the father's father, the second son after the mother's father, the third son after the father, and ...
[41]
What's In A Name, (Pt. 1.2): Categories of Igbo Names
Jan 16, 2017 · for example: opara/ opala is the 1st born son, whereas the 1st daughter is ada, the 2nd ulu, & the 3rd is ibari. girls are often named after ...
[42]
Generation Names in China: Past, Present, and Future
Traditional Chinese names are composed of three parts: the family name, a generation name, and a given name. The male generation name marks the position of the ...Missing: birth cohort
[43]
Generational Names, First Names, and Their Meanings - Ancestry
Jul 27, 2023 · Learn about Chinese names, where they originate from, what their meanings are, and which first names are currently trending in China.Missing: cohort | Show results with:cohort
[44]
Africa's naming traditions: Nine ways to name your child - BBC News
Dec 30, 2016 · Order of birth. In many African cultures, there is no need for someone to explain whether they are the eldest or youngest of their siblings.Missing: fruit | Show results with:fruit
[45]
Jewish Naming Customs - FamilySearch
Aug 12, 2024 · The first son was generally named after the father's father, the second son after the mother's father, the first daughter after the father's ...
[46]
Why do Ashkenazi Jews name babies after deceased relatives? A ...
Sep 1, 2024 · In Ashkenazic tradition, one of the greatest expressions of love is naming a newborn in memory of someone who has passed away.Missing: priority | Show results with:priority
[47]
Tagoi birth names: A historical change from African to Islamic/Arabic ...
Jan 19, 2024 · Over time, these non-order-based names have been adapted to an Islamic/Arabic naming system based on days of the week. Birth-order names were ...
[48]
[PDF] Middle Eastern Naming Conventions - Bankers Online
Jan 14, 2002 · These are broken down into six general categories (some texts have seven categories, breaking out the nisba into place of birth and occupation).
[49]
A social and cultural history of personal naming in Western Europe
In historical Europe, for instance, many children were named after their close relatives or cherished religious figures (Wilson 1998) . The weight of tradition ...
[50]
Many Immigrants No Longer Change Their Names to Fit In Fewer ...
Aug 25, 2010 · Most experts agree, that traditional immigrant gambit has all but disappeared. “For the most part, nobody changes to American names any more at all,” said ...
[51]
Birth order and personality: Evidence from a representative sample ...
Dec 26, 2023 · In this study, we examined how birth order influences the Big Five personality traits using a representative Chinese sample (N = 14,148).
[52]
Birth Order and Chinese Adolescent Mental Health within the ...
Jul 30, 2025 · First-borns may experience suboptimal parenting styles and shorter parental company, increasing mental health risks. Middle-borns may encounter ...
[53]
Birth order and children's health and learning outcomes in India
In India, higher birth order is associated with lower height and negatively impacts reading, writing, and math skills, especially if stunted.
[54]
[PDF] Birth Order, Fertility, and Child Height in India and Africa
This paper examines how birth order, fertility, and sibsize relate to child height in India and Africa, resolving contradictory findings on birth order effects.
[55]
Birth Order and College Major in Sweden | Social Forces
Oct 31, 2017 · Abstract. Previous research on birth order has consistently shown that later-borns have lower educational attainment than first-borns; ...
[56]
https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/96/2/629/4582720
[57]
Personality and life satisfaction in China: The birth order effect under ...
▻ We examined the personality influenced by birth order in Chinese context. ▻ Onlyborns and laterborns are more open than firstborns. ▻ Onlyborns are more ...
[58]
China's 1-Child Policy Affects Personality | Scientific American
May 1, 2013 · “Because of the one-child policy, parents are less likely to teach their child to be imaginative, trusting and unselfish,” Meng says. Without ...
[59]
[PDF] Sibling Gender, Inheritance Customs and Educational Attainment
Mar 7, 2022 · Birth order matters: The effect of family size and birth order on educational attainment. Journal of Population Economics, 22(2):367–397 ...
[60]
[PDF] Inequality between Siblings and the Intergenerational Transmission ...
May 17, 2018 · Previous research produced mixed evidence on socioeconomic differences in the effect of birth order on education. Barclay (2015b) found, using ...