research paper topics about birth order

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 to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Birth Order

Introduction, general overviews.

Parental Investment
Sibling Niche Theory
Methodological Issues and Research Design
Politics and the Life Sciences Controversy: Agendas and Methodology
Birth Order Stereotypes
Personality
Family Dynamics
Friendship and Cooperation
Sexual/Romantic Relationships
Sexual Orientation and the Fraternal Birth Order Effect
Intelligence
Challenges to Confluence Theory of Intelligence
Theory of Mind/Cognitive Skills
The Workplace
Religion and Politics
Risk-Taking
Consumer Behavior
Mental and Physical Health

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Data Visualization
Remote Work
Workforce Training Evaluation
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Birth Order by Catherine Salmon LAST REVIEWED: 28 May 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 29 October 2013 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0103

Birth order, defined as an individual’s rank by age among siblings, has long been of interest to psychologists as well as lay-people. Much of the fascination has focused on the possible role of birth order in shaping personality and behavior. Many decades ago, Alfred Adler, a contemporary of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, suggested that personality traits are related to a person’s ordinal position within the family. He claimed that firstborns, once the sole focus of parental attention and resources, would be resentful when attention shifted upon the birth of the next child, and that this would result in neuroticism and possible substance abuse. In his view, lastborns would be spoiled and emotionally immature, while middle children would be the most stable, as they never experienced dethronement or being spoiled. Adler’s work led to an explosion of birth order studies examining the relationships between birth order and pretty much any topic one can think of, from personality traits to psychiatric disorders, intelligence, creativity, and sexual orientation. Not all of the research employed controls for other relevant factors, a number of hard-hitting critiques of the field were made, and the number of studies being done waned. Currently, the common view is that genetic differences account for a substantial portion (around 40 percent) of the variance in personality, for example, but that a similar amount of variance (around 35 percent) is due to non-shared environment, while the remainder is due to shared environment and measurement error. Birth order is one part of the non-shared environment. Siblings may grow up in the same family, but they do not all experience that family environment in the same way. Recently, researchers have suggested that birth order shapes strategies for dealing with the family environment, some of which may manifest themselves in settings outside the family domain. The first section of this article introduces general overviews or reviews of the birth order literature as well as some general theoretical perspectives and aspects of the debate over the important of birth order effects. The remaining sections examine the research in various areas where birth order has been well studied.

A wide variety of articles and books provide insight into the theoretical perspectives on birth order as well as reviewing portions of the field. Birth order research touches on many somewhat specialized areas of psychology; for example, cognition, child and lifespan development, social, and personality psychology, and reviews typically focus on just one specific aspect, most frequently personality. Research can be largely atheoretical or may come from an Adlerian perspective or a Darwinian one. There are a number of books and reviews that challenge the impact of birth order, including Harris 1998 , and just as many that argue for strong effects, such as Sulloway 1996 and Sulloway 2010 . Those interested in mastering the birth order literature have a lot of reading ahead of them; thousands of articles have been published. But the articles and books included here will acquaint the reader with the major debates within the field and will highlight the most consistent of findings (and the least). The narrative review of Schooler 1972 provides evidence that the impact of birth order is overstated, while Ernst and Angst 1983 is a well known review of the birth order literature from the 1940s to 1980 that suggests that birth order does not influence personality. Many of the studies it references later became part of Sulloway’s meta-analysis. Plomin, et al. 2001 revisits the role of non-shared environment in answering the question of why siblings are so different from each other with a behavioral genetics influence. Eckstein 2000 and Eckstein, et al. 2010 are influenced by the Adlerian perspective and focus mainly on studies that providence evidence for birth order differences in personality traits.

Eckstein, D. 2000. Empirical studies indicating significant birth-order related personality differences. Journal of Individual Psychology 56:481–494.

A review of studies, largely published between 1960 and 1999, that provides support for birth order differences in personality. Includes studies that relate to traits of firstborns, middleborns, lastborns, and only children. Shows the range of study topics from conformity to narcissism. Illustrates greater research focus on firstborns historically.

Eckstein, D., K. J. Aycock, M. A. Sperber, et al. 2010. A review of 200 birth-order studies: Lifestyle characteristics . Journal of Individual Psychology 66:408–434.

Gives Adlerian perspective and reviews Sulloway and his critics. Provides tables of characteristics by birth order (first/middle/last/only) and the statistically significant related studies from 1960–2010. Does not address non-significant study results, but an otherwise comprehensive reference.

Ernst, C., and J. Angst. 1983. Birth order: Its influence on personality . New York: Springer.

Extensive review of birth order literature from 1946 to 1980. Concludes that effects are the result of poor research design, in particular failure to control for family size and socioeconomic status. Suggests that effects are found more often in studies that fail to control and are not found in ones with proper controls. The meta-analysis of Sulloway 1996 was a statistical counter to this paper.

Harris, J. R. 1998. The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do . New York: Free Press.

Argues that genes and peers shape personality more than parents (and by extension birth order) do and that, while parental love and attention are not distributed evenly and siblings do compete, these experiences do not translate into their relationships with non-kin. Focuses more on peers and socialization.

Plomin, R., K. Asbury, P. G. Dip, and J. Dunn. 2001. Why are children in the same family so different? Non-shared environment a decade later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 46:225–233.

Behavioral genetics approach considers what aspects make up non-shared environment for siblings (parental favoritism, peers, interaction between genetics and environment). Plomin is one of first to highlight this question. Calls for more research and for consideration of role of chance. Available online for purchase or by subscription.

Schooler, C. 1972. Birth order effects: Not here, not now. Psychological Bulletin 78:161–175.

DOI: 10.1037/h0033026

Early narrative review of the literature on “normal” and psychiatric populations. Raises family size issues. No discussion of issues involved with using self-report of parental treatment of offspring. Studies are largely confined to comparing firstborns to lastborns or laterborns (everyone but firstborns), which is another issue not discussed (see Methodological Issues and Research Design ). Available online for purchase or by subscription.

Sulloway, F. J. 1996. Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives . New York: Pantheon.

Makes solid case for Darwinian theoretical approach to birth order focusing on differential parental investment and sibling competition. Documents personality differences and how they play out in terms of revolutions in science, religion, and politics. Highlights the rebellious role of the laterborn child.

Sulloway, F. J. 2010. Why siblings are like Darwin’s finches: Birth order, sibling competition, and adaptive divergence within the family. In The Evolution of Personality and Individual Differences . Edited by D. M. Buss and P. H. Hawley, 86–119. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372090.001.0001

Darwinian approach to birth order, personality divergence among siblings due to differential parental investment and sibling conflict. Focus on sibling niche picking and that sibling divergence is an adaptive strategy. Covers wide range of studies in review.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Psychology »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Abnormal Psychology
Academic Assessment
Acculturation and Health
Action Regulation Theory
Action Research
Addictive Behavior
Adolescence
Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
Advanced Theory of Mind
Affective Forecasting
Affirmative Action
Ageism at Work
Allport, Gordon
Alzheimer’s Disease
Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
Animal Behavior
Animal Learning
Anxiety Disorders
Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
Attitudinal Ambivalence
Attraction in Close Relationships
Attribution Theory
Authoritarian Personality
Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
Behavioral Economics
Behavioral Genetics
Belief Perseverance
Bereavement and Grief
Biological Psychology
Birth Order
Body Image in Men and Women
Bystander Effect
Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
Clark, Mamie Phipps
Clinical Neuropsychology
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Consistency Theories
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognitive Neuroscience
Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
Comparative Psychology
Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
Competency to Stand Trial
Computational Psychology
Conflict Management in the Workplace
Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
Consciousness
Coping Processes
Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
Counseling Psychology
Creativity at Work
Critical Thinking
Cross-Cultural Psychology
Cultural Psychology
Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
Data Science Methods for Psychology
Data Sharing in Psychology
Death and Dying
Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
Defensive Processes
Depressive Disorders
Development, Prenatal
Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
Discrimination
Dissociative Disorders
Drugs and Behavior
Eating Disorders
Ecological Psychology
Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
Effect Size
Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
Emerging Adulthood
Emotional Intelligence
Empathy and Altruism
Employee Stress and Well-Being
Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
Ethics in Psychological Practice
Event Perception
Evolutionary Psychology
Expansive Posture
Experimental Existential Psychology
Exploratory Data Analysis
Eyewitness Testimony
Eysenck, Hans
Factor Analysis
Festinger, Leon
Five-Factor Model of Personality
Flynn Effect, The
Forensic Psychology
Forgiveness
Friendships, Children's
Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
Gambler's Fallacy
Game Theory and Psychology
Geropsychology, Clinical
Global Mental Health
Habit Formation and Behavior Change
Health Psychology
Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
Heider, Fritz
Heuristics and Biases
History of Psychology
Human Factors
Humanistic Psychology
Implicit Association Test (IAT)
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Inferential Statistics in Psychology
Insanity Defense, The
Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
Intercultural Psychology
Intergroup Conflict
International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
International Psychology
Interviewing in Forensic Settings
Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
Introversion–Extraversion
Item Response Theory
Law, Psychology and
Lazarus, Richard
Learned Helplessness
Learning Theory
Learning versus Performance
LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
Life-Span Development
Locus of Control
Loneliness and Health
Mathematical Psychology
Meaning in Life
Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
Mediation Analysis
Memories, Autobiographical
Memories, Flashbulb
Memories, Repressed and Recovered
Memory, False
Memory, Human
Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
Memory in Educational Settings
Memory, Semantic
Meta-Analysis
Metacognition
Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
Microaggressions
Military Psychology
Mindfulness
Mindfulness and Education
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
Money, Psychology of
Moral Conviction
Moral Development
Moral Psychology
Moral Reasoning
Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
Neuroscience of Associative Learning
Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
Occupational Health Psychology
Olfaction, Human
Operant Conditioning
Optimism and Pessimism
Organizational Justice
Parenting Stress
Parenting Styles
Parents' Beliefs about Children
Path Models
Peace Psychology
Perception, Person
Performance Appraisal
Personality and Health
Personality Disorders
Phenomenological Psychology
Placebo Effects in Psychology
Play Behavior
Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
Positive Psychology
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Prejudice and Stereotyping
Pretrial Publicity
Prisoner's Dilemma
Problem Solving and Decision Making
Procrastination
Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
Protocol Analysis
Psycholinguistics
Psychological Literacy
Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
Psychology, Political
Psychoneuroimmunology
Psychophysics, Visual
Psychotherapy
Psychotic Disorders
Publication Bias in Psychology
Reasoning, Counterfactual
Rehabilitation Psychology
Relationships
Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
Religion, Psychology and
Replication Initiatives in Psychology
Research Methods
Risk Taking
Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
Schizophrenic Disorders
School Psychology
School Psychology, Counseling Services in
Self, Gender and
Self, Psychology of the
Self-Construal
Self-Control
Self-Deception
Self-Determination Theory
Self-Efficacy
Self-Esteem
Self-Monitoring
Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
Sensation Seeking
Sex and Gender
Sexual Minority Parenting
Sexual Orientation
Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
Single People
Single-Case Experimental Designs
Skinner, B.F.
Sleep and Dreaming
Small Groups
Social Class and Social Status
Social Cognition
Social Neuroscience
Social Support
Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
Somatoform Disorders
Spatial Attention
Sports Psychology
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
Stereotype Threat
Stereotypes
Stress and Coping, Psychology of
Student Success in College
Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
Teaching of Psychology
Terror Management Theory
Testing and Assessment
The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
Theory of Mind
Therapies, Person-Centered
Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
Time Perception
Trait Perspective
Trauma Psychology
Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
Unconscious Processes
Video Games and Violent Content
Virtues and Character Strengths
Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
Women, Psychology of
Work Well-Being
Wundt, Wilhelm
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|195.158.225.230]
195.158.225.230

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Association of birth order with mental health problems, self-esteem, resilience, and happiness among children: results from a-child study.

$\nYoshifumi Fukuya$

1 Department of Global Health Promotion, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan
2 Department of Health and Welfare Services, National Institute of Public Health, Saitama, Japan

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the association of birth order with mental health problems, self-esteem, resilience, and happiness among children aged 9–10 years.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the Adachi Child Health Impact of Living Difficulty (A-CHILD) study, which was a population-based study of children in fourth grade in public schools in Adachi City, Tokyo, Japan in 2018 ( N = 3,744). Parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and self-rated resilience, happiness, and self-esteem score were used to assess child mental health. Multiple regression analysis for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes were used to examine the association of birth order with mental health problems, resilience, happiness, and self-esteem. The analysis was controlled for child sex, mother's age, mother's education, caregiver's depressive symptoms, household income, and living with grandparents.

Results: Last-borns showed the lowest total difficulties score in the SDQ, while only children showed the highest ( p < 0.001). The highest prosocial behaviors score was found among last-borns ( p < 0.001). Resilience score was also highest among last-borns, followed by first-borns, middle-borns, and only children. The lowest happiness score was found among middle-borns. Self-esteem score did not differ by sibling types. These associations were similar in the adjusted model and dichotomized outcomes model.

Conclusions: Differential impacts of birth order on child mental health, for both positive and negative sides, were found. Further research is warranted to elucidate the mechanism of the association between birth order and the development of behavior problems and the positive aspects such as resilience, happiness, and self-esteem among children.

Introduction

There is an increasing number of mental health problems among adolescents, with 10–20% of them estimated to suffer from these problems in the world ( 1 ). In addition, half of the cases of lifetime mental health problems begin by the age of 14 ( 2 ). Japan is not exception; for example, the number of suicide among children and adolescents has gradually increased over a decade ( 3 ), ranked second in Asia, followed by Korea ( 4 ). To reveal this situation, it is crucial to understand risk and protective factors for prevention of mental illness in adolescence and adulthood.

Previous research has shown that later-born children aged 7–12 years in the US have been found to have a higher level of depression and anxiety ( 5 ). A population-based study in the UK has shown that later-born adolescents are more likely to have suicide attempts and psychiatric problems ( 6 ). Similarly, prior register-based studies have reported that later-born adults aged 16 years are at a higher risk of suicidal behavior in Norway and Sweden ( 7 , 8 ). These findings from Western countries have indicated later-born have an increased risk of mental health problems. There are several considerations underling the mechanisms of the associations. These include later-born children being more likely to have limited interactions with parents, less parental attention, and diluted available home resources ( 9 , 10 ). These circumstances have adverse effects on mental health throughout sensitive development periods in childhood, which might last across the life course. To date, however, few epidemiological studies have examined whether birth order is associated with mental health problems among children, particularly, pre-adolescent children. Further, most of the previous studies were conducted in Western countries. There is a lack of empirical studies to investigate the associations in non-Western countries, including Japan.

Positive mental health refers to a state of subjective well-being and functioning well ( 11 ). Resilience ( 12 ) and self-esteem ( 13 ) can be considered important aspects of positive mental health ( 14 – 16 ). Further, happiness is known to be one of the indicators based on an individual's hedonistic view or emotional well-being, which suggests positive affectivity and satisfaction with life ( 17 ). Previous studies in the US have indicated that first-born adolescents are more likely to have higher self-esteem than other siblings and only children ( 18 ), whereas middle-born adolescent males are found to have lower self-esteem ( 19 ). Moreover, other research has reported that last-born and only children are happier than first-and middle-born among US young children ( 20 ). However, it is still unknown whether these findings in the US enable to be generalized to any other population with different sociocultural characteristics, such as Japan. Indeed, the association of birth order with positive aspects in non-Western countries remains unknown due to the lack of research. Furthermore, limited population-based studies focusing on children have been conducted to examine the association.

Japan has unique sociocultural characteristics affecting child-rearing. Japan had the i.e., system prescribed a patriarchal and primogeniture system in place, which was abolished in 1947. Nonetheless, the i.e., system still influences family relationships to some extent ( 21 , 22 ). In the familial contexts, Japanese parents may assign a perceived ideal role to their children within a family according to the birth order; in particular, the parents require the older siblings to behave more maturely and responsibly, including taking care of younger siblings ( 23 ). Second, Japan has a specific concept of parent-child relationships, known as amae ( 24 ). Amae refers to the feeling of dependence on others and the presumption on others' acceptance and indulgence ( 24 , 25 ), which is somewhat similar to the secure base of attachment in terms of needs for closeness and security ( 22 , 26 , 27 ). Amae has influenced Japanese values, which makes a difference in child-rearing practice, compared to other countries. For example, Japanese parents tend to indulge their children and have closer physical proximity to them ( 23 , 28 ), whereas parents in Western countries are likely to encourage their children to be independent and behave autonomously from an early age ( 29 – 31 ). Furthermore, according to the i.e., system and amae , Japanese parents may modify their child-rearing practice according to birth order ( 32 , 33 ). Indeed, first-borns are more likely to be subjected to stricter upbringing, whereas last-born is to be well-taken care of by their parents and older siblings ( 32 – 34 ). Given the differences in parenting practice between siblings, the unique sociocultural characteristics may influence the association of birth order with child development and mental health. A prior study among pre-school children in Japan reported that birth order was associated with developing children's self-reliance ( 34 ). To date, however, there is still uncertainty whether birth order has effects on mental health among Japanese pre-adolescent, say, aged 9–10 years old.

Over the years, family structures have changed in developed countries, including Japan. For example, birth rates have decreased ( 35 ). That is, more children have fewer siblings or none. Thus, data reflecting current family contexts is needed to assess the association between birth order and mental health among children. However, few empirical studies have investigated the association in recent years. This study aimed to examine the associations of birth order with mental health problems, and happiness, self-esteem, and resilience among children aged 9–10 years in Japan, using a population-based dataset collected in 2018.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

We used data from the Adachi Child Health Impact of Living Difficulty (A-CHILD) study, conducted in all 69 public elementary schools in collaboration with city hall and educational committee in Adachi City, Tokyo, Japan ( 36 ). This survey was a longitudinal complete-sample survey started in 2015 as a first-wave for all first-grade children in the schools. In 2018 as a third-wave, questionnaires were distributed to all children aged 9–10 years (fourth grade) attending the schools ( n = 5,311). Children responded to the self-reported questionnaire at school and took the questionnaire home so that their caregivers answered it. The questionnaire completed by the caregivers was submitted to the school anonymously. A total of 4,290 participants were eligible (response rate = 80.8%). We excluded children who lived with a single parent or not living with parents ( n = 546, 12.7% of respondents). Finally, a sample of, 3,744 children and caregivers were used for analysis ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Flowchart of participants.

Explanatory Variable

Birth order.

The caregivers provided information regarding the children's birth order. Based on previous birth order studies ( 37 , 38 ), each child was classified into four categories based on individual's birth order: only child (no siblings), first-born (having only younger siblings), middle-born (having both older and younger siblings), and last-born (having only older siblings).

Outcome Variables

Mental health.

Child mental health problems were assessed by the caregivers using the Japanese version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) ( 39 ). The reliability and validity of the SDQ in Japanese children were documented ( 40 ). The SDQ includes five items, emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactive/inattention, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behaviors. The total difficulties score was calculated by the sum of the four items except for prosocial behavior, which was used as a continuous outcome. Each item has cut-off scores for normal, borderline, and clinical range; 0–12, 13–15, and 16–40 for total difficulties score; 0–3, 4, and 5–10 for emotional symptoms score; 0–3, 4, and 5–10 for conduct problems score; 0–5, 6, and 7–10 for hyperactivity/inattention score; 0–3, 4, and 5–10 for peer problems score; and 6–10, 5, and 0–4 for prosocial behavior score ( 41 ). The score of each item was dichotomized to use as a binary variable (normal and borderline range = 0 and clinical range = 1) for statistical analysis.

Self-Esteem

Children were asked about their self-esteem using the subscales from the Japanese version of the Children's Perceived Competence Scale (CPCS) ( 42 ), based on the Perceived Competence Scale for Children ( 43 ). The subscales consist of 10 items, for example, “are you satisfied with the way you are now?” or “do you think you have few good points?”. The Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.84 in this study. Each item was rated from 1 (no), 2 (rather no), 3 (rather yes), and 4 (yes). Each score was summed and used as a continuous outcome. A higher total score indicated a higher level of self-esteem. The community-based survey reported that the percentage of low self-esteem regarding eight questions related to self-esteem was averagely 7.2% among children aged 10–11years and 8.3% among those aged 13–14 years ( 44 ). Further, according to a national survey of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the percentage of low self-esteem regarding one question related to self-esteem was 6.4% among primary school children and 8.4% among junior high school children on average over 6 years from 2014 to 2019 ( 45 ). These results suggest the percentage of children with low self-esteem could be 10% or less. In this study, the percentage of the score < the 10th percentile was 8.4%. Referring to these findings, we defined the score < the 10th percentile as low self-esteem because the 10th percentile cut-off level could incorporate children with low self-esteem.

The Children's Resilient Coping Scale (CRCS) was used to assess child resilience ( 46 ). This scale consists of eight items, for example, “speaks positively about their future,” “able to get ready for school, study,” and “do his/her chores without directions,” or “able to give up on things they want or do things that they do not like to do for better future outcomes.” The scale has high internal consistency ( 46 ). The caregivers rated their child resilience from zero (never) to four (very frequently). The Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.84 in this study. Each score of the eight items was summed, ranging from 0 to 32, and used as a continuous outcome. A higher total score indicated higher resilience. The distribution was left-skewed (more children rating higher scores ≥ in the 10th percentile). Then, the total score of resilience was divided into two categories below the 10th percentile as low resilience to capture a very low level of resilience.

Children were asked about their happiness by the question, “how happy do you think you are?” which was rated from 0 (not happy) to 10 (very happy) and used as a continuous outcome. Due to the left-skewed distribution, more children rated higher scores ≥ in the 10th percentile. Indeed, the proportion < the 10th percentile was 5.6%. Further, a community-based survey conducted in Tokyo in 2016 showed that 5.1% of adolescents perceived low happiness ( 44 ), which was similar to our proportion of the score < the 10th percentile. Referring to the findings, we defined the score < the 10th percentile as low happiness.

Other Variables

We selected potential confounding variables based on previous research investigating birth order and mental health problems ( 6 – 8 , 47 ). The following variables were included in this study: child's sex (boys or girls), household income (<3.0, 3.0 ≤ 6.0, 6.0 ≤ 10.0, 10.0+ million JPY and unknown; 110 JPY≈ 1 USD), mother's age (Seventy-eight missing data were imputed with the mean of the age) and education attainment (high school graduate or less, some college, college or university graduate, others/unknown), parental history of psychiatric disorders (yes or no), respondent's psychological distress, living with grandparents, and children's school absence due to illness and trauma. The respondent's psychological distress was assessed using the Japanese version of the Kessler 6 (K6), which consisted of six items with a 5-point Likert scale ( 48 ). The sum of each score was calculated (range: 0–24); a score of 5–12 was defined as moderate psychological distress, and a score of ≥13 was defined as severe. As for living with grandparents, prior studies have indicated that grandparents' support is related to women's fertility decisions ( 49 , 50 ). Also, grandparents raising are found to affect grandchildren's mental health ( 51 – 53 ). Thus, living with grandparents was included. Also, previous research has shown the association of birth order with PTSD ( 54 ) and illness such as metabolic problems ( 55 ), allergic symptoms ( 56 ), and respiratory diseases ( 57 ), which are known to relate to children's mental health ( 58 – 60 ). According to these findings, we included children's school absence due to illness and trauma in this analysis. Regarding parental age and education, the mother's age and education attainment correlated with the father's ones ( r = 0.40 and 0.65, respectively). Further, in Japan, mothers have more child care time than fathers and play the primary role in child development in daily life ( 61 ). Accordingly, we did not take father's age and education attainment into consideration.

Statistical Analysis

First, we compared the characteristics among the four groups: only child, first-borns, middle-borns, and last-borns. Second, we treated the outcomes as continuous variables; that is, we calculated the mean of the scores of the SDQ, self-esteem, happiness, and resilience, and compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc pairwise comparison using Bonferroni's correction. Third, multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the association between birth order and mental health problems using each SDQ subscales score, the total difficulties score, the self-esteem score, the happiness score, and the resilience score. The only child was treated as a reference group category. In the adjusted model, covariates (children's sex, mother's age, mother's education, parental history of psychiatric disorders, respondent's psychological distress, household income, living with grandparents, and children's school absence due to illness and trauma) were included. Further, to investigate the association between birth order and the clinical or severe range of the outcomes, multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. These covariates were added in the adjusted model, and we confirmed that multicollinearity is unlikely (all variance inflation factor <2.0). Missing data were substituted by dummy variables. A p -value <0.05 was considered as the level of statistical significance. We used STATA version 15.0 (StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA) for all analyses and followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement (STROBE) guidelines.

Ethics Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the National Center for Child Health and Development (Study ID: 1147) and Tokyo Medical and Dental University (Study ID: M2016-284).

Demographics

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the participants. There were 1,278 first-borns (34.1%), 466 middle-borns (12.5%), 1,356 last-borns (36.2%), and 644 only children (17.2%). Almost half of the children were boys ( n = 1,908, 51.0%). With regard to mother's age and educational attainment, most of the mothers were 40–44 years old and graduated some college. As for household income, the largest group was between 6 and 10 million JPY. As for caregiver's mental health, the mean scores of K6 showed no difference across all groups. Regardless of the birth order, more than 90% of children lived without grandparents. Approximately 7% of caregivers reported to have psychiatric disease history, and 34% of children had experienced to be absent from school due to illness or trauma.

Table 1 . Demographic characteristics.

Outcome Variables by Birth Order

Table 2 presents the mean scores of the SDQ, self-esteem, happiness, and resilience for birth order. Last-borns showed lower score on total difficulties, conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention ( p < 0.001, <0.001, and <0.002, respectively) and higher score on prosocial behavior and resilience, compared to other groups ( p < 0.001 and <0.001). First-borns showed a higher score of conduct problems than other groups ( p < 0.001). The happiness score of middle-borns was the lowest in all groups ( p < 0.002). There were no differences in the self-esteem scores among the four groups.

Table 2 . Results of the ANOVA between birth order and mental health problems self-esteem, resilience and happiness.

Further, the results of the post-hoc pairwise comparison showed p -value for the association between categories of birth order ( Figures 2 , 3 ). As for the SDQ, a significant difference was observed in the total difficulties score between only children and middle-borns, and only children and last-borns; hyperactivity/inattention between only children and last-borns: peer relationship problems between only children and each categories; prosocial behavior between only children and last-borns. As for the self-esteem score, there were no difference between only children and each categories. Moreover, a significant difference was observed in the resilience score between only children and first-borns, and only children and last-borns; the happiness score between only children and middle-borns.

Figure 2 . Association of birth order and the SDQ by ANOVA with the post-hoc pairwise comparison. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

Figure 3 . Association of birth order and Self-esteem, Resilience, and Happiness by ANOVA with the post-hoc pairwise comparison. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

Regression Analyses

Table 3 shows multivariate linear regression and logistic regression analysis examining the association of birth order with scores of the SDQ, self-esteem, happiness, and resilience. As for linear regression analysis, the score of total difficulties and peer relationship problems in last-borns, middle-borns, and first-borns were significantly lower than only children as the reference group in the adjusted model. Table 3 also presents the significant association between last-borns and lower score of hyperactivity/inattention and higher score of prosocial behavior (β = −0.06, p < 0.01; β = 0.07, p < 0.01), middle-borns and lower score of emotional symptoms and happiness (β = −0.06, p < 0.01; β = −0.08, p < 0.001), and first-borns and higher score of conduct problems (β = 0.05, p = 0.03). The resilience score is significantly higher in last-borns (β = 0.08, p < 0.001) and first-borns (β = 0.05, p = 0.03). The self-esteem score was not associated with birth order.

Table 3 . Associations between birth order and mental health problems, self-esteem, resilience, and happiness in linear and logistic regression.

As for multivariate logistic regression analysis, using the clinical range of the SDQ and 10th percentile cut-off score of the self-esteem, happiness, and resilience, last-borns, middle-borns, and first-borns had decreased odds ratio (OR) of peer relation problems score after adjusting for other covariates (OR = 0.64, 95% Cl 0.46–0.88; OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.35–0.81; OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.36–0.68, respectively). After the adjustment, last-borns were still associated with lower total difficulties score (OR = 0.67, 95% Cl 0.50–0.86). Further, middle-borns were significantly associated with unhappiness (OR = 1.84, 95% Cl 1.10–3.09). There was no association between the self-esteem score and birth order.

Comparing the results of the two models, the directions of the association between birth order and each mental health variable in the linear regression model were mostly consistent with the logistic regression model (Normal and Borderline range vs. Clinical range in the SDQ; Normal vs. Low self-esteem, Low resilience, Unhappiness). When compared the linear regression with logistic regression models by birth order, first-borns showed a significant increase in the risk of peer relationship problems in both models and total difficulties in only the linear regression model. Middle-borns showed significant results of a decreased risk of total difficulties, emotional symptoms, and peer relationship problems and an increased risk of unhappiness in both models. Further, last-borns showed a significant decrease in the risk of total difficulties in both models. No statistical significance in hyperactivity/inattention, prosocial behavior, and resilience among last-borns was found in the logistic regression model.

In this study, we found the association between birth order and mental health among children aged 9–10 years. Our results showed that last-borns were less likely to have mental health problems and more likely to have prosocial behaviors and resilience. Middle-borns were found to show the lowest level of happiness, and first-borns were associated with conduct problems. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the association of birth order with mental health among pre-adolescent children on both positive and negative sides.

Our findings of last-borns having a lower risk of mental health problems are partially in line with previous research in the UK ( 47 ). They identified that later-born children were less likely to have mental health problems than children with no older siblings. Our study focused on the definite birth order position, whereas the UK study assessed the number of siblings, regardless of the order. These findings suggest that the presence of older siblings may play a role in mitigating the risk of mental health problems among children; in turn, last-borns may be in the most advantageous position to receive the benefits by nature. There are several possible explanations for the association. First, interactions with older siblings provide contexts to develop social and emotional competencies, which are known as protective factors for mental health and peer relationship problems ( 62 – 64 ). In daily life, children with siblings usually spend more time with siblings than parents ( 65 ). Interactions with siblings promote understanding of others' emotions, thoughts, and intentions ( 66 ), which foster their development of social competence ( 67 ). Besides, plays and conflicts with siblings develop emotional regulation ( 68 , 69 ) and problem-solving skills ( 70 , 71 ). Interactions through teaching, sharing, and cooperation facilitate prosocial behavior ( 72 – 74 ). Given the interactive opportunities, last-borns may have more chances to develop social and emotional competencies from early childhood than other siblings and only one child.

Second, older siblings may play a complementary role in caregiving. When parents are unavailable, siblings can become candidates for attachment relationships and also take on the role of a secure base for younger siblings ( 75 ). These relationships provide a sense of security and comfort to younger siblings in insecure family situations ( 76 , 77 ). Furthermore, last-borns may be more likely to receive more emotional support from older siblings ( 78 ). Thus, older siblings can be a source of security for last-borns, which may contribute to the prevention of mental health problems.

Third, parental differential treatment may affect the association of birth order with mental health problems. Parental differential treatment, such as favoritism and unfavorable comparison, can cause not only sibling jealousy ( 79 ) but also behavior problems ( 80 ), emotional issues ( 81 ), and lower self-esteem ( 82 ). In Japan, the i.e., system and the practice of amae may strengthen parental differential treatment. It may affect mental health more negatively among older siblings. On the contrary, last-borns may be less likely to be affected, which may lead to a decreased risk of their mental health problems. However, the association between these unique characteristics and mental health problems among Japanese children is still unclear. Hence, further research is needed to confirm the association.

However, previous studies have reported that last-born adolescents and adults have an increased risk of mental illness in the US, the UK, Norway, and Sweden ( 5 – 8 ), which is inconsistent with our findings. There are two possible explanations for the inconsistency. The one is that the positive effects of the last position on mental health in childhood may vary in adolescence and adulthood. In adolescence, children spend more time with peers and less with family and have more opportunities to face stressful events and peer relationship problems ( 83 – 85 ). The benefits of the last position within a family may be attenuated in different life stages. The other one is that sociocultural characteristics in each country may contribute to the inconsistency. Japanese sociocultural characteristics, that is amae and i.e., system, might account for the inconsistent findings between Japan and other countries. Further longitudinal studies are needed to reveal the mechanism of the inconsistency, comparing with other countries.

Our study also demonstrated that last-borns showed a higher resilience score. Previous studies have reported that the development of resilience is associated with social competence ( 86 ), problem-solving skills ( 87 ) and self-regulation skills ( 88 ), and familial factors such as support availabilities ( 89 , 90 ). Given the presence of older siblings, last-borns may be more likely to develop these skills through interactions with the siblings and receive emotional support from the siblings, which may contribute to promoting the development of resilience from early childhood.

Furthermore, our findings showed that first-borns were associated with conduct problems, which is partially consistent with a prior study in the UK reporting older siblings having an increased risk of the problems ( 47 ). This association may be related to several possible explanations. First, first-borns are required to adopt to siblinghood after the birth of siblings ( 91 ). After subsequent sibling birth, first-borns may experience less parental attention and interactions, described as “dethronement” by Adler's theory ( 66 ). The behavior problems of first-borns may be considered as a stress response to the change of the home environment ( 47 ). Second, parents might change their child-rearing style between the first-born and the subsequent children, which may induce jealousy toward younger siblings ( 92 ). That is, parental differential treatment may cause first-borns to suffer from emotional dysregulation, impulsiveness, and vulnerability to frustration ( 82 , 93 ). In addition, as discussed previously, Japanese sociocultural characteristics may promote the differential treatment. Third, parents may require the first-borns to be a role model for younger siblings. Notably, in Japan, parents tend to expect first-borns to be the heir ( 32 ). Consequently, the first-borns may feel more responsibilities and emotional pressure ( 94 ). Hence, first-borns may be more likely to feel more emotional distress than younger siblings and only one child and, in turn, have an increased risk of conduct problems.

Moreover, we found that middle-borns showed the lowest level of happiness, compared to only children. Prior research demonstrated that parents rated that last-borns and only children aged 3–9 years were happier than first-borns and middle-borns in the US ( 20 ). Our study is the first to report that middle-born children rated themselves as the most unhappy. Kidwell suggested that the middle-borns have a lack of uniqueness in the family and no inherent reasons to receive parental attention and recognition, compared to first-and last-borns ( 19 ). In addition, a prior study has demonstrated that middle-born youth tend to perceive less closeness to parents ( 95 ) and express less positive attitudes toward family than first-borns and last-borns and more positive views toward friends ( 96 ). These findings suggest that the presence of both older and younger siblings may induce perceived unhappiness among middle-borns, and the state of unhappiness in childhood may affect their values toward family and peers in adolescence and adulthood. However, the effects of unhappiness on later life among middle-borns remained unclear; further longitudinal research is needed to examine the trajectories.

Our study found no differential association of birth order with self-esteem among pre-adolescent children. Previous research has shown that first-borns and only children tend to have higher self-esteem than later-borns ( 5 , 97 ). Further, another study has reported that middle-borns have significantly lower self-esteem than first-borns and last-borns ( 19 ). However, it is noteworthy that these studies were conducted more than three decades ago and focused on adolescents and young adults, which may lead to inconsistency with our findings. Self-esteem is found to decline across adolescence through the experience of stressful life events ( 98 ), for example, school transitions ( 84 , 85 ). In Japan, school transitions generally occur between the ages of 12 and 15 years. For this reason, the participants in our study typically have no experience of school transitions. Thus, the experience of other stressful life events may contribute to the inconsistency. Moreover, Baldwin and Hoffmann indicated that perceived family support has preventive effects on the decline of self-esteem in adolescence ( 99 ). Given the negative views toward family among middle-borns ( 95 , 96 ), they may have lower stability of self-esteem when facing stressful events; in turn, they may have an increased risk of a decline in self-esteem in adolescence, compared to other siblings and only children. Further longitudinal research is required to reveal the association between birth order and self-esteem from childhood to adulthood.

This study has several limitations. First, this study did not evaluate the quality of sibling relationships. Poor sibling relationships are found to affect children's mental health negatively ( 100 ). Second, we did not differentiate the sibling compositions, such as boy-boy, boy-girl, girl-boy, girl-girl (four types by sex of two siblings), boy-boy-boy, boy-boy-girl, boy-girl-boy, boy-girl-girl, girl-boy-boy, girl-boy-girl, girl-girl-boy, girl-girl-girl (eight types by sex of three siblings), or age difference, say, 1 year difference or 5 years difference, due to limited sample size. Sibling relationships may vary depending on the compositions ( 92 ). Sibling compositions might change the magnitude of the effects of birth order on mental health. Third, we could not assess the influence of peer relationships. Peer relationships, such as bullying and victimization, are important factors that affect mental health among school children, and such exposure might vary by sibling positions ( 101 ). Thus, the quality of peer relationships might modify the effects of birth order. Fourth, we did not assess families who had experienced perinatal loss through miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Prior research reports that the experience influences subsequent pregnancy ( 102 , 103 ) and parenting behavior ( 103 , 104 ). Thus, the experience may affect the number of children and parenting styles, which suggests that the effects of birth order among families having the experience may differ from those who have not. Fifth, children's medical issues, such as specific psychiatric disorders and environmental stress, and trauma experience, were not assessed. Also, in this study, children's mental health conditions were not evaluated by more objective measurement tools, such as DSM-5 criteria and the teacher-rated SDQ. Sixth, we did not assess parental personality and parenting styles. These may affect the association between birth order and children's mental health. Finally, this study used cross-sectional data and could not consider past mental health conditions. Further studies are needed to elucidate the effects of birth order on child mental health trajectories, adjusting for parenting style and sibling relationships in a longitudinal design.

Despite these limitations, our findings can help parents identify children at risk for mental health problems in pre-adolescence. Information and guidance about the association of birth order with mental health may allow parents to notice initial symptoms of child mental health problems and manage these problems before adolescence at an earlier stage. In addition, supporting parental rearing practice may also help minimize the adverse effects of birth order on mental health among children. Further, based on birth-order, intervention focusing on both parent-child and sibling relationships may be beneficial to improving mental health among children.

In conclusion, our study found that birth order had differential associations with mental health in both positive and negative aspects among Japanese children aged 9–10. These findings may be helpful to prevent mental health problems depending on birth order in adolescence. Future longitudinal studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the effects of birth order on mental health and the trajectories across the life stages.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Tokyo Medical and Dental University Ethics Committee. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

YF contributed to conception, design, analysis, interpretation, drafted, and critically revised the manuscript. SD and AI contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation, and critically revised the manuscript. MO contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, and critically revised the manuscript. TF contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation, drafted, and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This study was supported by a Health Labor Sciences Research Grant, Comprehensive Research on Lifestyle Disease from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (H27-Jyunkankito-ippan-002), Research of Policy Planning and Evaluation from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (H29-Seisaku-Shitei-004), Innovative Research Program on Suicide Countermeasures (IRPSC), and Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 16H03276 and 16K21669), St. Luke's Life Science Institute Grants, and the Japan Health Foundation Grants.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We are particularly grateful to the staff members and central office of Adachi City Hall for conducting the survey. We would like to thank everyone who participated in the surveys. In particular, we would also like to thank Mayor Yayoi Kondo, Mr. Syuichiro Akiu, and Ms. Yuko Baba of Adachi City Hall, all of whom contributed significantly to completion of this study.

1. Merikangas KR, He J-P, Burstein M, Swanson SA, Avenevoli S, Cui L, et al. Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry . (2010) 49:980–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.05.017

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. JAMA Psychiatry. (2005) 62:593–602. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593

3. Ministory of Health Labour and Welfare. White Paper on Suicide Prevention in Japan . (2020). Available online at: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/r2h-1-3.pdf (accessed January 29, 2021).

Google Scholar

4. OECD. Health at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators (2015). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2015-en (accessed February 20, 2020).

5. Gates L, Lineberger MR, Crockett J, Hubbard J. Birth order and its relationship to depression, anxiety, and self-concept test scores in children. J Genet Psychol . (1988) 149:29–34. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1988.10532136

6. Easey KE, Mars B, Pearson R, Heron J, Gunnell D. Association of birth order with adolescent mental health and suicide attempts: a population-based longitudinal study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry . (2019) 28:1079–86. doi: 10.1007/s00787-018-1266-1

7. Bjørngaard JH, Bjerkeset O, Vatten L, Janszky I, Gunnell D, Romundstad P. Maternal age at child birth, birth order, and suicide at a young age: a sibling comparison. Am J Epidemiol . (2013) 177:638–44. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt014

8. Rostila M, Saarela J, Kawachi I. Birth order and suicide in adulthood: evidence from Swedish population data. Am J Epidemiol . (2014) 179:1450–7. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu090

9. Downey DB. Number of siblings and intellectual development: the resource dilution explanation. Am Psychol . (2001) 56:497–504. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.497

10. Price J. Parent-child quality time: does birth order matter? J Hum Resour . (2008) 43:240–65. doi: 10.3368/jhr.43.1.240

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Keyes CLM. Subjective well-being in mental health and human development research worldwide: an introduction. Soc Indic Res . (2006) 77:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11205-005-5550-3

12. Rutter M. Resilience concepts and findings: implications for family therapy. J Fam Ther . (1999) 21:119–44. doi: 10.1111/1467-6427.00108

13. Mann M, Hosman CMH, Schaalma HP, de Vries NK. Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Educ Res . (2004) 19:357–72. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg041

14. Das JK, Salam RA, Lassi ZS, Khan MN, Mahmood W, Patel V, et al. Interventions for adolescent mental health: an overview of systematic reviews. J Adolesc Health . (2016) 59:S49–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.020

15. Dray J, Bowman J, Campbell E, Freund M, Wolfenden L, Hodder RK, et al. Systematic review of universal resilience-focused interventions targeting child and adolescent mental health in the school setting. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry . (2017) 56:813–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.07.780

16. Orpana H, Vachon J, Dykxhoorn J, McRae L, Jayaraman G. Monitoring positive mental health and its determinants in Canada: the development of the positive mental health surveillance indicator framework. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can . (2016) 36:1–10. doi: 10.24095/hpcdp.36.1.01

17. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. J Happiness Stud . (2006) 9:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1

18. Falbo T. Relationships between birth category, achievement, and interpersonal orientation. J Pers Soc Psychol . (1981) 41:121–31. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.121

19. Kidwell JS. The neglected birth order: middleborns. J Marriage Fam . (1982) 44:225–35. doi: 10.2307/351276

20. Park N, Peterson C. Character strengths and happiness among young children: content analysis of parental descriptions. J Happiness Stud . (2006) 7:323–41. doi: 10.1007/s10902-005-3648-6

21. Sugimoto Y. An Introduction to Japanese Society . 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2014). p. 64–90.

22. Umemura T, Traphagan JW. Reviewing Japanese concepts of Amae and Ie to deeper understand the relevance of secure-base behavior in the context of Japanese caregiver-child interactions. Integr Psychol Behav Sci . (2015) 49:714–36. doi: 10.1007/s12124-015-9316-4

23. Holloway SD, Behrens KY. Parenting self-efficacy among Japanese mothers: qualitative and quantitative perspectives on its association with childhood memories of family relations. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev . (2002) 96:27–43. doi: 10.1002/cd.42

24. Doi T. The Anatomy of Dependence . JP: Kodansha International (1973).

25. Shaffer DR. Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence . 4th ed. Bermont: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. (1995). p. 689.

26. Rothbaum F, Kakinuma M, Nagaoka R, Azuma H. Attachment and Amae. J Cross Cult Psychol . (2007) 38:465–86. doi: 10.1177/0022022107302315

27. Rothbaum F, Weisz J, Pott M, Miyake K, Morelli G. Attachment and culture: security in the United States and Japan. Am Psychol . (2000) 55:1093–104. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.10.1093

28. Behrens KY. A multifaceted view of the concept of Amae: reconsidering the indigenous Japanese concept of relatedness. Hum Dev . (2004) 47:1–27. doi: 10.1159/000075366

29. Niiya Y, Ellsworth PC, Yamaguchi S. Amae in Japan and the United States: an exploration of a “culturally unique” emotion. Emotion . (2006) 6:279–95. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.279

30. Power TG, Kobayashi-Winata H, Kelley ML. Childrearing patterns in Japan and the United States: a cluster analytic study. Int J Behav Dev . (1992) 15:185–205. doi: 10.1177/016502549201500202

31. Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev . (1991) 98:224–53. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

32. Shirasa T. Kyoudai Kankei to Sono Kankei Ryouiki no Bunkenshuusei 2 (Japanese) . JP: Kawashima shoten (2004).

33. Someya T, Uehara T, Kadowaki M, Tang SW, Takahashi S. Effects of gender difference and birth order on perceived parenting styles, measured by the EMBU scale, in Japanese two-sibling subjects. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci . (2000) 54:77–81. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1819.2000.00640.x

34. Kojima Y. Effects of birth order on self-reliance of Japanese preschoolers during daily routines. Psychology . (2019) 10:1262–8. doi: 10.4236/psych.2019.109081

35. Ministory of Health Labour and Welfare. Vital Statistics of Japan . (2017). Available online at: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/suikei18/dl/2018gaiyou.pdf (accessed November 1, 2019).

36. Ochi M, Isumi A, Kato T, Doi S, Fujiwara T. Adachi child health impact of living difficulty (A-CHILD) study: research protocol and profiles of participants. J Epidemiol . (2020) 31:77–89. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20190177

37. Carballo JJ, Garcia-Nieto R, Alvarez-Garcia R, Caro-Canizares I, Lopez-Castroman J, Munoz-Lorenzo L, et al. Sibship size, birth order, family structure and childhood mental disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol . (2013) 48:1327–33. doi: 10.1007/s00127-013-0661-7

38. Damian RI, Roberts BW. The associations of birth order with personality and intelligence in a representative sample of U.S. high school students. J Res Pers . (2015) 58:96–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.005

39. Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip . (1997) 38:581–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x

40. Moriwaki A, Kamio Y. Normative data and psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire among Japanese school-aged children. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health . (2014) 8:1. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-8-1

41. Matsuishi T, Nagano M, Araki Y, Tanaka Y, Iwasaki M, Yamashita Y, et al. Scale properties of the Japanese version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): a study of infant and school children in community samples. Brain Dev . (2008) 30:410–5. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2007.12.003

42. Sakurai S. The investigation of self-consciousness in the 5th-and 6th-grade children. Jap J Exp Soc Psyhol . (1992) 32:85–94. doi: 10.2130/jjesp.32.85

43. Harter S. The perceived competence scale for children. Child Dev . (1982) 53:87–97. doi: 10.2307/1129640

44. Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health. Survey of Living Conditions on Chidren in Tokyo . (2017). Available online at: https://www.fukushihoken.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/smph/joho/soshiki/syoushi/syoushi/oshirase/kodomoseikatsujittaityousakekka.html (accessed January 29, 2021).

45. Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology. Zenkokutekina gakuryoku chousa (Zenkoku gakuryoku gakushuu joukyou chousatou) (2019). Available online at: https://www.nier.go.jp/19chousakekkahoukoku/19summary.pdf (accessed January 30, 2021).

46. Doi S, Fujiwara T, Ochi M, Isumi A, Kato T. Association of sleep habits with behavior problems and resilience of 6- to 7-year-old children: results from the A-CHILD study. Sleep Med . (2018) 45:62–8. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2017.12.015

47. Lawson DW, Mace R. Siblings and childhood mental health: evidence for a later-born advantage. Soc Sci Med . (2010) 70:2061–9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.009

48. Furukawa TA, Kawakami N, Saitoh M, Ono Y, Nakane Y, Nakamura Y, et al. The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res . (2008) 17:152–8. doi: 10.1002/mpr.257

49. Hayslip B Jr., Blumenthal H, Garner A. Social support and grandparent caregiver health: one-year longitudinal findings for grandparents raising their grandchildren. J Gerontol Series B . (2014) 70:804–12. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu165

50. Tanskanen AO, Jokela M, Danielsbacka M, Rotkirch A. Grandparental effects on fertility vary by lineage in the United Kingdom. Hum Nat (Hawthorne, NY) . (2014) 25:269–84. doi: 10.1007/s12110-014-9200-9

51. Dunifon R. The influence of grandparents on the lives of children and adolescents. Child Dev Perspect . (2013) 7:55–60. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12016

52. Pearson RM, Culpin I, Loret de Mola C, Matijasevich A, Santos IS, Horta BL. Grandmothers' mental health is associated with grandchildren's emotional and behavioral development: a three-generation prospective study in Brazil. BMC Psychiatry . (2019) 19:184. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2166-8

53. Sadruddin AFA, Ponguta LA, Zonderman AL, Wiley KS, Grimshaw A, Panter-Brick C. How do grandparents influence child health and development? A systematic review. Soc Sci Med . (2019) 239:112476. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112476

54. Green B, Griffiths EC. Birth order and post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychol Health Med . (2014) 19:24–32. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2013.774432

55. Ayyavoo A, Savage T, Derraik JGB, Hofman PL, Cutfield WS. First-born children have reduced insulin sensitivity and higher daytime blood pressure compared to later-born children. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . (2013) 98:1248–53. doi: 10.1210/jc.2012-3531

56. Perzanowski MS, Canfield SM, Chew GL, Mellins RB, Hoepner LA, Jacobson JS, et al. Birth order, atopy, and symptoms of allergy and asthma among inner-city children attending Head Start in New York City. Clin Exp Allergy . (2008) 38:968–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.02967.x

57. Rudan I, Boschi-Pinto C, Biloglav Z, Mulholland K, Campbell H. Epidemiology and etiology of childhood pneumonia. Bull World Health Organ . (2008) 86:408–16. doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.048769

58. Craske MG, Poulton R, Tsao JC, Plotkin D. Paths to panic disorder/agoraphobia: an exploratory analysis from age 3 to 21 in an unselected birth cohort. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry . (2001) 40:556–63. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200105000-00015

59. Goodwin RD, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Asthma and depressive and anxiety disorders among young persons in the community. Psychol Med . (2004) 34:1465–74. doi: 10.1017/S0033291704002739

60. Teyhan A, Galobardes B, Henderson J. Child allergic symptoms and well-being at school: findings from ALSPAC, a UK cohort study. PLoS ONE . (2015) 10:e0135271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135271

61. Statistics Bureau of Japan. Japan Statistical Yearbook 2018 . (2018). Available online at: https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/67nenkan/index.html (accessed January 29, 2021).

62. Slaughter V, Imuta K, Peterson CC, Henry JD. Meta-analysis of theory of mind and peer popularity in the preschool and early school years. Child Dev . (2015) 86:1159–74. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12372

63. McGee R, Stanton WR. Sources of distress among New Zealand adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry . (1992) 33:999–1010. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00921.x

64. Stormshak EA, Bellanti CJ, Bierman KL. The quality of sibling relationships and the development of social competence and behavioral control in aggressive children. Dev Psychol . (1996) 32:79–89. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.79

65. Tucker CJ, McHale SM, Crouter AC. Links between older and younger adolescent siblings' adjustment: the moderating role of shared activities. Int J Behav Dev . (2008) 32:152–60. doi: 10.1177/0165025407087214

66. McHale SM, Updegraff KA, Whiteman SD. Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. J Marriage Fam . (2012) 74:913–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x

67. Bosacki S, Wilde Astington J. Theory of mind in preadolescence: relations between social understanding and social competence. Soc Dev . (1999) 8:237–55. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00093

68. Youngblade LM, Dunn J. Individual differences in young children's pretend play with mother and sibling: links to relationships and understanding of other people's feelings and beliefs. Child Dev . (1995) 66:1472–92. doi: 10.2307/1131658

69. Kramer L. Learning emotional understanding and emotion regulation through sibling interaction. Early Educ Dev . (2014) 25:160–84. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2014.838824

70. Brown JR, Donelan-McCall N, Dunn J. Why talk about mental states? The significance of children's conversations with friends, siblings, and mothers. Child Dev . (1996) 67:836–49. doi: 10.2307/1131864

71. Howe N, Rinaldi CM, Jennings M, Petrakos H. “No! the lambs can stay out because they got cozies”: constructive and destructive sibling conflict, pretend play, and social understanding. Child Dev . (2002) 73:1460–73. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00483

72. Dunn J, Munn P. Siblings and the development of prosocial behaviour. Int J Behav Dev . (1986) 9:265–84. doi: 10.1177/016502548600900301

73. Howe N, Recchia H. Playmates and teachers: reciprocal and complementary interactions between siblings. J Fam Psychol . (2005) 19:497–502. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.497

74. Howe N, Recchia H. Individual differences in sibling teaching in early and middle childhood. Early Educ Dev . (2009) 20:174–97. doi: 10.1080/10409280802206627

75. Samuels HR. The effect of an older sibling on infant locomotor exploration of a new environment. Child Dev . (1980) 51:607–9. doi: 10.2307/1129305

76. Jenkins J. Sibling Relationships in Disharmonious Homes: Potential Difficulties and Protective Effects. Children's Sibling Relationships: Developmental and Clinical Issues . Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (1992). p. 125–38.

77. Teti DM, Ablard KE. Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: a laboratory study. Child Dev . (1989) 60:1519–28. doi: 10.2307/1130940

78. Gass K, Jenkins J, Dunn J. Are sibling relationships protective? A longitudinal study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry . (2007) 48:167–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01699.x

79. Loeser MK, Whiteman SD, McHale SM. Siblings' perceptions of differential treatment, fairness, and jealousy and adolescent adjustment: a moderated indirect effects model. J Child Fam Stud . (2016) 25:2405–14. doi: 10.1007/s10826-016-0429-2

80. Meunier JC, Roskam I, Stievenart M, De Moortele GV, Browne DT, Wade M. Parental differential treatment, child's externalizing behavior and sibling relationships: bridging links with child's perception of favoritism and personality, and parents' self-efficacy. J Soc Pers Relat . (2012) 29:612–38. doi: 10.1177/0265407512443419

81. Shanahan L, McHale SM, Crouter AC, Osgood DW. Linkages between parents' differential treatment, youth depressive symptoms, and sibling relationships. J Marriage Fam . (2008) 70:480–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00495.x

82. Feinberg ME, Neiderhiser JM, Simmens S, Reiss D, Hetherington EM. Sibling comparison of differential parental treatment in adolescence: gender, self-esteem, and emotionality as mediators of the parenting-adjustment association. Child Dev . (2000) 71:1611–28. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00252

83. Brown BB, Larson J. Peer relationships in adolescence. In: Lerner RM, Steinberg L, editors. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Contextual Influences on Adolescent Development, Vol 2, 3rd edn . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. (2009). p. 74–103.

84. Cole DA, Maxwell SE, Martin JM, Peeke LG, Seroczynski AD, Tram JM, et al. The development of multiple domains of child and adolescent self-concept: a cohort sequential longitudinal design. Child Dev . (2001) 72:1723–46. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00375

85. Wigfield A, Eccles JS, Mac Iver D, Reuman DA, Midgley C. Transitions during early adolescence: changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Dev Psychol . (1991) 27:552–65. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.4.552

86. Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA. Personality, adrenal steroid hormones, and resilience in maltreated children: a multilevel perspective. Dev Psychopathol . (2007) 19:787–809. doi: 10.1017/S0954579407000399

87. Masten AS, Barnes AJ. Resilience in children: developmental perspectives. Children . (2018) 5:98. doi: 10.3390/children5070098

88. Zolkoski SM, Bullock LM. Resilience in children and youth: a review. Child Youth Serv Rev . (2012) 34:2295–303. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.009

89. Dirks MA, Persram R, Recchia HE, Howe N. Sibling relationships as sources of risk and resilience in the development and maintenance of internalizing and externalizing problems during childhood and adolescence. Clin Psychol Rev . (2015) 42:145–55. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.003

90. Benzies K, Mychasiuk R. Fostering family resiliency: a review of the key protective factors. Child Fam Soc Work . (2009) 14:103–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00586.x

91. Volling BL. The transition to siblinghood: a developmental ecological systems perspective and directions for future research. J Fam Psychol . (2005) 19:542–9. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.542

92. Whiteman SD, McHale SM, Soli A. Theoretical perspectives on sibling relationships. J Fam Theory Rev . (2011) 3:124–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00087.x

93. Volling BL. Family transitions following the birth of a sibling: an empirical review of changes in the firstborn's adjustment. Psychol Bull . (2012) 138:497–528. doi: 10.1037/a0026921

94. Baskett LM. Sibling status effects: adult expectations. Dev Psychol . (1985) 21:441–5. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.441

95. Salmon CA, Daly M. Birth order and familial sentiment: middleborns are different. Evol Hum Behav . (1998) 19:299–312. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00022-1

96. Salmon C. Birth order and relationships. Hum Nat . (2003) 14:73–88. doi: 10.1007/s12110-003-1017-x

97. Schwab MR, Lundgren DC. Birth order, perceived appraisals by significant others, and self-esteem. Psychol Rep . (1978) 43:443–54. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1978.43.2.443

98. Robins RW, Trzesniewski KH. Self-esteem development across the lifespan. Curr Direct Psychol Sci . (2005) 14:158–62. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00353.x

99. Baldwin SA, Hoffmann JP. The dynamics of self-esteem: a growth-curve analysis. J Youth Adolesc . (2002) 31:101–13. doi: 10.1023/A:1014065825598

100. Buist KL, Vermande M. Sibling relationship patterns and their associations with child competence and problem behavior. J Fam Psychol . (2014) 28:529–37. doi: 10.1037/a0036990

101. Menesini E, Camodeca M, Nocentini A. Bullying among siblings: the role of personality and relational variables. Br J Dev Psychol . (2010) 28:921–39. doi: 10.1348/026151009X479402

102. Geller PA, Kerns D, Klier CM. Anxiety following miscarriage and the subsequent pregnancy: a review of the literature and future directions. J Psychosom Res . (2004) 56:35–45. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00042-4

103. Lamb EH. The impact of previous perinatal loss on subsequent pregnancy and parenting. J Perinat Educ . (2002) 11:33–40. doi: 10.1891/1058-1243.11.2.33

104. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Cougle J. The quality of the caregiving environment and child developmental outcomes associated with maternal history of abortion using the NLSY data. J Child Psychol Psychiatry . (2002) 43:743–57. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00095

Keywords: birth order, mental health, resilience, happiness, self-esteem

Citation: Fukuya Y, Fujiwara T, Isumi A, Doi S and Ochi M (2021) Association of Birth Order With Mental Health Problems, Self-Esteem, Resilience, and Happiness Among Children: Results From A-CHILD Study. Front. Psychiatry 12:638088. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.638088

Received: 05 December 2020; Accepted: 17 March 2021; Published: 14 April 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Fukuya, Fujiwara, Isumi, Doi and Ochi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Takeo Fujiwara, fujiwara.hlth@tmd.ac.jp

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Hidden Brain

Research shows birth order really does matter.

Shankar Vedantam

Compared to older siblings, second-born boys are more likely to go to prison, get suspended in school and enter juvenile delinquency. Why? Parents of first-borns are more invested in their upbringing.

Research shows birth order really does matter. Catherine Delahaye/Getty Images hide caption

Research shows birth order really does matter.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

You've heard the stereotypes - firstborn children are spoiled, middle kids get ignored, and the youngest kids act out because they crave attention. Well, new research shows that birth order really does matter.

NPR's Social Science Correspondent Shankar Vedantam spoke with our co-host David Greene.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

Hey, Shankar.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Hey, David.

GREENE: So Shankar, the effect of birth order is a real thing. It's not just a cliche or fodder for jokes that, you know, people can make at their siblings' expense?

VEDANTAM: That's right, David. A number of studies have looked into this. And they've found that firstborns often do better than secondborns on many fronts, everything from educational attainment to test scores, IQ, wages, even labor market outcomes.

GREENE: So maybe the spoiled part is not true. But they actually - it does make a difference in some ways.

VEDANTAM: Exactly.

GREENE: But, I mean, Shankar you did give a long list of advantages there for firstborns. Is this research new, stuff we didn't know before?

VEDANTAM: There is new research now, David. It comes from Joseph Doyle. He's an MIT economist. And he looks not at positive stuff but negative stuff - violent crime, delinquency, school suspensions. His research focuses on boys since boys are much more likely than girls to end up in serious trouble in their teenage years. Doyle and his colleagues Sanni Breining, David Figlio, Krzys Karbownik and Jeffrey Roth got their hands on large data sets, David, involving tens of thousands of brothers.

Now, because you're comparing older brothers against younger brothers, you can assume the family environment for both kids is more or less constant. The data come from two very different settings, the state of Florida and the country of Denmark. Lots of things are different in those two places. But the researchers find consistent evidence when it comes to crime and delinquency.

JOSEPH DOYLE: I find the results to be remarkable that the second-born children, compared to their older siblings, are much more likely to end up in prison, much more likely to get suspended in school, enter juvenile delinquency. Across all these outcomes, we're getting 25 to 40 percent increases in the likelihood of these outcomes just by comparing a second-born sibling compared to a first-born.

VEDANTAM: To be clear, David, only a minority of kids, maybe, you know, 1 in 10, 1 in 20, are getting in serious trouble. But Doyle is saying that among this minority of children, there appear to be sizable differences between first- and second-born brothers.

GREENE: Well, why are there these big differences between younger and older children, does he think?

VEDANTAM: Well, one possible explanation has to do with the effect of parental time and investment. As many other earlier studies have noted, firstborn kids get the undivided attention of their parents, whereas kids born later are often competing for parental time and resources. Another factor that might be different is the peer group for first- and second-born kids is different. Older and younger siblings come from the same family, but they have different peer groups early in life.

DOYLE: The firstborn has role models, who are adults. And the second, later-born children have role models who are slightly irrational 2-year-olds, you know, their older siblings. Both the parental investments are different, and the sibling influences probably contribute to these differences we see in labor market and what we find in delinquency. It's just very difficult to separate those two things because they happen at the same time.

VEDANTAM: I should say here, David, for all the people who are throwing objects at the radio or about to hurl their phone off a tall building, birth-order effects tend to be very controversial because everyone immediately thinks about their own sibling relationships...

GREENE: Yeah.

VEDANTAM: ...Or their own children. And we all tend to draw conclusions about our immediate family experiences. This research, of course, is painting a broad picture. It doesn't describe what's happening in every single family.

GREENE: OK, good to remind people of that. Thanks, Shankar.

VEDANTAM: Thank you, David.

GREENE: That is Shankar Vedantam. He is NPR's social science correspondent. You also hear him frequently on this program. And he hosts a podcast that explores the unseen patterns in human behavior. It's called Hidden Brain.

(SOUNDBITE OF THE MOON'S HOUSE'S "CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE")

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Developmental Psychology — Birth Order

Essays on Birth Order

Birth order and its impact on personality and development have intrigued psychologists, educators, and scholars for decades. The concept suggests that the order in which a child is born within a family can significantly influence their character, career, and relationships. As a complex and fascinating topic, it provides a rich basis for academic exploration and essay writing. This guide aims to delve into the nuances of birth order, offering insights and strategies for students crafting their essays on this subject.

The Essence of Birth Order Essays

Birth order essays explore the theory that an individual's personality traits, behaviors, and life choices can be influenced by their position among siblings in the family unit. These essays often analyze the roles of first-borns, middle children, last-borns, and only children, drawing on psychological theories and empirical research to support their discussions. A well-crafted birth order essay not only presents arguments and evidence but also critically examines the counterarguments and limitations of birth order theories.

Topics to Explore in Birth Order Essays

Personality Traits and Birth Order: Discuss how first-borns often assume leadership roles, middle children develop negotiation skills, and last-borns might exhibit more rebellious traits.
The Influence of Birth Order on Career Choices: Explore the tendency for first-borns to choose careers in law, medicine, or engineering, while later-borns may gravitate towards creative or entrepreneurial paths.
Birth Order and Family Dynamics: Analyze how birth order affects sibling relationships, parental expectations, and family roles.
Comparative Studies Across Cultures: Examine how cultural differences impact the effects of birth order on personality and behavior.

Advantages of Using Birth Order Essay Samples

Utilizing essay samples as references can significantly benefit students in several ways:

Structural Guidance: Samples provide a blueprint for organizing an essay effectively, from the introduction and thesis statement to the body paragraphs and conclusion.
Ideas and Inspiration: Reviewing various samples can spark new ideas and perspectives, enriching the essay's content and approach.
Understanding of Academic Standards: Samples illustrate how to properly cite sources, integrate evidence, and maintain academic integrity.
Critical Thinking: Analyzing different viewpoints within samples enhances critical thinking and analytical skills, encouraging a balanced and well-argued essay.

Strategies for Writing an Impactful Birth Order Essay

Choose a Unique Angle: While many essays have been written on birth order, finding a unique angle or focusing on a less-explored aspect can make your essay stand out.
Incorporate Current Research: Including recent studies or findings adds depth and relevance to your essay, demonstrating engagement with ongoing scholarly discussions.
Balance Personal Insight with Scholarly Evidence: While personal observations can enrich an essay, it's crucial to support arguments with empirical evidence and scholarly research.
Reflect on Implications: Discuss the broader implications of birth order theories on education, counseling, parenting strategies, and societal norms.

The Role of Birth Order in Shaping Individuals

Birth order is more than just a theory; it's a lens through which we can understand the complexities of human behavior and personality development. Writing an essay on this topic offers a unique opportunity to explore how familial positions influence individuals in multifaceted ways. By leveraging essay samples, focusing on insightful research, and engaging critically with the material, students can produce compelling essays that contribute meaningfully to the discourse on birth order.

Whether you're an aspiring psychologist, an educator, or simply curious about the dynamics of family life, essays on birth order provide a platform to explore the intersections of psychology, sociology, and personal experience. As you embark on this academic journey, remember that the key to a successful essay lies in thorough research, critical analysis, and a deep understanding of the nuances of birth order theory.

The Importance of Children’s Birth Order in a Family

Different birth order personality types and psychology behind them, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Birth Order Chart and My Personal Character

Family child order and effects of having a sole child, the role of birth order in the relationships between siblings, life beginning & fertalization, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Influence of Birth Order on Self-esteem

The role of being the middle child, navigating middle child syndrome, understanding birth order: shapes personalities and lives, relevant topics.

Childhood Development
Personal Development Planning
Adolescence
Cognitive Development
Growth Mindset
Procrastination

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

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
Front Psychol
PMC10020628

Siblings, shopping, and sustainability: Birth-order differences in green consumption

Tobias otterbring.

1 Department of Management, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

Christine Sundgot-Borgen

2 Regional Department for Eating Disorders, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

Solfrid Bratland-Sanda

3 Department of Sport, Physical Education and Outdoor Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

Lise Katrine Jepsen Trangsrud

4 Department of Health, Social and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Several studies have examined the role of birth order in shaping human personality, but fewer have tested this variable in relation to other pressing issues. We conducted a birth-order study on green consumption, which enabled us to detect a small-to-moderate effect size equivalent to r = 0.15 or d = 0.30 with sufficient statistical power ( N = 335). To capture green consumption, participants indicated their tendency to express the value of environmental protection through purchases and consumption behaviors. Firstborns (vs. laterborns) consistently expressed lower concerns linked to environmental protection in their purchase patterns. While the effect size of this finding was small-to-moderate by conventional standards and in direct contrast to the findings from a recent article on the same topic, these results could still be informative to address challenges associated with climate change considering the number of individuals with siblings in the world and the ease with which birth-order data can be collected.

1. Introduction

Francis Galton (1874) was among the first to highlight the role of birth order on academic achievements and personality. He believed that the oldest sons benefitted from the most stimulating intellectual environment and hence should be more likely than their siblings to end up as authoritative academics. More recent research suggests that he, at least partially, may have been right, but that the effect sizes of birth-order findings on cognitive abilities are small, with firstborns only slightly more intelligent than laterborns ( Rohrer et al., 2015 ).

Despite multiple studies on the role of birth order in shaping human personality (for a meta-analysis, see Sulloway, 1995 ), the existing literature has largely neglected this variable in relation to other important aspects of social life ( Salmon et al., 2016 ). Importantly, few studies have examined whether birth order can predict consumption-related outcomes, although some notable exceptions exist. For example, Saad et al. (2005) demonstrated that firstborns (vs. laterborns) were more susceptible to normative interpersonal influence in their purchase patterns and hence more inclined to comply with certain norms in their consumption responses (e.g., purchasing brands that others will approve of). In other words, laterborns were more likely to violate such norms, supporting former research which has discussed a later birth order in relation to more nonconforming characteristics ( Sulloway, 1995 ). Similarly, Zemanek et al. (2000) found firstborns (vs. laterborns) to exhibit lower levels of materialism; Nancarrow et al. (1999) documented firstborns (vs. laterborns) to express a higher desire to talk to others before and/or after a high involvement purchase; and Berekson (1972) presented some evidence for the notion that firstborns (vs. laterborns) would be more prone to purchase life insurance.

Given the urgent need to tackle climate change ( Stern, 2015 ; Campbell et al., 2018 ; Folwarczny and Otterbring, 2021 ), some studies have also linked birth order to a set of prosocial responses, which can be conceptualized as actions and attitudes that have other-oriented rather than self-centered benefits, including sharing, giving, helping, and cooperating for the greater good ( Batson and Powell, 2003 ; Otterbring et al., 2021b ; Pfattheicher et al., 2022 ). Engaging in green consumption is one example of prosociality, as purchasing sustainable products rather than conventional alternatives may mitigate climate change issues and benefit the planet ( Gidlöf et al., 2021 ; Loebnitz et al., 2022 ). Accordingly, this Brief Research Report aimed to add to this stream of literature by examining whether firstborns and laterborns differ in prosocial responses linked to green consumption, hereinafter defined as the propensity to display values linked to environmental protection by means of one’s purchase patterns and the way products and services are consumed ( Haws et al., 2014 ; Grønhøj and Hubert, 2022 ). This main objective is warranted not only due to the societal relevance of studying potential predictors of green consumption, but also because the birth-order literature is mixed with respect to whether firstborns or laterborns can be expected to exhibit the most prosocial responses in this consumption domain, as further delineated below.

2. Mixed messages in the birth-order literature

Otterbring and Folwarczny (2022) predicted and found that firstborns should be more prone than laterborns to engage in prosocial behavior linked to green consumption, with such pro-environmental responses recently portrayed as a prosocial kin care action ( Palomo-Vélez and van Vugt, 2021 ). Considering that firstborns share parental responsibility in terms of caring for and teaching their younger siblings ( Sulloway, 2001 ; Hughes et al., 2018 ), it seems reasonable that they should be more inclined to engage in green consumption. Further support for this thesis stems from findings that have linked birth order to both intelligence and conscientiousness, with firstborns being somewhat more intelligent and conscientious than laterborns ( Sulloway, 1995 ; Rohrer et al., 2015 ). Therefore, as firstborns not only act as surrogate parents for their younger siblings ( Pollet and Nettle, 2007 ; Su et al., 2014 ) but also tend to have a personality profile that is linked to responsibility-related aspects ( Sulloway, 1995 ), it is plausible that they are more inclined than laterborns to engage green consumption, considering that such sustainable shopping responses are often referred to as a way of demonstrating responsibility ( Wu and Yang, 2018 ; Yue et al., 2020 ). Following this line of logic, we formulate the following research question (RQ):

RQ1a: Are there birth-order differences in green consumption and, if so, are firstborns more inclined to engage in green consumption than laterborns?

However, other birth-order findings suggest the opposite outcome, such that laterborns may be more prone to participate in green consumption and similar acts of prosociality. Indeed, several studies suggest that laterborns are more prosocial than firstborns ( Salmon et al., 2016 ; Okada et al., 2021 ), while simultaneously being warmer and more empathetic, less narcissistic, and more cooperative, altruistic, and other-oriented in their achievement goals ( Paulhus et al., 1999 ; Eckstein et al., 2010 ; Carette et al., 2011 ; Prime et al., 2017 ). For example, using a large-scale population-based cohort dataset of more than 3,000 adolescents, Okada et al. (2021) recently found laterborns to score higher than firstborns on various prosociality measures, as captured through scores on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997 ). Similarly, Salmon et al. (2016) found a moderate association between birth order and prosociality, such that laterborns displayed greater prosocial responses than firstborns on aspects such as empathy, social altruism, and family support. Furthermore, research on cooperative behaviors has revealed that laterborns generally tend to reciprocate more than firstborns in economic games, with birth order being a better predictor of such cooperativeness than factors such as age, gender, and income ( Courtiol et al., 2009 ). Accordingly, as an alternative to RQ1a, we also acknowledge the contrasting possibility:

RQ1b: Are there birth-order differences in green consumption and, if so, are laterborns more inclined to engage in green consumption than firstborns?

3.1. Participants, exclusion criteria, and statistical power

The study was part of a larger, multi-national project, which examined people’s body image in nature across cultures (for further details, see Swami et al., 2022 ). The overall research project received ethical approval from the School Research Ethics Committee at Anglia Ruskin University (approval code: PSY-S19-015). For the purpose of the current study, the data were collected solely in Norway, were approved by the Norwegian Data Protection Service (ID 833522), and originally included a community sample comprising 360 participants. All participants provided written informed consent before getting access to the survey and were not compensated for taking part in the study. As far as can be ascertained, birth-order data were only collected in Norway to address the unique aim of the current research. Another portion of the Norwegian data, which focused on the relationship between physical activity arenas and adults’ body appreciation, appears in Sundgot-Borgen et al. (2022) .

Given that prior research has found birth-order effects to be sensitive to participants’ ethnic origin even in neighboring countries ( Saarela et al., 2016 ; Saarela and Kolk, 2021 ), we excluded participants who either described their ethnic affiliation as representing an ethnic minority ( n = 16) or who were not sure about their ethnic affiliation ( n = 7). 1 Further, we excluded participants whose stated gender (“other”) was too infrequently represented for meaningful analyses ( n = 2), leaving a final sample of 335 participants (76.72% female; M age = 41.61, SD = 11.77) representing the ethnic majority in Norway. This sample size has a statistical power of approximately 80% to detect small-to-moderate effect sizes corresponding to r = 0.15 or d = 0.30, assuming a conventional alpha level of α = 0.05 ( Cohen, 2013 ). Moreover, our sample size is larger than the sample sizes used in most former birth-order studies on consumption-related outcomes, which have typically included around 80 to 310 participants (e.g., Claxton, 1995 ; Claxton et al., 1995 ; Zemanek et al., 2000 ; Saad et al., 2005 ; Berisha et al., 2022 ).

3.2. Procedure and measures

Participants were recruited through university networks and social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), and represented a heterogeneous sample from different regions of Norway. Of the entire sample, approximately 20% lived in the capital city or its suburbs ( n = 66; 19.7%), with a similar share of participants living in provincial cities with more than 100,000 residents ( n = 61; 18.2%) or in the rural areas of the country ( n = 74; 22.1%). The largest proportion of participants lived in provincial towns with more than 10,000 residents ( n = 134; 40.0%). The sample was relatively highly educated, with most participants indicating having either a postgraduate degree ( n = 160; 47.8%) or an undergraduate degree ( n = 118; 35.2%). Less than 1% of participants indicated having no formal education ( n = 2; 0.6%) or only primary education ( n = 1; 0.3%). In terms of marital status, most participants were either married ( n = 136; 40.6%) or in a committed relationship ( n = 124; 37.0%), although some were single ( n = 68; 20.3%) or indicated “other” as their marital status ( n = 7; 2.1%).

Participants filled out a series of measures through an online link, including the well-validated 6-item GREEN scale ( Haws et al., 2014 ), which contains items such as “My purchase habits are affected by my concern for our environment” (see the Appendix for all scale items). Responses were given on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) and were averaged to form a composite GREEN consumption index (α = 0.91). Given that birth-order effects have been widely discussed in relation to personality traits ( Sulloway, 1995 ; Eckstein et al., 2010 ; Rohrer et al., 2015 ), participants further replied to the five-item personality inventory (FIPI), which captures each of the Big Five personality traits with a single-item measure per trait ( Gosling et al., 2003 ). Participants indicated their responses on a 5-point scale for the personality items (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). As common method bias can be effectively mitigated by minimizing common scale properties ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ; Elbæk et al., 2022 ; Gasiorowska et al., 2022 ), the fact that we used different response alternatives across the survey (i.e., 5- and 7-point scales combined with categorical questions) means that this bias form should have been reduced ( Podsakoff et al., 2012 ; Mellewigt et al., 2018 ; Otterbring et al., 2021a ). We found no general birth-order differences on any of the Big Five personality traits (all p s > 0.16) and these traits will not be discussed further unless explicitly stated.

Data on participants’ sibship size, gender, age, and “only-child” status were collected to account for these variables in the analyses. Mirroring previous birth-order research ( Rohrer et al., 2015 ; Otterbring and Folwarczny, 2022 ), we did not distinguish between participants who had full, half, step, or adoptive siblings. Regarding sibship size, however, there are more laterborns in larger sibships, and differences between firstborns and laterborns may thus occur due to laterborns being more likely to be born into families with a lower socioeconomic status, which can be associated with other individual differences ( Rohrer et al., 2015 ; Otterbring and Folwarczny, 2022 ). To explicitly account for this potential bias source, participants indicated their financial security by replying to the following question: “Compared to others of your own age in your country, how financially secure do you feel?” Responses were provided through the categories: “less secure” ( n = 44; 13.1%), “same” ( n = 188; 56.1%), and “more secure” ( n = 103; 30.7%). However, controlling for financial security in our analyses did not change the nature and significance of our results, and there was no significant correlation between sibship size and financial security ( r = −0.06, p = 0.290) or between birth order and financial security ( r = 0.03, p = 0.586), thus ruling out financial security as a crucial confound.

We report our analyses in the following order: First, we conduct an independent samples t -test to examine whether firstborns ( n = 167) differ from laterborns ( n = 168) on the GREEN scale. Next, we present the partial correlation between birth order and green consumption while controlling for participants’ age, gender, sibship size, and “only-child” status. Subsequently, we report the results of a multiple linear regression, using birth order, age, gender, sibship size, and “only-child” status as the predictors, and the GREEN scale as the outcome variable. Finally, to show robustness of our findings, we test for birth-order differences between participants whose birth order equals first ( n = 167), second ( n = 101), or third ( n = 48), accounting for 94.33% ( N = 316) of the sample used in our main analyses. Following Otterbring and Folwarczny (2022) , who excluded categories that made up less than 10% of the sample due to small cell sizes and hence insufficient statistical power to detect modest effects for these categories, we omit birth orders of 4 and higher (5.7%) in these final robustness tests; see Table 1 for the birth order and sibship size distributions in our sample and Table 2 for the zero-order correlations between our focal variables.

Birth order and sibship size percentages.

The highest birth order was 12, and the largest sibship size was 15 in the present study. Firstborns include “only-child” participants ( n = 25; 7.5%).

Grand means (with SDs) or probabilities of key variables and their zero-order correlations.

* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.

4.1. Independent samples t -test

Firstborns ( M first = 4.92, SD = 1.16) were found to score significantly lower than laterborns ( M later = 5.23, SD = 1.11) on the GREEN scale ( t (333) = −2.51, p = 0.012, d = −0.28, 95% CI of d = [−0.49, −0.06]), indicating that their purchases and consumption preferences reflect lower concerns for environmental protection 2 . These findings go directly against RQ1a but support the competing possibility, as postulated by RQ1b.

4.2. Partial correlation

The partial correlation between birth order and the GREEN scale remained significant even after controlling for participants’ age, gender, sibship size, and “only-child” status ( r partial = −0.13, 95% CI of r partial = [−0.23, −0.02], p = 0.022), again leaving RQ1a unsupported while offering additional support for RQ1b.

4.3. Multiple linear regression

Within the context of birth-order effects, the GREEN scale yielded a significant overall model ( F (5, 329) = 4.07, p = 0.001, R 2 = 0.06), with birth order ( b = −0.29, 95% CI of b = [−0.54, −0.04], β standardized = −0.13; p = 0.022) and age ( b = 0.02, 95% CI of b = [0.01, 0.03], β standardized = 0.20; p < 0.001) as significant predictors, and with participants’ gender ( b = −0.02, 95% CI of b = [−0.31, 0.27], β standardized = −0.01; p = 0.904), sibship size ( b = 0.01, 95% CI of b = [−0.09, 0.12], β standardized = 0.02; p = 0.803), and “only-child” status ( b = −0.08, 95% CI of b = [−0.58, 0.42], β standardized = −0.02; p = 0.754) as nonsignificant predictors. Thus, laterborns (vs. firsborns) as well as older (vs. younger) participants scored higher on the GREEN scale, whereas all other predictors were unassociated with the scores on this scale. Together, these results yet again leave RQ1a unsupported but provide converging evidence for RQ1b.

4.4. Robustness checks

A one-way ANOVA found a significant impact of birth order (first, second, third) on the GREEN scale ( F (2, 313) = 3.42, p = 0.034, η p 2 = 0.02). Follow-up planned contrasts revealed that firstborns ( M first = 4.92, SD = 1.16) scored significantly lower than participants whose birth order equaled second and third ( t (313) = −2.48, p = 0.014, d = −0.58, 95% CI of d = [−1.04, −0.12]), whereas these latter groups did not differ significantly ( M second = 5.10, SD = 1.12 vs. M third = 5.40, SD = 1.06; t (313) = −1.46, p = 0.145, d = −0.26, 95% CI of d = [−0.60, 0.09]). As in all former analyses, these findings go against RQ1a but add further robustness to RQ1b. Controlling for participants’ age, gender, sibship size, and “only-child” status did not change the nature or significance of these results ( F (2, 309) = 3.21, p = 0.042, η p 2 = 0.02).

5. Discussion

The current study sought to address the mixed findings pertaining to the link between birth order and prosociality in the domain of green consumption. In direct contrast to the findings from a recent article ( Otterbring and Folwarczny, 2022 ), but consistent with a broader stream of literature on birth-order effects on aspects such as prosocial behavior, cooperation, and altruism (e.g., Eckstein et al., 2010 ; Salmon et al., 2016 ; Prime et al., 2017 ; Okada et al., 2021 ), we found robust evidence for the notion that laterborns (vs. firstborns) were more prone to purchase and consume products and services sustainably.

Our obtained effect size ( d = −0.28) lies between the 30th and 35th percentile compared to the magnitude of published effect sizes in personality and social psychology ( Gignac and Szodorai, 2016 ; see also Götz et al., 2022 ) and is similar in strength to the link between self-disclosure and likability ( Meyer et al., 2001 ). Yet, this finding may still be ultimately consequential considering the number of people with siblings in the world and the ease with which birth-order measures can be collected ( Funder and Ozer, 2019 ; Otterbring and Festila, 2021 ).

The present work is strengthened by a well-validated instrument (i.e., the GREEN scale) and multiple control variables, which jointly increase internal validity. However, selection bias constitutes a potential confound, as participants who voluntarily took part in the study—advertised as focusing on nature exposure and well-being—can be assumed to be particularly interested in nature and, by extension, sustainable actions.

The data at hand are based on citizens aged 18–83 years from a wide range of different urban and rural areas across Norway. This should make our data source more representative in terms of age and regional residence compared to the typical samples used in the academic literature. Indeed, scholars typically restrict themselves to convenience samples of WEIRD individuals (i.e., data collected in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies), normally in the form of university students or paid online panel participants ( Masuda et al., 2020 ; Muthukrishna et al., 2020 ; Eguren et al., 2021 ; Otterbring, 2021 ). Nevertheless, considering that the current research was based on a community sample, we cannot automatically infer that our data are representative at the population level. In fact, our sample may well be less representative than a typical student sample on certain aspects. Therefore, future research may benefit from reliance on representative samples, and should preferably be conducted in other cultural contexts with different sample types to test the generalizability of our obtained results. Optimally, such future scholarly work should also measure and control for further confounding factors that may influence sibling dynamics ( Keller et al., 2015 ; Grønhøj, 2016 ; Wu et al., 2018 ; Halder et al., 2020 ; Hou et al., 2020 ).

Otterbring and Folwarczny (2022) used the same GREEN scale as in the present investigation on a sample of online panel participants who had English as their first language and found firstborns (vs. laterborns) to show more pro-environmental consumption values, while the current research revealed the reverse among a community sample of Norwegian participants. Thus, there may be some constraints on generality pertaining to birth-order effects ( Van Bavel et al., 2016 ; Simons et al., 2017 ; Kerr et al., 2018 ; Otterbring et al., 2022 ).

Interestingly, although Otterbring and Folwarczny (2022) failed to find a general link between birth order and susceptibility to normative interpersonal influence, their sub-group analyses based on younger consumers found that these participants were more susceptible to such influence if they were firstborns (vs. laterborns). In other words, laterborns were more inclined to violate certain social norms compared to firstborns, consistent with the notion that laterborns have a more rebellious disposition, characterized by nonconformism and innovativeness ( Sulloway, 1995 ; Saad et al., 2005 ). Similarly, by restricting the current sample to participants aged 18–40 years ( N = 162; 48.4% of the total sample), we largely replicated the nature and effect size of the birth-order difference in green consumption ( M first = 4.72, SD = 1.25 vs. M later = 5.06, SD = 1.08; t (160) = −1.88, p = 0.062, d = −0.30), but also found that laterborns in this age group scored significantly higher than firstborns on the Big Five personality trait of Openness ( M first = 3.97, SD = 0.88 vs. M later = 4.25, SD = 0.82; t (160) = −2.06, p = 0.041, d = −0.32), with this trait also correlating significantly with green consumption ( r = 0.18, p = 0.021). As such, it is possible that our birth-order findings on green consumption, at least among participants of younger ages, can be attributed to trait differences in openness. Because the consumption practices that are adopted in early adulthood typically follow a habitual pattern ( Machín et al., 2020 ; Ragelienė and Grønhøj, 2020 ; Perkovic et al., 2022 ), this may explain our persistent birth-order effect in green consumption across ages, as documented in our main analyses, despite that the trait difference in openness between firstborns and laterborns vanished over time in our study and hence did not apply to participants aged 41–83 years. Future research should try to test this possibility.

Another fruitful avenue for future research is to more explicitly examine whether green consumption is just one of many possible ways to exhibit prosociality or, alternatively, whether this consumption form differs on important dimensions from broader measures of prosociality or altruism. Although previous research has found a moderate association between general prosocial attitudes and green consumption ( do Paço et al., 2019 ), this also means that birth-order effects on one of these constructs do not necessarily predict responses on the other. Accordingly, as our survey did not contain any generic measures of prosocial tendencies, further studies may benefit from simultaneously testing for birth-order differences on more than one facet of prosociality. Moreover, there is variability both between and within cultures regarding political values (e.g., liberal vs. conservative), and such values often include opinions about green consumption ( Elliott, 2013 ; Gustafson et al., 2019 ; Bravo and Farjam, 2022 ), suggesting that participants’ political preferences may be important to control for in academic work on sustainability-oriented aspects.

Parents’ sustainable consumption (e.g., buying eco-labeled products) and the way they communicate about environmentally friendly aspects (e.g., sorting household waste) are important factors in shaping children’s pro-environmental responses ( Grønhøj and Thøgersen, 2017 ; Gong et al., 2022 ). It is possible that parents develop more pro-environmental values when they get a larger number of children, as they may increasingly consider their children’s future under such circumstances. If so, these values should be more immediately transferred to laterborns relative to firstborns, influencing them from an earlier age ( cf. Grønhøj, 2006 ; Grønhøj and Thøgersen, 2009 ). In contrast, firstborns may be more prone to stay loyal to their parents’ initial values and may therefore exhibit less sustainable attitudes and behaviors. Such an interpretation would explain why laterborns scored higher than firstborn on the GREEN scale in the current investigation and hence calls for further empirical research.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The overall research project received ethical approval from the School Research Ethics Committee at Anglia Ruskin University (approval code: PSY-S19-015). For the purpose of the current study, the data were collected solely in Norway, and the project was approved by the Norwegian Data Protection Service (ID 833522). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

TO: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing – original draft, and writing – review and editing. CS-B: methodology, investigation, and writing – review and editing. SB-S: methodology, investigation, data curation, writing – review and editing. LT: methodology, investigation, and writing – review and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1 Controlling for ethnicity in our main analyses instead of excluding participants based on their ethnic affiliation did not change the nature or significance of our results.

2 The size of our negative link between birth order and green consumption is significantly different from the positive link reported by Otterbring and Folwarczny (2022) , Z = −3.69, p < 0.001.

6. Appendix: Scale items, green consumption

The GREEN Scale ( Haws et al., 2014 ; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree; α = 0.91):

It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment.
I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making many of my decisions.
My purchase habits are affected by my concern for our environment.
I am concerned about wasting the resources of our planet.
I would describe myself as environmentally responsible.
I am willing to be inconvenienced in order to take actions that are more environmentally friendly.
Batson C. D., Powell A. A. (2003). “ Altruism and prosocial behavior ” in Handbook of Psychology . eds. Millon T., Lerner M. J. (Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; ), 463–484. [ Google Scholar ]
Berekson L. L. (1972). Birth order, anxiety, affiliation and the purchase of life insurance . J. Risk Insur. 39 , 93–108. doi: 10.2307/251654 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Berisha G., Krasniqi B., Lajçi R. (2022). Birth order revelations about managers . Manag. Res. Rev. 45 , 1249–1274. doi: 10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0190 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bravo G., Farjam M. (2022). Actions speak louder than words: attitudes, behaviour, and partisan identity in a polarised environmental domain . Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90 :102547. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102547 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Campbell B. M., Hansen J., Rioux J., Stirling C. M., Twomlow S. (2018). Urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (SDG 13): transforming agriculture and food systems . Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 34 , 13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.06.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carette B., Anseel F., Van Yperen N. W. (2011). Born to learn or born to win? Birth order effects on achievement goals . J. Res. Pers. 45 , 500–503. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Claxton R. P. (1995). Birth order as a market segmentation variable . J. Consum. Mark. 12 , 22–38. doi: 10.1108/07363769510147227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Claxton R. P., McIntyre R. P., Wheatley E. W. (1995). Birth order and need for cognition in marketing entrepreneurship . Psychol. Rep. 76 , 159–162. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.76.1.159 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cohen J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
Courtiol A., Raymond M., Faurie C. (2009). Birth order affects behaviour in the investment game: firstborns are less trustful and reciprocate less . Anim. Behav. 78 , 1405–1411. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.09.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
do Paço A., Shiel C., Alves H. (2019). A new model for testing green consumer behaviour . J. Clean. Prod. 207 , 998–1006. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eckstein D., Aycock K. J., Sperber M. A., McDonald J., Van Wiesner I. I. I. V., Watts R. E., et al.. (2010). A review of 200 birth-order studies: lifestyle characteristics . J. Individ. Psychol. 66 , 408–434. [ Google Scholar ]
Eguren J., Antúnez L., Otterbring T., Curutchet M. R., Ares G. (2021). Health gains through loss frames: testing the effectiveness of message framing on citizens’ use of nutritional warnings . Appetite 166 :105469. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105469, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elbæk C. T., Mitkidis P., Aarøe L., Otterbring T. (2022). Honestly hungry: acute hunger does not increase unethical economic behaviour . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 101 :104312. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elliott R. (2013). The taste for green: the possibilities and dynamics of status differentiation through “green” consumption . Poetics 41 , 294–322. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2013.03.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Folwarczny M., Otterbring T. (2021). Secure and sustainable but not as prominent among the ambivalent: attachment style and proenvironmental consumption . Personal. Individ. Differ. 183 :111154. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111154 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Funder D. C., Ozer D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense . Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2 , 156–168. doi: 10.1177/2515245919847202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Galton F. (1874). English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture . Bristol, UK: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
Gasiorowska A., Folwarczny M., Otterbring T. (2022). Anxious and status signaling: examining the link between attachment style and status consumption and the mediating role of materialistic values . Personal. Individ. Differ. 190 :111503. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111503 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gidlöf K., Lahm E. S., Wallin A., Otterbring T. (2021). Eco depletion: the impact of hunger on prosociality by means of environmentally friendly attitudes and behavior . J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 62 :102654. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102654 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gignac G. E., Szodorai E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers . Personal. Individ. Differ. 102 , 74–78. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gong Y., Li J., Xie J., Zhang L., Lou Q. (2022). Will “green” parents have “green” children? The relationship between parents’ and early adolescents’ green consumption values . J. Bus. Ethics , 179 , 369–385. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04835-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goodman R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note . J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 38 , 581–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gosling S. D., Rentfrow P. J., Swann W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains . J. Res. Pers. 37 , 504–528. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Götz F. M., Gosling S. D., Rentfrow P. J. (2022). Small effects: the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 205–215. doi: 10.1177/1745691620984483, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grønhøj A. (2006). Communication about consumption: a family process perspective on ‘green’ consumer practices . J. Consum. Behav. 5 , 491–503. doi: 10.1002/cb.198 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grønhøj A. (2016). Consumer behaviours: teaching children to save energy . Nat. Energy 1 , 1–2. doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2016.108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grønhøj A., Hubert M. (2022). Are we a growing a green generation? Exploring young people’s pro-environmental orientation over time . J. Mark. Manag. , 38 , 844–865. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2021.2005664 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grønhøj A., Thøgersen J. (2009). Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain . J. Environ. Psychol. 29 , 414–421. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grønhøj A., Thøgersen J. (2017). Why young people do things for the environment: the role of parenting for adolescents’ motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviour . J. Environ. Psychol. 54 , 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gustafson A., Rosenthal S. A., Ballew M. T., Goldberg M. H., Bergquist P., Kotcher J. E., et al.. (2019). The development of partisan polarization over the green new Deal . Nat. Clim. Chang. 9 , 940–944. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0621-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Halder P., Hansen E. N., Kangas J., Laukkanen T. (2020). How national culture and ethics matter in consumers’ green consumption values . J. Clean. Prod. 265 :121754. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121754 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Haws K. L., Winterich K. P., Naylor R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products . J. Consum. Psychol. 24 , 336–354. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hou X. H., Gong Z. Q., Wang L. J., Zhou Y., Su Y. (2020). A reciprocal and dynamic development model for the effects of siblings on children’s theory of mind . Front. Psychol. 11 :554023. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.554023, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hughes C., McHarg G., White N. (2018). Sibling influences on prosocial behavior . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 20 , 96–101. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.015, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Keller K., Troesch L. M., Grob A. (2015). First-born siblings show better second language skills than later born siblings . Front. Psychol. 06 :705. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00705 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kerr N. L., Ao X., Hogg M. A., Zhang J. (2018). Addressing replicability concerns via adversarial collaboration: discovering hidden moderators of the minimal intergroup discrimination effect . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 78 , 66–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Loebnitz N., Frank P., Otterbring T. (2022). Stairway to organic heaven: the impact of social and temporal distance in print ads . J. Bus. Res. 139 , 1044–1057. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Machín L., Curutchet M. R., Gugliucci V., Vitola A., Otterbring T., de Alcantara M., et al.. (2020). The habitual nature of food purchases at the supermarket: implications for policy making . Appetite 155 :104844. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104844, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Masuda T., Batdorj B., Senzaki S. (2020). Culture and attention: future directions to expand research beyond the geographical regions of WEIRD cultures . Front. Psychol. 11 :1394. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01394, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mellewigt T., Hoetker G., Lütkewitte M. (2018). Avoiding high opportunism is easy, achieving low opportunism is not: a QCA study on curbing opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships . Organ. Sci. 29 , 1208–1228. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Meyer G. J., Finn S. E., Eyde L. D., Kay G. G., Moreland K. L., Dies R. R., et al.. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: a review of evidence and issues . Am. Psychol. 56 , 128–165. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.128 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Muthukrishna M., Bell A. V., Henrich J., Curtin C. M., Gedranovich A., McInerney J., et al.. (2020). Beyond Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance . Psychol. Sci. 31 , 678–701. doi: 10.1177/0956797620916782, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nancarrow C., Wright L. T., Alakoc B. (1999). Top gun fighter pilots provide clues to more effective database marketing segmentation: the impact of birth order . J. Mark. Manag. 15 , 449–462. doi: 10.1362/026725799785045833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Okada N., Yamamoto Y., Yahata N., Morita S., Koshiyama D., Morita K., et al.. (2021). Birth order and prosociality in the early adolescent brain . Sci. Rep. 11 , 1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01146-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Otterbring T. (2021). Evolutionary psychology in marketing: deep, debated, but fancier with fieldwork . Psychol. Mark. 38 , 229–238. doi: 10.1002/mar.21453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Otterbring T., Bodin Danielsson C., Pareigis J. (2021a). Office types and workers' cognitive vs affective evaluations from a noise perspective . J. Manag. Psychol. 36 , 415–431. doi: 10.1108/JMP-09-2019-0534 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Otterbring T., Festila A. (2021). Pandemic prevention and personality psychology: gender differences in preventive health behaviors during COVID-19 and the roles of agreeableness and conscientiousness . J. Saf. Sci. Resil. 3 , 87–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jnlssr.2021.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Otterbring T., Festila A., Folwarczny M. (2021b). Selfless or selfish? The impact of message framing and egoistic motivation on narcissists’ compliance with preventive health behaviors during COVID-19 . Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2 :100023. doi: 10.1016/j.cresp.2021.100023, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Otterbring T., Folwarczny M. (2022). Firstborns buy better for the greater good: birth order differences in green consumption values . Personal. Individ. Differ. 186 :111353. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111353 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Otterbring T., Samuelsson P., Arsenovic J., Elbæk C. T., Folwarczny M. (2022). Shortsighted sales or long-lasting loyalty? The impact of salesperson-customer proximity on consumer responses and the beauty of bodily boundaries . Eur. J. Mark. doi: 10.1108/EJM-04-2022-0250. [Epub ahead of print]. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Palomo-Vélez G., van Vugt M. (2021). The evolutionary psychology of climate change behaviors: insights and applications . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42 , 54–59. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.006, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Paulhus D. L., Trapnell P. D., Chen D. (1999). Birth order effects on personality and achievement within families . Psychol. Sci. 10 , 482–488. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00193 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Perkovic S., Otterbring T., Schärli C., Pachur T. (2022). The perception of food products in adolescents, lay adults, and experts: a psychometric approach . J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 28 , 555–575. doi: 10.1037/xap0000384, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pfattheicher S., Nielsen Y. A., Thielmann I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: a review of concepts and definitions . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 44 , 124–129. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies . J. Appl. Psychol. 88 , 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63 , 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pollet T. V., Nettle D. (2007). Birth order and face-to-face contact with a sibling: firstborns have more contact than laterborns . Personal. Individ. Differ. 43 , 1796–1806. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Prime H., Plamondon A., Jenkins J. M. (2017). Birth order and preschool children's cooperative abilities: a within-family analysis . Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 35 , 392–405. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12180, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ragelienė T., Grønhøj A. (2020). The influence of peers′ and siblings′ on children’s and adolescents′ healthy eating behavior. A systematic literature review . Appetite 148 :104592 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104592 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rohrer J. M., Egloff B., Schmukle S. C. (2015). Examining the effects of birth order on personality . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112 , 14224–14229. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1506451112, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Saad G., Gill T., Nataraajan R. (2005). Are laterborns more innovative and nonconforming consumers than firstborns? A Darwinian perspective . J. Bus. Res. 58 , 902–909. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Saarela J., Cederström A., Rostila M. (2016). Birth order and mortality in two ethno-linguistic groups: register-based evidence from Finland . Soc. Sci. Med. 158 , 8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.008, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Saarela J., Kolk M. (2021). Birth order and alcohol-related mortality by ethnic origin and national context: within-family comparisons for Finland and Sweden . Drug Alcohol Depend. 226 :108859. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108859, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Salmon C., Cuthbertson A. M., Figueredo A. J. (2016). The relationship between birth order and prosociality: an evolutionary perspective . Personal. Individ. Differ. 96 , 18–22. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.066 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Simons D. J., Shoda Y., Lindsay D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): a proposed addition to all empirical papers . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 , 1123–1128. doi: 10.1177/1745691617708630, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stern N. (2015). Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Su C. T., McMahan R. D., Williams B. A., Sharma R. K., Sudore R. L. (2014). Family matters: effects of birth order, culture, and family dynamics on surrogate decision-making . J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 62 , 175–182. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12610 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sulloway F. J. (1995). Birth order and evolutionary psychology: a meta-analytic overview . Psychol. Inq. 6 , 75–80. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0601_15 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sulloway F. J. (2001). “ Birth order, sibling competition, and human behavior ” in Conceptual Challenges in Evolutionary Psychology: Innovative Research Strategies . ed. Holcomb H. R. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 39–83. [ Google Scholar ]
Sundgot-Borgen C., Trangsrud L. K. J., Otterbring T., Bratland-Sanda S. (2022). Hiking, indoor biking, and body liking: a cross-sectional study examining the link between physical activity arenas and adults’ body appreciation . J. Eat. Disord. 10 , 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s40337-022-00705-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Swami V., Tran U. S., Stieger S., Voracek M. (2022). Developing a model linking self-reported nature exposure and positive body image: a study protocol for the body image in nature survey (BINS) . Body Image 40 , 50–57. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.11.002, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Van Bavel J. J., Mende-Siedlecki P., Brady W. J., Reinero D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 , 6454–6459. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1521897113, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wu K., Kim J. H., Nagata D. K., Kim S. I. (2018). Perception of sibling relationships and birth order among Asian American and European American emerging adults . J. Fam. Issues 39 , 3641–3663. doi: 10.1177/0192513X18783465, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wu B., Yang Z. (2018). The impact of moral identity on consumers’ green consumption tendency: the role of perceived responsibility for environmental damage . J. Environ. Psychol. 59 , 74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yue B., Sheng G., She S., Xu J. (2020). Impact of consumer environmental responsibility on green consumption behavior in China: the role of environmental concern and price sensitivity . Sustainability 12 :2074. doi: 10.3390/su12052074 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zemanek J. E., Claxton R. P., Zemanek W. H. (2000). Relationship of birth order and the marketing-related variable of materialism . Psychol. Rep. 86 , 429–434. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.429 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

IMAGES

Theory of Birth Order Research Paper Example
Research Described How Birth Order Shapes Your Personality And
Birth order research paper
Birth order research papers
The Psychology Of Birth Order
Birth Order and Empirical Studies Indicating Significant Essay

VIDEO

Birth order chronicles: Who taught the PARROT?! #comedy #parentcomedy #shorts
Birth certificate online apply 2024
Birth Order Personality Types 🧐😶‍🌫️🥸 w OnlyJayus
Birth order chronicles: Spill the TEA! #comedy #parentcomedy #shorts
Weeks 9-10
paper story🤰🏼pregnant woman & emergency giving birth #paperdiy

COMMENTS

A Closer Look at the Birth Order Effect on Early Cognitive and School Readiness Development in Diverse Contexts
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 ...
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 ...
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
Half a century later, Alfred Adler, the second of six children, extended the psychology of birth order to personality traits (2). From his point of view, first-borns were privileged, but also burdened by feelings of excessive responsibility and a fear of dethronement and were thus prone to score high on neuroticism.
10835 PDFs
The sequence in which children are born into the family. | Explore the latest full-text research PDFs, articles, conference papers, preprints and more on BIRTH ORDER. Find methods information ...
Analysing effects of birth order on intelligence, educational
SUBMIT PAPER. European Journal of Personality. Impact Factor: 5.9 / 5-Year Impact ... Because recent birth order research suggests that at least some of the confusion about the effects of birth order on the Big Five ... however, they are fully in line with earlier studies on the topic (Rohrer et al., 2015), and extensive robustness checks are ...
BIRTH ORDER THEORY AND HABIT FORMATION: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Abstract. This paper takes an integrated look into birth order theory and its effects on habit formations. Specifically, this literature review discusses focused research into the four individual ...
Birth Order
A review of studies, largely published between 1960 and 1999, that provides support for birth order differences in personality. Includes studies that relate to traits of firstborns, middleborns, lastborns, and only children. Shows the range of study topics from conformity to narcissism. Illustrates greater research focus on firstborns historically.
The impact of psychological birth order on academic achievement and
Researchers have long been interested in the impact of birth order on both social and cognitive development, in part due to the research of Adler. The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine if psychological birth order directly impacts stu- dent achievement and motivation.
Frontiers
Conclusions: Differential impacts of birth order on child mental health, for both positive and negative sides, were found. Further research is warranted to elucidate the mechanism of the association between birth order and the development of behavior problems and the positive aspects such as resilience, happiness, and self-esteem among children.
Settling the debate on birth order and personality
effects of birth order on personality has spawned continuous interest for more than 100 y, both from the general public and from scientists. And yet, despite a consistent stream of research, results remained inconclusive and controversial. In the last year, two definitive papers have emerged to show that birth order
Birth order and personality: Evidence from a representative sample of
Birth order differences in personality have been studied for almost a hundred years. ... SUBMIT PAPER. European Journal of Personality. Impact Factor: 5.9 / 5-Year ... Shackelford T. K. (2002). An attempted replication of the relationships between birth order and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(2), 182-188. https://doi.org ...
The Association Between Birth Order & Attachment Style
The topic of study for this paper is how birth order can influence an individual's ... single child, one sibling, twin set, etc.) in relation to birth order. Paper Outline The following paper is divided into various sections to best describe what our research will entail. Firstly, there is a literature review that analyzes previous research ...
Research Shows Birth Order Really Does Matter : NPR
You've heard the stereotypes - firstborn children are spoiled, middle kids get ignored, and the youngest kids act out because they crave attention. Well, new research shows that birth order really ...
≡Essays on Birth Order. Free Examples of Research Paper Topics, Titles
A well-crafted birth order essay not only presents arguments and evidence but also critically examines the counterarguments and limitations of birth order theories. Topics to Explore in Birth Order Essays. Personality Traits and Birth Order: Discuss how first-borns often assume leadership roles, middle children develop negotiation skills, and ...
Birth Order Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
View our collection of birth order essays. Find inspiration for topics, titles, outlines, & craft impactful birth order papers. Read our birth order papers today! Homework Help; Essay Examples; Writing Tools. ... Much research has been written on how birth order affects family relationships. In terms of esteem, view of the family dynamic, and ...
Siblings, shopping, and sustainability: Birth-order differences in
Abstract. Several studies have examined the role of birth order in shaping human personality, but fewer have tested this variable in relation to other pressing issues. We conducted a birth-order study on green consumption, which enabled us to detect a small-to-moderate effect size equivalent to r = 0.15 or d = 0.30 with sufficient statistical ...

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 to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Birth Order

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Birth Order by Catherine Salmon LAST REVIEWED: 28 May 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 29 October 2013 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0103

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Explanatory Variable

Outcome Variables

Self-Esteem

Other Variables

Statistical Analysis

Ethics Statement

Demographics

Outcome Variables by Birth Order

Regression Analyses

Data Availability Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Acknowledgments

Hidden Brain

Essays on Birth Order

The Essence of Birth Order Essays

Topics to Explore in Birth Order Essays

Advantages of Using Birth Order Essay Samples

Strategies for Writing an Impactful Birth Order Essay

The Role of Birth Order in Shaping Individuals

The Importance of Children’s Birth Order in a Family

Birth Order Chart and My Personal Character

The Influence of Birth Order on Self-esteem

Siblings, shopping, and sustainability: Birth-order differences in green consumption

Christine Sundgot-Borgen

Solfrid Bratland-Sanda

Lise Katrine Jepsen Trangsrud

Associated Data

1. Introduction

2. Mixed messages in the birth-order literature

3.1. Participants, exclusion criteria, and statistical power

3.2. Procedure and measures

4.1. Independent samples t -test

4.2. Partial correlation

4.3. Multiple linear regression

4.4. Robustness checks

5. Discussion

Data availability statement

Author contributions

Conflict of interest

Publisher’s note

6. Appendix: Scale items, green consumption

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS