I’m the youngest in my family, and I married another youngest. I’ll be the first to admit that we both exhibit many of those stereotypical “baby of the family” traits that birth order enthusiasts love to discuss. I say “enthusiasts” because the truth is, there really isn’t a wealth of scientific research backing up the claims of birth order’s influence on our personality traits. Yet we continue to emphasize its significance, often describing our kids through these preconceived notions.
I often find myself saying things like, “Oh, he’s the firstborn, so he’s definitely a natural leader and a bit of a Type A.” Or, “That’s my youngest, a carefree jokester who gets away with everything.” And of course, “Yep, that’s my middle child, always quiet, agreeable, and just kind of there.” Did my kids develop these traits solely based on their birth order? Or did our parenting play a more substantial role? Would their personalities differ if they had been born in a different sequence?
A recent study suggested that birth order might even influence intelligence. Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Sydney found that firstborns often score higher on IQ tests than their younger siblings. They concluded that parents tend to engage less in mentally stimulating activities with their younger children, which could hinder their cognitive development. Really? Did we need a study for that? It’s common sense that we can’t devote the same time to each subsequent child as we did with our first.
Naturally, firstborns were quick to share this study on social media, driving their middle and youngest siblings a bit crazy. The idea that firstborns are inherently smarter dates back to the 19th century when one scientist noticed many of his peers were firstborns. Later, Alfred Adler, a contemporary of Freud, proposed that firstborns feel “dethroned” when a younger sibling arrives, resulting in neurotic tendencies but also making them natural leaders. He claimed the youngest child is often “spoiled and immature,” while the middle child is independent and healthy. Sounds like someone’s a bit bitter about their birth position—hint, hint: Adler was a middle child.
Despite the lack of solid scientific evidence, we still cling to these birth order stereotypes, proudly stating how our kids fit neatly into these molds. However, a 2015 study involving over 20,000 adults found that birth order had little impact on traits like extraversion or emotional stability. Another study in the Journal of Personality echoed this, revealing that personality traits do not significantly correlate with birth order, even in over 350,000 high school students. Researchers concluded that, “[Birth order] does not seem to be an important consideration for understanding either the development of personality traits or the development of intelligence.”
So why do we continue to believe in this? It turns out that birth order theories operate much like horoscopes, presenting us with vague traits that we can easily project onto ourselves. Thus, even a slight hint of leadership in a firstborn can cause them to see themselves as a “natural leader” simply because of their position in the family. Since this belief has persisted for so long, society continues to perpetuate the same narrative. Which means one unfortunate reality remains… Sorry, middle child, but you’re still not getting a break.
If you’re interested in exploring more about family dynamics and pregnancy, check out this article for further insights. For couples navigating their fertility journey, Make a Mom offers valuable information. Additionally, for detailed statistics on infertility, the CDC provides an excellent resource.
In summary, while birth order theories have been around for ages, they may not hold as much weight as we’ve been led to believe. Our personalities are shaped by various factors, and it’s time to rethink the narratives we impose on our kids based on their birth order.