Birth Order & Educational Achievement

Birth order is an important factor that helps unveil the mysteries of human behavior. This paper provides an investigation of family relationships and corresponding individual traits that pertain to birth order placement, and how such dynamics impact educational functioning. The firstborn child, who receives a tremendous amount of praise and attention fares exceptionally well in school, whereas later-born children operate at much lower levels. For example, middle children deal with psychological issues of low self-worth and identity crises, whereas the youngest children live in chaotic households that do not necessarily promote learning. The Confluence Model and The Resource Dilution Model shed light on the matter by providing explanations that unearth the relationship between family constellation and performance.

Keywords: Adaptive Cognitive Style; Confluence Model; Deidentification; Innovative Cognitive Style; Resource Dilution Model; U-Shaped Equity Heuristic

Overview

The role that birth order plays in shaping behavior has proven to be of significant consequence from ancient to modern-day civilization. The academic literature offers several examples of how firstborn children have upheld supremacy across a variety of contexts (Sulloway, 2007). For instance, the mortality rates of children in the 19th century occurred in epic proportions, and first born children grew to become more physically robust and customarily outlived their younger, frailer siblings (Penn & Smith, 2007). Presumably this was because firstborns were regarded as precious commodities and were indulgently pampered, nourished, and treated in the highest regard by doting parents. Additionally, preferential treatment adorned upon firstborn children has been a practice ceremoniously observed by royal families who have created primogeniture (Hurwich, 1993) infrastructures through which the eldest child is bequeathed successive sovereignty, a most eminent honor.

Even in the animal kingdom, there exist examples of species that favor the survival of firstborns within a family group, such as Verreaux's Black Eagles (Tennesen, 2006), who can only sustain one young chick a time. Thus, upon the arrival of subsequent chicks, the eldest eagle bludgeons his baby sibling to an untimely demise, receiving ostensible consent from parents who stand by and observe what would otherwise be deemed an abomination against nature.

According to an old adage, no two children are raised in the same household, regardless of overtly similar circumstances that impress upon their mutual cultural, religious, neighborhood, and even familial influences. Alfred Adler, a prominent 20th century psychologist and contemporary of Sigmund Freud, not only agreed wholeheartedly with this sentiment, but helped blaze a trail of groundbreaking research and anecdotal knowledge that surrounded the ways in which birth order characteristics molded each individual's personality by sculpting both their strengths and insecurities alike (Croake & Olson, 1977; Watkins Jr., 1992). Since Adler's time, a series of noteworthy researchers have allied their efforts into excavating information on birth order including Frank Sulloway and Robert Zajonc. Provided here is an overview of unique family dynamics that pertain to the assets and struggles of each birth order, and how such factors imbed themselves into the context of academic erudition, or learning styles.

In his theory, Adler identified four distinct sibling placements (i.e., firstborn, second born, middle child, youngest) although the trend in today's society leans toward smaller families (Rogers, 2001). A systemic lens that utilizes circular causality will serve as the framework for this overview, which opposes the notion that behavior follows a linear progression and rather is created by multiple forces that are constantly giving and receiving messages in a roundabout, circuitous fashion (Feinauer & Patterson, 1993; Neimeyer, 1989). For example, although parents ideally respond to the unique needs and characteristics that each child possesses, they also synergistically create those children's needs and characteristics. Hence, each family member contributes toward, and is on the receiving end of birth order manifestations.

Further Insights: Birth Order Theory

The Firstborn Child

The firstborn is a marvel, indeed (Lemen, 2008; Sulloway, 1996). When parents give birth to their eldest child they are constantly in awe of the miracle of life, of the special and delicate forces that came together to create such wonderment. They bask in the glory of their creation, and enthusiastically undergo all the developmental milestones side-by-side with their budding child: the first smile, the first step, the first word. It is difficult for parents to detach themselves from the single-minded focus extended toward such age-appropriate feats, and the newfound feelings of amazement that the firstborn infuses into the hearts of parents renders frequent proclamations of how brilliant, beautiful, funny, and/or obedient their child is in comparison to others. Not only are parents bowled over by the amazing triumphs their children accomplish, but they themselves are entering into new territory; the birth of their first child marks their entrance into parenthood. Although each subsequent child may be viewed as irreplaceable in his or her own right and undoubtedly draws out a specialized set of parenting skills, only the firstborn confers upon parents the illustriously distinguished titles of mother and father.

This extraordinary experience lends itself to the exceptional accomplishments enacted by firstborn children. In deference to Robert Merton's self-fulfilling prophecy, which suggests that people are capable of that which they believe they are capable of (1948), firstborns enter into situations at a higher starting point than their later-born peers. Equipped with the high levels of poise and self-assurance that their parents have instilled since their inception, and reeling from the positivity that parents themselves are experiencing from their newly donned parental identities, firstborns face the world with confident leadership skills, and an unfailingly steadfast work ethic. In other words, parents set the bar exceedingly high for firstborns, who in turn rise to the occasion academically (Iacovou, 2007; Wenner, 2007). Moreover, the fact that firstborns receive so much one-on-one stimulation from their parents contributes toward a high verbal prowess (Westerlund & Lagerberg, 2008) and mature demeanor (Families and Intellect, 1976; Zajonc, 2001; Zajonc & Markus, 1975), both of which translate quite propitiously into a classroom setting.

Benefits of One-on-One Parenting

Mothers and fathers of firstborns tend to be hyper-vigilant about their parental duties (Forer, 1969), even prior to the delivery of their beloved offspring. Expectant parents peruse through bookstores to thoroughly research the latest childrearing books that review up-to-date "do's and don'ts" associated with healthy, happy children, while households are impeccably transformed to comply with child safety standards. The methodical, systematic parenting style that parents of firstborns employ often transcends to their child, and it is not surprising that firstborns excel in academic environments, where regimented discipline equates with high levels of success.

Kirton's theory suggests that there are two types of cognitive styles that people possess: adaptive, in which firstborns excel, and innovative, mastered by later-borns (Skinner & Fox-Francoueur, 2010). Adaptors prefer to work in a structured, scheduled, rule-oriented milieu, whereas innovators feel stifled by such planned orderliness, and instead prosper under more flexible, creative, outside-the-box parameters. This knowledge may revolutionize our understanding of birth order and intelligence, since most IQ tests and educational environments investigate students' abilities against the backdrop of the adaptor's norms. Perhaps this is the reason why firstborns score three points higher on standardized tests compared with later-borns (Janecka, 2010), which may reflect the biased nature of the tests in terms of intellect.

The intoxicating high that firstborns experience, alas, comes to an end once a younger sibling graces the family unit with a very noticeable presence (Dunn & Kendrick, 1980; Dunn, Kendrick, & MacNamee, 1981; Field & Reite, 1984; Kendrick & Dunn, 1982). The birth of the second child can cause an uncomfortable jolt that upsets what the firstborn interprets as his sense of equilibrium, or the copious amounts of attention that had been lavished upon him or her. Nevertheless, the firstborn feels as though he has been "dethroned" and takes a while to adjust to the new sibling. This transitional period can be quite strenuous, for both the jealous firstborn, as well as exhausted parents who go to great lengths to reassure their first youngster while nurturing his or her younger newborn. The silver lining in this temporarily arduous cloud is that the situation tends to turn upward once the big brother/big sister role has fully been absorbed. Gripped with the knowledge that he or she is now the caretaker for the newest family member, the oldest, ideally, assumes such a role with gusto and eagerly takes the young sibling under his wing. The protective firstborn is thrust into the role of teacher/mentor. While on the surface this may appear to benefit the younger child, who has a built-in bodyguard and tutor, the actual beneficiary is the firstborn, whose cerebral development becomes tremendously advanced when assuming this surrogate role (Zajonc, 2001).

Firstborns in School

In school, firstborns may gravitate toward positions that will allow them to demonstrate and refine their superb leadership skills (Jarrett, 2003), such as class president or the captain of the chess club, as well as activities like the debate team whereby they can exercise the enhanced verbal dexterity that they have cultivated since birth (Berglund, Eriksson, & Westerlund, 2005). And although a number of factors correlate with whether or not a person attends college, including socioeconomic status and parental education, Wark, Swanson, and Mack (1974) found a positive relationship between firstborn children and a desire to pursue post-secondary schooling. Once enrolled in a university, different behavioral patterns among the birth orders persist and contribute toward academic success or failure. For example, whereas binge drinking on college campuses have skyrocketed to outrageous proportions (Mitka, 2009), firstborn students are more abstemious and refrain from spiraling out of control (Laird & Shelton, 2006). Surely this conscientious sensibility advances their longstanding record of successful scholastic achievement.

The Only Child

The only child is essentially an eldest child who lacks subsequent siblings, and is oftentimes lumped into the same category as firstborns. However, there are marked differences that discern the two placements from each other. Namely, throughout the course of his or her life, the only child remains in an environment that consists primarily of adults, and therefore only occasionally modifies his language to accommodate younger audiences. Utilizing sophisticated vernacular and prudent mannerisms which model the adults in the household, the only child is indeed wise beyond years, a trait which has both pros and cons. The benefits include higher IQ scores and a learned comportment (Polit, Nuttal, & Nuttall, 1980; Travis & Kohli, 1995), while the shortcomings entail an inability to relate to same-age peers (DeKeukelaere, 2004) and failure to divulge in the lighthearted and frolicsome exuberance of childhood. Moreover, without the presence of youngsters, only children never have to develop the art of sharing material belongings or emotional attention (Shulan, Guiping, & Qicheng, 1986).

The Middle Child

The middle child's arrival into the world is quite different (Forer, 1969). More experienced parents now create less of a fuss about all the "firsts," in terms of first smile, step, and word; they are no longer "firsts" to seasoned parents. Whereas the eldest child received acclaim for even the smallest of advancements, the middle child deals with very different parents, who must now divide their attention equitably among two children. Hence, the middle child is never able to relish in the undivided adoration that the eldest initially received. Although it might be assumed that the middle child would not fret about a lifestyle he never knew, this second-class status nevertheless seems to haunt his existence, and deep down he pities himself for being the overlooked and underappreciated runner-up. Parents of middle-born children have to cater to two children who are (at least theoretically) different in temperament. Feeling spread thin and often overwhelmed, second-time parents are more physically, emotionally, and mentally drained, and less apt to make overzealous aggrandizements toward their second-born child. Consequently, it is not uncommon for the middle child to become aware of and disgruntled at the lack of parental attention (Fritz, 2006).

Gender Dynamics

According to Hertwig, Davis, & Sulloway (2002), a U-shaped equity heuristic exists to describe parental investment, which suggests that mothers and fathers devote the majority of their energy to the eldest and youngest children. The firstborn is showered with praise because of his dutiful fulfillment of parental expectations, whereas the baby of the family symbolizes the fact his parent's reproductive window of time is about to expire and he therefore embodies their evolutionary "last chance" (Rhode et al., 2003). As is the case with all birth order patterns, gender plays a part in how the dynamics transpire (Harris & Morrow, 1992; Kristensen & Bjerkedal, 2010). According to the U-shaped equity heuristic, the middle child syndrome may be exacerbated or relieved based on whether or not that child replicates the gender configuration. For example, if the gender sequence of a family of three children follows a male-male-female or female-female-male arrangement, then the points of the "U" become reinforced. This is because both the firstborn and the lastborn represent the parent's novel experience in rearing a boy and a girl for the first time. Parents need to be aware of unbalanced treatment they may unconsciously afford their middle children, for it is well substantiated that parental involvement and school success parallel each other extensively (Barnard, 2004; Ray & Smith, 2010).

The Middle Child in School

Financially speaking, the strain of having a second child naturally further depletes family resources (Beld, 2006), which results in hand-me-down attire and understated, less showy or used playthings. Furthermore, parents are generally lackadaisical about the potential hazards associated with raising a child, as they were able to glean insight from the firstborn into the resourceful resilience that accompanies childhood (Colburn & Sorenson, 2010). Whereas firstborns were ushered to the hospital with minor scrapes, cuts, bruises, and coughs, parents assume a more relaxed stance about monitoring both safety concerns as well as staying atop everyday transactions such as bedtime readings, homework help, and quality time. This more relaxed attitude trickles down and eventually permeates the middle child's temperament; they are much more carefree, whimsical, and disorganized than their older siblings, which based on contextual circumstances can summon either positive or negative connotations. In academic arenas a blithe disposition and less than stellar organizational skills may be deficiencies which the middle child, who is less serious and less industrious, confronts.

Parents, in pursuit of a productive, bright child, "produce" this quality in their firstborns, both through the concentrated expectations they set and through the attentive, enriched environments they foster. Thus, the middle child is fully aware that the role of the conscientious, studious pupil is already taken and quickly moves into unforeseen terrain, cultivating a freshly established role in which the family is deficient such as the comedian, athlete, or slacker. This phenomenon, called deidentification (Harrigan & Grimes, 1992; Whiteman, McHale, & Crouter, 2007; Watzlawik, 2009), asserts that siblings go to great length to forge a unique identity that is deliberately distinct from their brothers and sisters, both to stave off competition and/or to ensure against lurking in the shadows of older sibling accomplishments. Deidentifiaction is a process that the middle child undergoes more commonly because the elder sibling has inhabited the family unit for a longer period of time and therefore has first "dibs" at achieving the highly coveted role of the trustworthy, reliable, voice of reason. Although there are many positive roles that a middle child may assume, such as singer or artist, the firstborn's acquisition of the "dependable student" not only manifests favorably throughout the formal schooling years, but also creates an internal familial hierarchy which he or she tops. These firstborn family leaders are the hub of the brood, the ones who provide advice and guidance during challenging domestic predicaments. And because a leader can't exist without at least one follower, by default the firstborn's next-in-line, laid-back sibling may assume that role that which complements, and ultimately bolsters the firstborn leader.

In order to understand the middle child within an academic context, knowledge about his or her psychological fragility and feelings of neglect must be considered. In a study conducted by Kirkcaldy, Richardson-Vejlgaard, & Siefen (2009), middle children are more apt to engage in self-injurious and suicidal behavior, which obviously impedes successful academic pursuits. Moreover, middle children have higher scores of maladaptive and nonexistent levels of perfectionism (Ashby, LoCicero, & Kenny, 2003). And, out of disenchantment surrounding his inferior rank, the middle child may become rebellious as a means of receiving attention (Sulloway, 1996), particularly during the teenage years when pushing boundaries and exploratory behavior is common. Clearly, this implies that educators should include programs that cater to both the scholastic and psychological needs that middle children demonstrate, including self-esteem boosters and assistance in overcoming depressive tendencies that may hamper the progression of normative academic advancement. On a positive note, as this misunderstood child evolves into adulthood, he usually reconciles his disobedient ways exponentially and becomes the most agreeable (Sulloway, 2001) and empathic (Stotland, Sherman, & Shaver, 1971) member of the family. The wisdom derived from his experiences makes him compassionate toward the plight of the "underdog," and the practice he has endured throughout his life as being the middle ground between two extremes (i.e., the firstborn and baby) makes him an excellent mediator (Forer, 1969). Many of our worldwide pacifists, such as Martin Luther King Jr., have been the middle child (Sulloway, 1996).

The Lastborn Child

The baby of the family is the polar opposite of the firstborn in many respects (Forer, 1969; Phillips & Phillips, 1994). Whereas the firstborn is painstakingly diligent and upright, the lastborn flaunts more of a devil-may-care, capricious existence. And, while the firstborn has less refined social skills based on the isolated period in which he lacked the company of fellow playmates, the baby of the family is a pleasure-seeking extrovert who would rather disregard his responsibilities in lieu of recreational pursuits. This should come as no surprise when analyzing the lastborn's early influences. The lastborn is raised in a haphazard, chaotic household that is much less fastidious and rigid, due to a fusion of the multitude of players who now comprise the family team, and their corresponding personalities, interests, and demands become a variegated medley. Parents renounce their restrictive supervision in favor of a parenting style that is convenient, efficient, and unintentional.

For example, the following illustrates the changing philosophies a parent might construct regarding their children's food intake: the firstborn's dietary habits were likely to have been highly scrutinized by watchful parents who ensured that their offspring consumed the appropriate ratio of calories, protein, and fiber. As the kin expanded to two children, these parents become a bit less staunch about dietary requirements, but developed a hyper-vigilant mindset regarding the fact that rations must be divvied up equally. For example, little Bobby and Suzie must eat all the meat and vegetables on their plates, but may save room for a piece of cake afterward-split "even-steven" to guarantee that neither feels cheated. Once the family consists of three, each might fend for themselves more autonomously for their everyday meals. It is possible that even the refrigerator and pantry are stocked with handy snacks that children can get themselves, yet contain little nutrition.

Although the home front is hectic, lastborn children still receive an inordinate amount of attention from the family as a whole (Forer, 1969). They are late bloomers when it comes to developmental tasks such as holistic language attainment (Singh, Shantisuudha, & Singh, 2007), sophisticated reading skills (Peressotti, Mulatti, & Job, 2010) and even simplistic practicalities like tying their shoes, based on the mere fact that their survival does not necessitate that they secure such capabilities. If, say, the lastborn wishes to lace up his footwear before heading outdoors to play, he simply needs to point downward toward his foot and a horde of well-intentioned family members flock to his assistance. Parents and siblings alike take great joy in coddling the youngest member of their clan, resulting in a highly socialized, charming, careless individual who knows how to work the system. While sibling rivalry is conducive between two players-e.g., the firstborn and middle child-as a trio the enmity may become somewhat diffused, and the elder siblings resort to pandering to the lastborn's needs.

The Lastborn in School

The academic implications surrounding the lastborn are imperative. Because most studies distinguish the intellectual performance between firstborn and later-born children, an erroneous assumption might consolidate both the middle child and youngest born equally into the same category. In reality, as families continually grow larger, each subsequent child fares worse, intellectually, than the one before (Birth Order, 2008). Teachers and counselors should familiarize themselves about the implications of large families in order to appropriately extend themselves to later-borns who struggle in the classroom. A justifiable amount of literature highlights the educational disparity between students with ample financial resources and those who are lacking. While this information is clearly important, the means should focus on both between-family and within-family inequities. Finally, because parents are less concerned about sheltering the youngest child from the potential perils associated with physical exertion, lastborns are more likely to participate in athletics (Forer, 1969; Rees, et al., 2008). If applicable, it would behoove school personnel to nurture these tendencies by promoting participation in extracurricular activities.

Viewpoints

The Confluence Model

Another way in which lastborns directly contradict their firstborn siblings is regarding intelligence and scholarly accomplishments. In 2000, Rodgers & Cleveland posed the following question: "[do] large families cause low-IQ children, or [do] low-IQ parents make large families" (p. 603), and found the latter to be true. Nevertheless, several renowned theories have been designed to tackle the environmental and familial influences that contribute toward this phenomenon. One such theory is called the Confluence Model, developed by Robert Zajonc (Families and Intellect, 1976), which has intermittently been touched upon throughout the course of this paper, and another is the Resource Dilution Model (Blake, 1981; Downey, 1995, 2001).

Zajonc's Confluence Model states that there are three reasons to explain why an expanding brood is linked with lower intellectual and academic functioning. The first assertion is that firstborn children receive most parental support and attention, and this intensity depreciates with each ensuing child. Secondly, the family's lexicon, in terms of storytelling and the way that concepts are described becomes less sophisticated with each subsequent child. It is likely that with the first child, parents make thoughtful efforts to ensure that they broach questions such as "why is the world round" with earnest, whereas the lastborn receives a less evocative response, proposed either by a harried parent or even another child in the family. The Confluence Model suggests that with more children, the overall household dims down and becomes more immature; whereas a singular child adapts to the mature household set forth by the adults. In a larger family, the members acquiesce to the tone that is created through the presence of the children.

The Resource Dilution Model

The Resource Dilution Model purports that parents have a finite amount of resources-emotional and financial—and that a burgeoning family exhausts these resources. Parents with three or more children may not have enough time or energy in any given day to devote to the many requisitions that each child commands, which therefore diminishes the intellectual richness of the family atmosphere. To exacerbate matters further, a growing household is quite a lavish expenditure, which roughly costs middle-income parents about $10,000 per year for each child (Knox & Schacht, 2008). This economic drain affects the psychological wellbeing of parents who worry about the household capital, and it also impacts luxuries (like vacations, etc.) that the family may have otherwise enjoyed. These inflated costs may mandate that parents amplify their resources-stay-at-home parents return to work, and dual-working parents might obtain a second job. The Resource Dilution Model perpetuates itself, as minimal quality time with children who are enrolled longer hours in daycare and after-school programs magnifies the deteriorated family dynamics, and ultimately impacts the academic performance of their children.

Some critics may censure the prescribed "blueprint" that seems to correspond with birth order theories, suggesting that they oversimplify human behavior. Indeed, on the surface, the birth order theory looks deceptively simplistic-firstborns, middle children, and lastborns each respectively fit prescribed types that describe their nature. If this is the case, then one might ponder whether the existence of derelict firstborns and highly successful lastborns disprove the birth order theory. The answer to this can be described indirectly by examining other psychological paradigms. For example, consider the existence of gender differences, a concept that has been significantly corroborated through research (Arbetter, 1991; Burton, Hafetz, & Henninger, 2007). Given the fact that men and women experience the world differently-regardless of whether such differences stem from biological or environmental factors-does not take away from the fact that there are huge overlaps and exceptions to the rule. Nevertheless, it would be faulty for social scientists to ignore gender as a viable source of information because of such overlaps and exceptions. Similarly, a person who studies multiculturalism must determine the fine line between stereotyping and honoring cultural norms.

The same principles should be applied to birth order characteristics in terms of acknowledging influences that beget the personalities of family members, while avoiding generalizations that categorically pigeonhole their behavior. Even in accepting the relevance of birth order characteristics, there are many factors that affect their expression including the spacing between siblings, as well as alternate family roles (e.g., twins, step-siblings, etc.). Although Adler pioneered the premise of birth order characteristics, he contended that clinicians should approach the matter subjectively based on the personalized perceptions clients bring to the table. Thus, birth order should be viewed as a springboard to ignite the process of self-directed insight, as opposed to a strict rulebook that rigidly reveals human behavior.

Terms & Concepts

Adaptive Cognitive Style: A cognitive style mastered by firstborn children, which focuses on a structured, scheduled, and rule-oriented milieu.

Confluence Model: The Confluence Model states that there are three reasons to explain why an expanding brood is linked with lower intellectual and academic functioning. The first is that firstborn children receive the most parental support and attention, and this intensity depreciates with each ensuing child. Secondly, the family's lexicon, in terms of storytelling and the way that concepts are described becomes less sophisticated with each subsequent child. Lastly, with more children, the overall household becomes more immature.

Deidentification: Deidentification posits that siblings go to great length to forge a unique identity that is deliberately distinct from their brothers and sisters, both to stave off competition and/or to ensure against the feeling of lurking in the shadow of an older sibling's accomplishments.

Innovative Cognitive Style: A cognitive style mastered by later-born children, which operates under flexible, creative, outside-the-box parameters.

Resource Dilution Model: The Resource Dilution Model purports that parents have a finite amount of resources-both emotional and financial—and that a burgeoning family exhausts these resources.

U-Shaped Equity Heuristic: The U-shaped equity heuristic exists to describe parental investment, which suggests that mothers and fathers devote the majority of their energy to both the eldest and youngest children.

Bibliography

Arbetter, S. (1991). Boys and girls. Current Health 2, 18, 16-17.

Ashby, J. S., LoCicero, K. A., & Kenny, M. C. (2003). The relationship of multidimensional perfectionism to psychological birth order. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59, 42-51. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9975035&site=ehost-live

Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children & Youth Services Review, 26, 39-62.

Beld, J. M. (2006). Getting the order right: Child support guidelines and the cost of raising children. Review of Policy Research, 23, 761-779. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20858095&site=ehost-live

Berglund, E., Eriksson, M., & Westerlund, M. (2005). Communicative skills in relation to gender, birth order, childcare and socioeconomic status in 18-month-old children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 485-491. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=18785434&site=ehost-live

Birth order affects IQ. (2008). Therapy Today, 19, 12-12. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32458067&site=ehost-live

Bleske-Rechek, A., & Kelley, J. A. (2014). Birth order and personality: A within-family test using independent self-reports from both firstborn and laterborn siblings. Personality & Individual Differences, 5615–18. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92878745&site=ehost-live

Blake, J. (1981). Family size and quality of children. Demography, 18, 421-442.

Bleske-Rechek, A., & Kelley, J. A. (2014). Birth order and personality: A within-family test using independent self-reports from both firstborn and laterborn siblings. Personality & Individual Differences, 5615-18. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92878745&site=ehost-live

Burton, L. A., Hafetz, J., & Henninger, D. (2007). Gender differences in a relational and physical aggression. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 35, 41-50. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23965191&site=ehost-live

Cheng, C. J., Wang, W. L., Sung, Y. T., Wang, Y. C., Su, S. Y., & Li, C. Y. (2013). Effect modification by parental education on the associations of birth order and gender with learning achievement in adolescents. Child: Care, Health & Development, 39, 894-902. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90526163&site=ehost-live

Colburn, K. & Sorenson, R. (2010). How to have your second child first: 100 things that are good to know…the first time around. USA: Chronicle Books.

Croake, J. W. & Olson, T. D. (1977). Family constellation and personality. Journal of Individual Psychology (00221805), 33, 9-17. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9092860&site=ehost-live

DeKeukelaere, L. (2004). The service of siblings. Scientific American, 291, 34-35.

Downey, D. R. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children's educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60, 746-761. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9510292110&site=ehost-live

Downey, D. R. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development. American Psychologist, 56(6/7), 497-504. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4680724&site=ehost-live

Dunn, J. & Kendrick, C. (1980). The arrival of a sibling: Changes in patterns of interaction between mother and first-born child. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 21, 119-132. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11654081&site=ehost-live

Dunn, J., Kendrick, C., & MacNamee, R. (1981). The reaction of first-born children to the birth of a sibling: Mothers' reports. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 22, 1-18. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11742841&site=ehost-live

Families and intellect: Scores to increase. (1976). Science News, 109, 245- 246. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7074727&site=ehost-live

Field, T. & Reite, M. (1984). Children's responses to separation from mother during the birth of another child. Child Development, 55, 1308-1316. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7302959&site=ehost-live

Feinauer, L. & Patterson, T. (1993). Journal of marital and family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 93-93. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9306145940&site=ehost-live

Forer, L. K. (1969). Birth order and life roles. USA: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Fritz, G. K. (2006). The importance of sibling relationships. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 22, 8-8. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22043720&site=ehost-live

Harrigan, S. & Grimes, M. (1992). Places everyone. Health (Time Inc. Health), 6, 66-70. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9302210546&site=ehost-live

Harris, K. A., & Morrow, K. B. (1992). Differential effects of birth order and gender on perceptions of responsibility and dominance. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 48, 109-118. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9103664&site=ehost-live

Hertwig, R., Davis, J. N., & Sulloway, F. J. (2002). Parental investment: How an equity motive can produce inequality. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 728-745. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7300760&site=ehost-live

Hurwich, J. J. (1993). Inheritance practices in early modern Germany. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 23, 699-718.

Iacovou, M. (2007). Family size, birth order, and educational attainment. Marriage & Family Review, 42, 35-57. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=47716332&site=ehost-live

Janecka, L. (2010). Falling in line. Psychology Today, 43, 24-24. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=49718896&site=ehost-live

Jarrett, C. B. (2003). Born to lead. Psychologist, 16, 655-655.

Kendrick, C. & Dunn, J. (1982). Protest or pleasure? The response of first-born children to interactions between their mothers and infant siblings. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 23, 117-129. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11574515&site=ehost-live

Knox, D. & Schacht, C. (2008). Choices in relationships: An introduction to marriage and the family. USA: Thomson & Wadsworth.

Kristensen, P. & Bjerkedal, T. (2010). Educational attainment of 25 year old Norwegians according to birth order and gender. Intelligence, 38, 1213-136.

Laird, T. G. & Shelton, A. J. (2006). From an Adlerian Perspective: Birth order, dependency, and binge drinking on a Historically Black University Campus. Journal of Individual Psychology, 62, 18-35. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20983346&site=ehost-live

Lemen, K. (2008). The firstborn advantage: Making your birth order work for you. USA: Revell Publishers.

Liaquat, H., & Umar Ali, K. (2012). Impact of birth order on academic achievement of students. Journal of Educational Research (1027-9776), 15, 27-34. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90613096&site=ehost-live

Merton, R. K. (1948/2010). The self-fulfilling prophecy [Reprinted]. Antioch Review, 68, 173-190. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=47573451&site=ehost-live

Mitka, M. (2009). College binge drinking still on the rise. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 836-837.

Moore, E. A., et al. (2014). Birth outcomes and academic achievement in childhood: A population record linkage study. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12, 234–50. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=98673270&site=ehost-live

Neimeyer, G. J. (1989). Testing the test. Journal of Counseling & Development, 67, 585- 589. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4964940&site=ehost-live

Penn, D. J. & Smith, K. R. (2007). Differential fitness costs of reproduction between the sexes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 553-558

Peressotti, F., Mulatti, C., & Job, R. (2010). The development of lexical representations: Evidence from the position of the diverging letter effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(2/3), 177-183.

Phillips, A. S., & Phillips, C. R (1994). Birth order and achievement attributes. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 50, 119-124. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9406161256&site=ehost-live

Polit, D., Nuttal, R. L., & Nuttal, E. V. (1980). The only child grows up: A look at some characteristics of adult only children. Family Relations, 29, 99-107. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4701277&site=ehost-live

Ray, K. & Smith, M. (2010). The kindergarten child: What teachers and administrators need to know to promote academic success in all children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 5-18.

Rees, D. I., Lopez, E., Averett, S. L., & Argys, L. M. (2008). Birth order and participation in school sports and other extracurricular activities. Economics of Education Review, 27, 354-362.

Rhode, P. A., Atzwanger, K., Butovskaya, M., Lampert, A., Mysterud, I., Sanchez-Andres, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism, closeness to kin, and the rebel of the family: the effects of birth order and sex. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 261-276.

Rogers, C. (2001). A look at America's children and their families. Food Review, 24, 2-7. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5577918&site=ehost-live

Rodgers, J. L., & Cleveland, H. H. (2000). Resolving the debate over birth order, family size, and intelligence. American Psychologist, 55, 599-612. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3299772&site=ehost-live

Shulan, J., Guiping, J., & Qicheng, J. (1986). Comparative study of behavioral qualities of only children and sibling children. Child Development, 57, 357-361. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7266574&site=ehost-live

Singh, L., Shantisuudha, P., & Singh, N. C. (2007). Developmental patterns of speech production in children. Applied Acoustics, 68, 260-269.

Skinner, N. F. & Fox-Francoueur, C. A. (2010). Personality implications of adaption- innovation: V. Birth order as a determinant of cognitive style. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 38, 237-240. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48289175&site=ehost-live

Stotland, E., Sherman, S. E., & Shaver, K. G. (1971). Empathy and birth order: Some experimental explorations. USA: University of Nebraska Press.

Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. USA: Vintage Publishers.

Sulloway, F. J (2001). Birth order, sibling competition, and human behavior. In H. R. Holcomb III (ed.) Conceptual challenges in evolutionary psychology: Innovative research strategies. 39-83. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sulloway, F. J. (2007). Birth order and sibling competition. In Dunbar, R.I.M. & Barrett, L. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. 297-311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tennesen, M. (2006). Siblicide: Who says [you] have to be nice to your brother? Wildlife Conservation, 109, 28-31.

Travis, R. & Kohli, V. (1995). The birth order factor: Ordinal positions, social strata, and educational achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 499-507. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9510085859&site=ehost-live

Wark, D. M., Swanson, E. O., & Mack, J. (1974). More on birth order: Intelligence and college plans. Journal of Individual Psychology (00221805), 30, 221-226. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9093533&site=ehost-live

Watkins Jr., C. E. (1992). Birth-order research and Adler's theory: A critical review. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 48, 357-368. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9103798&site=ehost-live

Watzlawik, M. (2009). The perception of similarities and differences among adolescent siblings: Identification and deidentification of twins and nontwins. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 561-578.

Wenner, M. (2007). All in the family. Scientific American Mind, 18, 9-9. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27094159&site=ehost-live

Westerlund, M. & Lagerberg, D. (2008). Expressive vocabulary in 18-month-old children in relation to demographic factors, mother and child characteristics, communication style and shared reading. Child: Care, Health & Development, 34, 257-266. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28744869&site=ehost-live

Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M. & Crouter, A. C. (2007). Social Development, 16, 642-661. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27161536&site=ehost-live

Zajonc, R. B. (2001). The family dynamics of intellectual development. The American Psychologist, 56(6/7), 490-496. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4680723&site=ehost-live

Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, G. B. (1975). Birth order and intellectual development. Psychological Review, 82, 74-88.

Suggested Reading

Cundiff, P. R. (2013). Ordered Delinquency: The “Effects” of Birth Order on Delinquency. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1017–29. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88938514&site=ehost-live

Faber, A. (2004). Siblings without rivalry: How to help your children live together so you can live too. USA: Harper Paperbacks.

Grotevant, H. D., Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1977). Intellectual development in family constellations with adopted and natural children: A test of the Zajonc and Markus model. Child Development, 48, 1699-1703. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10400330&site=ehost-live

Newman, S. (2001). Parenting an only child: The joys and challenges of raising your one and only. USA: Broadway Publishers.

Wallace, M. (1999). Birth order blues: How parents can help their children meet the challenges of their birth order. USA: Holt Paperbacks.