Literature Review

Introduction

The companionship of a sibling allows one to cultivate their first relationship beyond that of a parent and, more than that, allows one to have a constant and consistent partnership so early in life.  The shared experiences that siblings encounter can have drastically different effects on each child in the family, but no matter how it resonates it is still something that can be shared with another person from an early age.

There is a lot of information about how first born children are smarter and last born children are more likely to be loose cannons, but very little information extends beyond the general and tired myths of birth order and what it means toward personality.  In fact, literature on birth order makes it hard to pinpoint a particular focus, instead making the reader jump around topics with every section or, sometimes even, paragraphs.  The journal articles and books used in this particular literature review were compiled of those seeking to introduce new ideas, commenting on previously known theses, or even summaries of well-known works.  And even with this array of goals there didn’t seem to be much differing information.

In this literature review we will be able to explore the topic of birth order through the various papers that have been written on it.  Having such a range of sources and their intent (medical, psychological, anecdotal) we are able to see any slight differences and drastically similar conclusions.

Relationships

The subject of personality and how siblings relate to each other with these means is one of the “myths of birth order.”  There is a great danger to these supposed myths as they tell people how they are supposed to feel and kids often believe them (Whitbourne, 2013), thus not allowing a child to form their own identity—even more dangerous than this is for a parent to assume an identity on their child.  These influences could lead a middle child, for example, to feel more alienated and alone because the role is being thrust upon them, but without really understanding why.

By backing into a category that has already been laid out one is missing the opportunity at ‘de-identification’ and all that it might provide them in finding their own identity.  “De-identification is a socially accepted way of dealing with feelings of rivalry by developing areas of the self that do not compete with the siblings’ strong points” (Cicirelli, 1995).  There is much talk and research given to how siblings are influenced by one another and what it means to copy an older sibling in various mannerisms, but it is just as important to explore the exact opposite.  By looking into what makes a child different, and want to be different, from their siblings one is able to see the confusing path that leads to being one’s own person.  Though perhaps choosing to follow out of admiration and choosing to be different just because aren’t that different of choices.

The influence of siblings, as well as the motivation for de-identification, lies in the constant competition that comes with competing for parental attention.  As examined by “Who’s the boss?,” the distribution of power is incredibly important to the relationships between children—siblings or not (Tucker, Updegraff, & Baril, 2010, p. 520).  The ability to retain power is not as important with school friends because there is more of a yearning for equality amongst groups in that context, whereas it holds more esteem in the relationships of siblings because of the need to be on top.

As far as being on top of the sibling ladder there isn’t a more powerful position than that of ‘surrogate caretaker,’ a role typically filled by that of an elder sibling.  This role might be filled by a first born child that is able to help out the parents while they are at work by acting as the authoritative figure in their younger siblings’ lives, but it could also be the role of influencer and protector.  According to an article in The Review of Economic Studies more time is devoted to bonding and having one-on-ones with older children, decreasing in birth order from there (Del Boca, Flinn, & Wiswall, 2014, p. 182).  One potential explanation for this is that with each child born, one lets down their guard a little more and gains confidence in their parental abilities.  As their elder children get closer to the age of taking responsibility for others the parents are able to shift some caregiver responsibilities over (Del Boca, et al., 2014, 182).

There is, however, also the danger of deviant influence when it comes to older children.  Seen as the “gatekeepers” for the younger children when it comes to delinquent behavior and introducing poor influences older siblings have the ability to bring the forbidden world of rebelliousness closer to home than they intend or realize (McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012, p. 920).  This is where the close bond that siblings forge comes into an interesting predicament because there is a sense of loyalty and trust that one doesn’t always cultivate to the pinnacle level with school friends—factors that can lead one into unfortunate situations (McHale, et al., 2012, p. 919).

Critique

The biggest complaint by authors about birth order was briefly touched upon earlier, but will be expanded upon here: the myth of birth order in terms of personality traits.  It is very hard to say that all first born children are ambitious leaders, all middle born develop good social skills to avoid being ignored and all last born are less capable, but compensate with charm (Whitburne, 2013).  Even harder than trying to prove these characteristics correct the majority of the time is showing that people don’t fall into these categories purely because they believe they’re supposed to fall into these categories.  As said earlier, assuming positions of birth order is dangerous because it fails to allow one to cultivate their own identity and personality, instead relying on what they think they’re supposed to do.  Whitburne encourages families to break these biases down and allow the habits of society to be broken, further allowing your family to find themselves without the pressures of the randomness of what order they were born in hindering them (Whitburne, 2013).

Another of the myths is that the younger the child: the lower the I.Q.  This is supposedly due to the natural charm and tendencies to do the minimum required that are attributed to the last born children, but remains to be inconsistent enough to not be taken seriously.  There was, however, an article using the I.Q. tests of Norwegian males that entered into mandatory military service, which was an attempt to prove this myth true.  Using data on males between the ages of 18-20 years old, “Older and Wiser?” made the argument that there was a different experience in utero for younger children that caused them to be less ambitious than their siblings (Black, Devereux, & Salvanes, 2011, p. 114).  While carrying her final child, the mother in question wasn’t as attentive to pregnancy behavior having already gone through it once (sometimes more) and took it in stride.  This relaxed behavior extended into the child’s life mottos, where the young males (for the purposes of this study) relied on their charm and manipulative tendencies to work their way through the world (Black, et al., 2011, p. 114).

Conclusion

It would seem that the data on this topic is inclusive and relative to the area in which the study was performed.  It’s easy to say that the myths aren’t right, but how often do they prove fairly accurate and how often are the studies wrong?  The results often seem too specific to be anything more than inconclusive for the whole of society, instead relying on a family-by-family basis, with too many factors to count.

What is known and shown through the majority of these articles is that of the bond between siblings being the strongest of all friendships—whether still close as adults or not.  The experiences shared are so much denser than those shared experiences between school friends and have more of an impact on the rest of one’s life.  Vincent Cicirelli made the point that the relationships are given, not earned.  Though the actual friendships might be gone there is a label that can’t be removed, allowing one to pick back up where they left off with more of an opportunity for success than most relationships (Cicirelli, 1995).