Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 15–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

Birth order and personality: A within-family test using independent

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Assumptions about the effects of birth order on personality abound in popular culture and self-help
Received 3 May 2013 books. Indeed, when one sibling is asked to compare themselves to others in their family, birth order
Received in revised form 23 July 2013 shows weak-to-moderate effects on personality (e.g., Healey & Ellis, 2007; Paulhus, Trapnell, & Chen,
Accepted 10 August 2013
1999). No study to date, however, has utilized a complete within-family design that includes indepen-
Available online 5 September 2013
dent self-reports from both firstborn and laterborn siblings in the same family. To fill this gap, we
collected Big Five personality data on 69 young adult firstborn–laterborn sibling pairs. We also obtained
Keywords:
data from parents of the sibling pairs and peer ratings of original participants’ personality traits.
Big Five
Birth order
Within-family analyses revealed that neither siblings’ independent self-reported personality traits, nor
Personality parents’ reports of their children’s personality traits, differed systematically as a function of birth order.
Siblings Our findings are consistent with results from between-family designs and they provide further evidence,
Within-family designs employing a within-family design that utilizes data from multiple family members, that birth order does
Firstborns not have enduring effects on personality.
Laterborns Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of children of different birth orders do not adjust for these effects
of family size. When Ernst and Angst (1983) limited their analyses
Interest in the influence of birth order on personality has been to studies that controlled for effects of family size, birth order
strong since at least 1928, when the psychotherapist Alfred Adler effects on personality were negligible.
introduced a formal theory of birth order and personality among Scholarly analyses of the effects of birth order on personality
siblings. Beliefs about the power of birth order continue to abound were reinvigorated by the release of the academic book, Born to
in popular culture and self-help books. To illustrate, an rebel (Sulloway, 1996). Sulloway proposed that firstborn children
Amazon.com book search on the term ‘‘birth order’’ (February have much to gain from following the status quo and hence should
2013) revealed thousands of hits, with popular titles including, be conscientious and rule-bound; laterborn children, in their
The birth order book: Why you are the way you are (Leman, 2009), unconscious inclination to obtain others’ investment by distin-
and The birth order effect: How to better understand yourself and guishing themselves, should be more agreeable and unconventional
others (Isaacson & Radish, 2002). Despite the appeal of these books, (open). Consistent with Ernst and Angst’s (1983) argument, be-
empirical research on birth order and personality has consistently tween-family designs that compared firstborns and laterborns have
revealed only sporadic links between personality and birth order. failed to systematically document the birth order effects predicted
Moreover, a detailed review of the birth order literature (Ernst & by Sulloway’s model, even with large samples (Dunkel, Harbke, &
Angst, 1983) attributed findings in favor of a birth order effect to Papini, 2009; Jefferson, Herbst, & McCrae, 1998; Marini & Kurtz,
the use of between-family designs. In between-family designs, 2011; Parker, 1998; Pollet, Dijkstra, Barelds, & Buunk, 2010). In-
individuals from different families are compared to each other as deed, research regarding nonshared environmental influences on
a function of their birth order position. Ernst and Angst noted that children’s personality development has revealed few significant
sibship size (and hence birth order) is correlated with income, IQ, forces besides differential peer and teacher interactions (Harris,
and parenting styles (e.g., see Herrera, Zajonc, Wieczorkowska, & 1998; Turkheimer & Waldron, 2000). However, various researchers
Cichomski, 2003, study 4), and that between-family comparisons (Healey & Ellis, 2007; Paulhus, Trapnell, & Chen, 1999) have argued
that the appropriate test of birth order is within-family, in that the
firstborn–laterborn comparisons should come from within the
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Psychology Department, University of Wiscon-
same family. As reviewed by Sulloway (2011) in a meta-analytic
sin – Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702, USA. Tel.: +1 715 836 4641; fax: +1 715 836
2214. summary of studies conducted by six teams of researchers, when
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Bleske-Rechek). adults are asked to list their siblings and then compare themselves

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.011
16 A. Bleske-Rechek, J.A. Kelley / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 15–18

against their siblings on various personality traits, firstborns are of solicitation that we were interested in studying sibling similar-
judged as more achieving and conscientious, and laterborns are ities and differences, and that their participation would necessitate
judged as more rebellious and open. For example, Healey and Ellis eventual online involvement of a full biological sibling. We ob-
(2007) found moderate effects (Cohen’s d values ranging from .11 tained 92 original participants (22 men, 70 women; mean
to 1.03) of birth order on conscientiousness and openness in two age = 21.10, SD = 1.51; 34% firstborn), who completed a paper-
separate samples, even with small subsets of siblings; Paulhus, and-pencil questionnaire voluntarily in classroom sessions. In
Trapnell, and Chen (1999) documented weak-to-moderate effects those sessions, we asked participants to provide an email address
(Phi’s ranging from .10 to .30) of birth order on conscientiousness for ‘‘the sibling who was closest to them in age’’. For those who
and rebelliousness in four separate samples. Thus, within-family were firstborns, the nominated sibling was always a laterborn;
designs suggest weak-to-moderate effects (Cohen’s d values rang- however, some of the laterborns nominated a fellow laterborn be-
ing from .2 to .5) of birth order on personality. (One of the remain- cause we intentionally did not tell participants that birth order was
ing studies Sulloway (2011) cites is from an unpublished honor’s a factor in this study. When the sibling we obtained did not com-
thesis (Chao, 2001) and thus we were unable to obtain it for review. plete the firstborn–laterborn pairing, we emailed the original par-
Another study (Rohde et al., 2003) actually provides between-family ticipant to ask for their oldest sibling’s contact information. We
comparisons of firstborns’ and laterborns’ likelihood of nominating obtained contact information for 12 firstborns, and seven com-
themselves as a rebel of the family. Sulloway also included a study pleted the survey. In the end, we obtained 69 sibling pairs com-
by Beck, Burnet, and Vosper (2006) which documented weak effects prised of one firstborn and one laterborn (30 male siblings; mean
of birth order on two specific facets of extraversion, but that study age of siblings = 22.20, SD = 4.42). Siblings were entered into a
did not investigate birth order effects on the prominent dimensions drawing for a $50 gift card (chance of winning = 1 in 20). We at-
of conscientiousness and openness.) tempted to obtain siblings who were five years apart or less in
As noted by Marini and Kurtz (2011, p. 913), the existing within- age (Healey & Ellis, 2007), but we also did not want to turn inter-
family research on birth order and personality is limited by its use ested participants away. Of the 69 sibling pairs, 86% were within
of a single rater from each family. In such studies, the single rater is five years of each other (mean age difference = 3.30,
comparing oneself against one’s siblings and thus increasing the SD = 2.71 years). Forty sibling pairs were same-sex (eight were
likelihood of perceiving a contrast. Moreover, when individuals list male–male and 32 were female–female; and 39 sibling pairs were
out their siblings (including themselves) and then nominate the mixed-sex (17 were comprised of a male firstborn and a female lat-
one who is most characteristic of a given trait, they may uncon- erborn; 12 were comprised of a female firstborn and a male later-
sciously focus on themselves and their siblings in the context of born). Of the laterborns, 66% were secondborns and 34% were
their family rearing environment, where birth order is frequently thirdborns or beyond.
noted and frequently attributed causal force. In fact, as Harris
(2000, 2006) noted, if birth order effects do operate, they operate 2.1.2. Original participants’ peers
within the rearing environment, where it could benefit a firstborn We asked original participants to nominate a close same-sex
to act more dominant and a laterborn to be more open. Such effects friend who would be willing to provide a peer-report of their per-
of the family environment do not clearly translate to personality sonality. A total of 79 peers (85%) responded to our electronic invi-
development and behavior outside of the home. The benefit to a tation and survey. Participants were entered into a drawing for a
firstborn of being dominant over younger siblings at home does $50 gift card (chance of winning = 1 in 20) in return for
not clearly translate into a benefit on the playground with peers. participation.
Thus, even if birth order were related to sibling dynamics in the
family rearing environment, it need not be related to individuals’ 2.1.3. Siblings’ parents
personality traits as expressed across environmental contexts. Three months after we obtained data from the original partici-
Given our concern with single-rater within-family studies, we pants, their siblings, and their peers, we contacted the original par-
collected independent self-reports on personality from both a first- ticipants again via email. We told participants we were interested
born and a laterborn sibling from the same family. As a result, we in their parents’ perceptions of their children’s personality traits
could compare two siblings’ independent perceptions of their own and requested contact information for one or both parents. A total
personality traits as a function of birth order. We also asked par- of 56 participants complied with the request. We mailed parents a
ents to provide personality reports on each of those two individu- child-report questionnaire and received data from 46 different
als. That is, each young adult sibling reported on their own families (82% response rate): six families for whom the dad re-
personality; and participating parents completed a personality sponded, 13 families for whom the mom responded, and 27 fami-
profile on each of their two adult children who were involved in lies for whom both the mother and father responded. Of these 46
the study (parents did not report which child they viewed as more families, we were missing complete firstborn–laterborn data from
or less of a given trait). As a final component of our study, we ob- two of them (i.e., we had obtained responses from two laterborns
tained peer reports on our original participants to test the validity instead of one firstborn and one laterborn). Thus, we had parent
of our self-report data and to investigate whether peers of firstborn ratings of 44 firstborn–laterborn sibling pairs.
siblings perceive their friends differently than peers of laterborn
siblings do. Our primary objective was to determine whether birth 2.2. Materials and procedure
order effects on personality would be revealed in a true within-
family design that utilizes independent self-report data from mul- 2.2.1. Original participants
tiple siblings in the same family. Participants completed the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI;
John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), which measures openness (10
2. Method items), conscientiousness (nine items), extraversion (eight items),
agreeableness (nine items), and neuroticism (eight items). We
2.1. Participants asked original participants to rate the extent to which each item
described themselves, using a five-point scale (Strongly disagree
2.1.1. Original participants and their siblings to Strongly agree). At the end of the paper survey, participants re-
Original participants were undergraduate students enrolled at a ported their sex, age, number of siblings, and whether they were
mid-sized public university. We informed participants at the time a firstborn or laterborn.
 A. Bleske-Rechek, J.A. Kelley / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 15–18 17

2.2.2. Siblings effects greater than d = .35 (Kraemer & Thiemann, 1987). Table 2
We sent siblings the BFI in an online format, using the email ad- displays firstborn and laterborn siblings’ self-reported Big Five fac-
dresses provided by original participants. They were asked to self- tor scores and the results of paired-samples t-tests conducted for
report on the items. the within-family comparisons. As shown in this table, siblings
did not differ systematically as a function of birth order. Table 2
2.2.3. Original participants’ peers also displays parents’ ratings of their firstborn and laterborn chil-
We sent peers the BFI in an online format, using the email ad- dren’s personalities, and the results of paired-samples t-tests con-
dresses provided by original participants. Peers provided their per- ducted for the within-family comparisons. Parents’ ratings of their
ceptions of the original participants’ personality traits. adult children did not differ systematically as a function of birth
order.
2.2.4. Siblings’ parents To our knowledge, no other study has attempted to investigate
Original participants provided mailing addresses for one or both effects of birth order on personality using a complete within-fam-
of their parents. We sent these parents a personalized cover letter ily design; that is, by asking siblings of varying birth orders, from
stating that we were interested in the degree to which parents and the same family, to provide independent self-reports of their
their children agree about children’s personality traits (birth order own personality. We cannot attribute the lack of statistical signif-
was not mentioned). We enclosed a personalized paper copy of the icance in our design to small samples, because other researchers
BFI and asked the parent to complete it in reference to each of their (e.g., Healey & Ellis, 2007) have reported moderate effect sizes,
two children. The questionnaire contained two columns, one for which we had the statistical power to detect. Perhaps within-fam-
the parent’s ratings of one child and one column for the parent’s ily designs that rely on ratings from one family member (Healey &
ratings of the other child. The original participant’s name was al- Ellis, 2007; Paulhus, Trapnell, & Chen, 1999) promote a specific
ways inserted in the first column heading and their sibling’s name comparison mindset. That is, instead of rating oneself in general,
in the second column heading (thus providing a natural counter- participants might rate themselves in comparison to their sibling.
balancing of birth order). When both parents returned a question- If such comparisons are operating, previous studies may have been
naire, we averaged their responses. biased toward detecting effects of birth order. We attribute the
lack of statistical significance in our complete within-family design
3. Results and discussion to a real absence of systematic influence of birth order on primary
personality traits.
Our initial analyses focused on establishing the validity of the Although we did not see evidence that parents perceive their
dataset. First, as noted in Table 1, internal reliabilities for self, peer, children differently as a function of their children’s birth order,
and parent ratings of the Big Five factors were high. Second, as ex- we did see evidence that parents perceived similarities and differ-
pected from previous research on personality judgment, original ences between the two children they rated. Parents’ ratings of their
participants’ self-reports of their personality coincided with their two children’s neuroticism levels were positively correlated; par-
peers’ and parents’ judgments of their personality. As shown in Ta- ents’ ratings of their two children’s openness, conscientiousness,
ble 1, all self-other correlations were positive, and 14 of 15 were and agreeableness were not correlated; and ratings of their two
statistically significant. Third, given previous research on personal- children’s extraversion levels were negatively correlated. Thus, par-
ity similarity among biological siblings, we expected to see weak to ents who perceived one of their children as highly extraverted
moderate similarity between the siblings (Loehlin & Rowe, 1992), were likely to perceive their other child as less extraverted. We
and we did. As shown in Table 1, siblings were weakly to moder- do not have a clear explanation for the finding that parents per-
ately similar in self-reported openness, conscientiousness, and ceived their children as similarly neurotic but dissimilar in extra-
neuroticism, but they were not similar in self-reported extraver- version. We would like to see this question explored in future
sion or agreeableness. The results from these analyses of internal research.
reliability, self-other consensus, and familial similarity suggest
that our dataset is robust for detecting birth order effects on
Table 2
personality. Personality ratings by birth order.

Firstborn Laterborn t p d
3.1. Within-family tests of birth order differences in personality
M (SD) M (SD)
Sibling self-reports (n = 69)
We had 50% power to detect birth order effects of d = .20, 80%
Openness 3.64 (0.65) 3.69 (0.52) 0.57 .573 0.07
power to detect effects of d = .30, and over 90% power to detect Conscientiousness 3.80 (0.64) 3.367 (0.63) 1.29 .201 0.16
Extraversion 3.56 (0.83) 3.54 (0.86) 0.20 .845 0.02
Table 1
Agreeableness 3.91 (0.59) 4.00 (0.51) 0.88 .380 0.11
Pairwise correlations for the Big Five personality factors.
Neuroticism 2.87 (0.82) 2.85 (0.76) 0.19 .850 0.02
O C E A N Patent ratings (n = 44)
Consensus Openness 3.62 (0.55) 3.62 (0.43) 0.03 .981 0.00
Self- and peer reports (n = 79) .50
⁄⁄⁄
.42
⁄⁄⁄
.60
⁄⁄⁄
.28
⁄
.42
⁄⁄⁄ Conscientiousness 3.77 (0.52) 3.69 (0.67) 0.64 .526 0.10
Firstborns’ self- and parent-reports .61
⁄⁄⁄
.45
⁄⁄
.66
⁄⁄⁄
.30
⁄
.51
⁄⁄⁄ Extraversion 3.54 (0.74) 3.38 (0.77) 0.90 .374 0.14
(n = 44) Agreeableness 3.95 (0.59) 3.93 (0.60) 0.17 .865 0.03
Laterborns’ self- and parent-reports .29
⁄
.47
⁄⁄
.61
⁄⁄⁄
.20 .34
⁄ Neuroticism 2.67 (0.68) 2.79 (0.58) 1.26 .214 0.19
(n = 44) Peer ratings (n = 79)
Familial similarity Openness 3.53 (0.70) 3.63 (0.62) 0.64 .528 0.15
Siblings’ self-reports (n = 69) .31
⁄⁄
.26
⁄
.10 .01 .25
⁄ Conscientiousness 3.78 (0.68) 3.97 (0.65) 1.19 .239 0.27
Parent reports of firstborn and .24 .05 .32
⁄
.23 .51
⁄⁄⁄ Extraversion 3.83 (0.91) 3.96 (0.77) 0.66 .509 0.15
laterborn (n = 44) Agreeableness 3.90 (0.86) 4.14 (0.70) 1.34 .183 0.31
Neuroticism 2.78 (0.82) 2.75 (0.83) 0.20 .846 0.04
Note: ⁄p < .05, ⁄⁄p < .01, ⁄⁄⁄p < .001. Internal reliability coefficients for original par-
ticipants’ self-reports, sibling self-reports, peer reports, and parent reports range Note: Sibling self-reports and parent ratings were analyzed as paired-samples t-
from .77 to 85 for openness, .77–.84 for conscientiousness, .87–.89 for extraversion, tests, with Type I error rate set at .05; peer ratings were analyzed as independent-
.66–.88 for agreeableness, and .83–.84 for neuroticism. samples t-tests, with Type I error rate set at .05.
18 A. Bleske-Rechek, J.A. Kelley / Personality and Individual Differences 56 (2014) 15–18

3.2. Between-family tests of birth order differences in personality Dunkel, C. S., Harbke, C. R., & Papini, D. R. (2009). Direct and indirect effects of birth
order on personality and identity: Support for the null hypothesis. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 170, 159–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.170.2.159-
A total of 79 peers of the original participants provided their 175.
assessment of the original participant’s personality traits. Table 2 Ernst, C., & Angst, J. (1983). Birth order: Its influence on personality. New York:
displays their mean ratings, by original participants’ birth order, Springer-Verlag.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do.
and the results of independent samples t-tests conducted for the New York: Free Press.
between-family comparisons. As shown in the table, firstborns Harris, J. R. (2000). Context-specific learning, personality, and birth order. Current
and laterborns in our sample were not rated differently by their Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 174–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8721.00087.
peers. This finding corroborates those of several previous Harris, J. R. (2006). No two alike: Human nature and human individuality. New York:
between-family designs of larger scale that have failed to docu- Norton.
ment consistent support for hypothesized birth order differences Healey, M. D., & Ellis, B. J. (2007). Birth order, conscientiousness, and openness to
experience: Tests of the family-niche model of personality using a within-
(Dunkel et al., 2009; Ernst & Angst, 1983; Jefferson et al., 1998; family methodology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 55–59. http://
Marini & Kurtz, 2011; Pollet et al., 2010; Saroglou & Fiasse, 2003). dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.003.
Herrera, N. C., Zajonc, R. B., Wieczorkowska, G., & Cichomski, B. (2003). Beliefs about
birth rank and their reflection in reality. Journal of Personality and Social
4. Conclusion Psychology, 85, 142–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.142.
Isaacson, C. E., & Radish, K. (2002). The birth order effect: How to better understand
Cultural lore and popular books advertise birth order as a key yourself and others. Avon, MA: Adams Media.
Jefferson, T., Herbst, J. H., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Associations between birth order
factor – in some cases, the key factor – to explaining why individ- and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings. Journal
uals turn out the way they do. The notion that birth order is signif- of Research in Personality, 32, 498–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
icant seems to be rooted in subjective experiences or a desire to jrpe.1998.2233.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory – versions 4a
find the family environment as a source of influence on individuals’ and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social
development; however, popular belief in the power of birth order Research.
is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rather, the weight Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. (1987). How many subjects? Statistical power analysis
in research. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
of the evidence suggests that individual differences in personality Leman, K. (2009). The birth order book: Why you are the way you are. Grand Rapids,
are explained by (1) differences in genetic dispositions that can MI: Revell.
drive both differences in experience and differences in response Loehlin, J. C., & Rowe, D. C. (1992). Genes, environment, and personality. In G.
Caprara & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Modern personality psychology: Critical reviews
to experiences, and (2) by differences in objectively nonshared
and new directions (pp. 352–370). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
environments such as differential peer groups. We concur with Ju- Marini, V. A., & Kurtz, J. E. (2011). Birth order differences in normal personality
dith Rich Harris (2000): ‘‘It is time for researchers to look else- traits: Perspectives from within and outside the family. Personality and
Individual Differences, 51, 910–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
where – outside the childhood home – for the sources of the
j.paid.2011.07.019.
nongenetic variation in adult personality’’ (p. 177). Parker, W. D. (1998). Birth-order effects in the academically talented. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 42, 29–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200104.
Acknowledgements Paulhus, D. L., Trapnell, P. D., & Chen, D. (1999). Birth order effects on personality
and achievement within families. Psychological Science, 10, 482–488.
Pollet, T. V., Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Birth order and the
This research was funded by the Office of Research and Spon- dominance aspect of extraversion: Are firstborns more extraverted, in the sense
sored Programs at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. We of being dominant, than laterborns? Journal of Research in Personality, 44,
742–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.10.002.
thank Bethany R. Franklin and Amy E. Johnson for help with partic- Rohde, P. A., Atzwanger, K., Butovskaya, M., Lampert, A., Mysterud, I., Sanchez-
ipant recruitment and data entry, and faculty who facilitated par- Andres, A., et al. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism, closeness to kin, and the
ticipant recruitment: Jeffrey Goodman, Andrew Hucks, Kevin rebel of the family: The effects of birth order and sex. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 24, 261–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1013/S1090-5138(03)00033-3.
Klatt, Mary Beth Leibham, and Jennifer Muehlenkamp. We also Saroglou, V., & Fiasse, L. (2003). Birth order, personality, and religion: A study
thank those who commented on previous drafts of this manu- among young adults from a three-sibling family. Personality and Individual
script: Bryan Donovan, Eric Hanley, Luke Heidtke, Carolyn Kolb, Differences, 35, 19–29.
Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives.
Katelyn Morrison, and Danielle Ryan.
New York: Pantheon.
Sulloway, F. J. (2011). Why siblings are like Darwin’s finches: Birth order, sibling
References competition, and adaptive divergence within the family. In D. M. Buss & P. H.
Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences. Oxford:
Beck, E., Burnet, K. L., & Vosper, J. (2006). Birth-order effects on facets of Oxford University Press.
extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 953–959. http:// Turkheimer, E., & Waldron, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical,
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.012. methodological, and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 78–108.
Chao, M. M. (2001). The birth-order controversy: Within-family effects and their http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.1.78.
generalizability. University of California, Berkeley: Unpublished honors thesis.

View publication stats