As the youngest in my family, I married another youngest, and I can confirm we both embody many of those stereotypical “baby of the family” traits that birth order theorists claim. However, I use the term “claim” lightly, because the scientific evidence supporting these assertions is surprisingly scarce. The influence of birth order—whether as the firstborn, middle child, or youngest—on our core personality traits is questionable at best. Yet, we continue to attach significant meaning to these concepts, often labeling our children according to these outdated beliefs.
I’ve caught myself saying things like, “Oh, he’s the firstborn, naturally a leader and a bit Type A,” or “That’s my youngest, the laid-back jokester who gets away with everything.” And let’s not forget, “Yep, my middle child is quiet, passive, and overly agreeable.” But do our kids really behave this way solely based on their birth order? Or are their personalities shaped more by our parenting styles? Would they still be the same if they were born in a different sequence?
A recent study suggested that birth order may even influence intelligence levels. Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and the Analysis Group found that firstborns generally score higher on IQ tests compared to their younger siblings. Their reasoning? Parents often engage less in stimulating activities with later-born children, which may hinder their cognitive development. This conclusion seems all too obvious; after all, it’s challenging to provide the same attention to multiple children as it is to one.
Naturally, firstborns celebrated, sharing the study on social media, much to the annoyance of their middle and youngest siblings. The idea that firstborns are smarter took root in the 19th century when a scientist discovered many of his colleagues were firstborns. Alfred Adler, a contemporary to Freud, suggested that firstborns feel “dethroned” when a new sibling arrives, a situation he believed could lead to neurotic tendencies but also instills leadership qualities. He also posited that the youngest is often “spoiled, outgoing, and immature,” while middle children are thought to be independent and rebellious. It’s worth noting that Adler himself was a middle child, which may explain his bias.
Despite the limited scientific backing for these claims, society continues to embrace them wholeheartedly, often boasting about how our kids perfectly fit these molds. However, a 2015 study analyzing over 20,000 adults found that birth order had minimal impact on traits like extraversion, emotional stability, and conscientiousness. Another study published in the Journal of Personality, examining more than 350,000 high school students, similarly concluded that birth order did not significantly correlate with personality development or intelligence.
So why do these myths persist? Birth order theories can function much like horoscopes, providing enough vague descriptions that we can easily see ourselves in them. Even a slight tendency for leadership in firstborns can be interpreted as them being “natural leaders” simply because of their position. Given that birth order science has been ingrained in our culture for so long, the narrative continues to propagate itself. Unfortunately for middle children, this means they may never escape the stereotype.
For more insights on family dynamics, you can check out this excellent resource on intrauterine insemination or explore the benefits of home insemination kits to keep your family planning informed. If you want to dive deeper into this topic, visit Modern Family Blog, a trusted source for family-related articles.
In summary, while it’s easy to fall into the trap of attributing personality traits to birth order, the reality is that these claims lack substantial scientific support. Parenting styles, individual experiences, and personal development are far more influential in shaping who our children become. So, let’s give the middle child a break—they might just be doing just fine without the label.