Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 12, No. 6, 1983
Birth Order and Self-Concept in Adolescence 1 V i k t o r Gecas 2 and Kay Pasley 3
Received March 15, 1983 The effect o f birth order on self-concept was examined in a sample o f adolescent boys and girls. Based upon self-theory, which suggests that the two main processes o f self-concept formation (e.g., reflected appraisals and social comparisons) are affected by the power and role relationships associated with ordinal position in the family, several hypotheses were tested: (1) The self-evaluations o f only and oldest children are more positive than those o f younger siblings; (2) middle-borns have the lowest self-evaluations; (3) these relationships are affected by the sex and spacing o f nearest sibling; and (4) the self-conceptions o f oldest and only children are more similar to those o f their parents than the self-conceptions o f younger siblings and their parents. Using analysis o f variance and several different measures o f selfevaluation, very little support was f o u n d f o r any o f these hypotheses. The strongest support was f o u n d f o r the hypothesis on middle-borns, but even these relationships were not large. Several explanations are offered f o r these weak and inconsistent findings.
JWork on this study (Scientific paper 6485) was supported by Project 0364, Department of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Research Center, Washington State University. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Washington, D.C., 1982. ~Professor of Sociology and Rural Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164. Received Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Minnesota (1969), where he specialized in social psychology and family sociology. Research interests are socialization and self-concept formation, especially within the context of family relations. SAssociated Professor of Family Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506. Received Ed.D. in child development and family life from Indiana University (1974). Current research interests are family relations and child development within the context of remarriage. 511 0047-2891/83/1200-0521503.00/0 © 1983 Plenum PublishingCorporation
522
Gecas and Pasley
INTRODUCTION The effect of birth order upon personality development continues to be a lively topic in the family socialization literature. Much o f the appeal o f birth order as a family structural variable stems from the intuitive sense that children occupying different positions in the sibling order experience different patterns o f interaction with parents and siblings, and these differences have personality consequences. Yet the research findings on birth order effects have been remarkably inconclusive in regard to various behavioral, affective, and cognitive outcomes. Most o f this research has focused on birth order implications for intellectual development and achievement motivation. 4 Research has been much less extensive on the implications o f birth order for the self-concepts o f children. Yet there are a number o f reasons why birth order is expected to be consequential for the child's self-concept development. Theories o f selfconcept formation (such as those developed by Mead, Cooley, and James) have emphasized the importance o f primary group interaction. The sibling system, as part of the family system, is a group characterized by intimate, extensive, and relatively enduring interaction. This interaction is affected by certain structural features o f the g r o u p - - t h e size, age, and sex composition of the sibling system. The most conspicuous feature o f the sibling system is that it is hierarchical in regard to such things as power, competencies, and responsibilities. Typically, older children are bigger, stronger, m o r e competent, and are given more responsibilities than young children in the family. Interaction with both parents and siblings is affected by one's position in the sibling order. First-born children have an advantageous position in this regard (which is the main reason that, in most o f the research on birth order effects, the m a j o r comparison is between first-born and later-born children). First-horns receive a greater a m o u n t o f parental attention, both
4While the evidence is fairly consistent with regard to achievement motivation--first-borns have higher achievement motivation and tend to do better in school (Adams, 1972; Clausen, 1966)-it is quite inconsistent regarding intellectual development. Zajonc (1976; Zajonc et al., 1979) sparked a major controversy on this topic in a series of articles which argued that intellectual competence declines almost in a linear fashion with birth order, so that the oldest sibling (on the average) will be the most intelligent in the sibling order and the youngest will be the least intelligent (the only child ranks second to the oldest in intelligence). Zajonc's explanation for this relationship (which he found to be supported in several large cross-sectional surveys) was based essentiallyupon the opportunity for interaction with parents that is available to the child. This opportunity is greater for older than for younger children, and is consequential for the "intellectual environment" that each child experiences. Researchers, using data on intrafamily comparisons, however, have failed to find a relationship betwen birth order and intelligence (OIneck and Bliss, 1979; Grotevant et ak, 1977; Galbraith, t982).
Birth Order and Self-Concept
523
in terms of support and control (Lewis and Kreitzberg, 1979). Also, they are more likely to be given responsibility and control over younger siblings, and to have higher expectations associated with their performance. This is consistent with the finding that first-borns have higher achievement motivation than later-born children. It is also the basis for the speculation that firstborns are more likely to identify with parents and to internalize parental values (Adams, 1972; Kammeyer, 1967). The distinctive feature of the position of younger children in the birth order is that they are more subject to child-level interaction, and are typically subordinate to older children. Younger children (with the possible exception of the last-born) receive less attention from parents, less encouragement, less responsibility, and have a harder time carving out a distinct "niche" for themselves in the family system. These tendencies are accentuated as family size increases, but are also attenuated by the sex composition of the sibling order and the spacing between positions. What implications do different patterns of family interaction associated with birth order have for the self-conceptions of children? Two of the main processes involved in self-evaluations are reflected appraisals and social comparisons. Reflected appraisals, based on Cooley's (1902) idea of the "looking-glass self," suggest that self-evaluations derive from our perceptions of how others (especially significant others) evaluate us. To the extent that we think we are favorably perceived by others, we will have high self-esteem. Self-evaluations are also based on our comparisons of self with others on some characteristic or trait, such as intelligence, strength, or attractiveness. These social comparisons are typically made with regard to a referent other or reference group. Our self-evaluations will vary with the degree of favorableness or unfavorableness of these comparisons. The consequences of social comparisons and reflected appraisals are most pronounced on the characteristics we consider most important for our selfconceptions (this qualifier is captured by Rosenberg's 1979 concept of "psychological centrality" and Stryker's 1968 concept of "identity salience"). Within the family, the process of reflected appraisals is more likely to be salient to parent-child relations in the development of the child's selfconcept; the process of social comparisons is most relevant to sibling relations. Children are more likely to consider parents as significant others and to care about their evaluations than those of their siblings. However, because children are more similar to their siblings than to their parents (in age and competencies), and to the extent that they a r e similar to their siblings (in age and sex), they are more likely to use siblings rather than parents as standards of comparison. On the basis of both reflected appraisals and social comparisons, we would expect first-borns to have higher self-evaluations than later-born siblings. The greater attention and encouragement from parents should con-
524
Gecas and Pasley
tribute to first-borns' greater sense of worth and importance; and firstborns' typically greater power and competence vis-a-vis other siblings should contribute to more favorable social comparisons. Previous research offers limited support for these expectations. Rosenberg (1965) and Bachman (1970) found, in samples of high school students, that only children have slightly higher self-esteem than others. But there was very little variation in self-esteem across the other ordinal positions. Coopersmith (1967) and Sears (1970) found that first-borns and only children have-higher self-esteem than later-borns. But others have found no relationship between birth order and self-esteem (Nystul, 1974; Schooler, 1972; see Sampson, 1965, for a review of earlier studies). These weak and inconsistent findings are surprising in light of the persuasive theoretical basis for expecting birth order to affect self-evaluation. The problem, we think, is that birth order is a deceptively simple variable to study. What could be easier than determining the ordinal position of a person? Yet birth order effects are influenced by several other features of the sibling system (e.g., sex composition of the sibling order, child spacing, family size, age and sex of target child). In fact, when some of these features are taken into account, the effects of birth order on self-evaluation become more pronounced. Kidwell (1982), in a national sample of adolescent males, found middle-borns to have significantly lower self-esteem than first-borns and last-borns, especially when the average spacing of the nearest sibling is two years. She also found a middle-born male's self-esteem to be higher when his siblings are all females, compared to all males or mixed. She offers a "uniqueness theory" to account for these findings that is quite consistent with our discussion of reflected appraisals and social comparisons as processes in self-concept formation. According to this argument, first- and last-borns enjoy an inherent uniqueness in their position that facilitates status, recognition, and attention by parents and other siblings. Middleborns have a harder time establishing their uniqueness and, hence, have lower self-esteem, unless they are the only males in the sibling order. Rosenberg (1965) also found that later-born boys in predominantly female sibling systems have exceptionally high self-esteem; furthermore, the selfesteem of these boys, in contrast to that of other boys, was unrelated to any objective accomplishments (such as schoolgrades, club memberships, and other activities). It seemed to be the result of unconditional parental acceptance and attention, giving the "younger-minority"boy an unshakable sense of self-worth and esteem, derived essentially from these positive reflected appraisals. 5 ~Rosenberg (1965, p. 126) suggests (and Franks and Marolla, 1976, have explicitlyargued) that self-esteembased upon the unconditionalacceptance of significantothers may be less desirablethan self-esteembasedon one'saccomplishments.
Birth Order and Self-Concept
525
In the present study, we examine the relationship between birth order and self-concept of adolescent boys and girls, taking into account the effects of spacing and sex of nearest siblings. Several aspects of selfconcept are considered: self-evaluations in terms of global self-esteem and with regard to assessments of personal competence and efficacy along several dimensions (physical, social, and cognitive). Based upon theory and previous research, our examination is guided by several hypotheses: 1.
Self-evaluations of only and oldest children will be more positive than self-evaluations of younger siblings. 2. Middle-borns wilt have the lowest self-evaluations. 3A. Self-evaluations of middle-borns and youngest children will be lower if their nearest older sibling is of the same sex than if the nearest older sibling is of the opposite sex. 3B. Self-evaluations of middle and youngest children who have samesex older siblings should be lowest when the spacing is two years or less. Social comparisons between self and sibling are most likely to occur under these circumstances, and the younger child is more likely to be at a disadvantage in such comparisons. .
Self-conceptions of oldest and only children will be more similar to those of their parents (especially the same-sex parent) than self-conceptions of younger siblings and their parents.
METHOD Sample and Procedures The data for this study were gathered in 1978. Two separate procedures were used. First, questionnaires were administered to 770 high school sophomores in five school districts in eastern Washington (number of usable questionnaires = 762). The communities in which these high schools are located range from a population of 250,000 to 10,000. Students completed the questionnaires in classrooms selected for their representativeness of the student population (i.e., during classes that were generally required of all students, such as English, science, and social studies). Data for
526
Gecas and Pasley
testing the first three hypotheses are derived from these questionnaires. 6 The second stage in the data-gathering procedures involved interviews with parents. Names and telephone numbers o f parents were obtained from the students who filled out questionnaires. From this pool o f parents, a sample of intact families was selected. Telephone contacts were made, and interviews with the fathers set up in the parents' home. Fathers were interviewed because one o f the original objectives o f the study was to obtain detailed information (requiring probes) on the fathers' occupational circumstances and job conditions. During the interview, mothers were given a self-administered questionnaire which paralleled the fathers' interview schedule on all items, except the detailed information on job condtions. Eighty percent of the parents contacted by telephone participated in the study (N = 208 families). Data relevant to hypothesis 4, involving selfassessments o f parents as well as children, are derived from this source. Measures and Data Analysis All o f the information on birth order was derived from two questionnaire items: "Please write the ages o f each o f your brothers," and "Please write the ages o f each o f your sisters." From this information (along with information on the respondent's age), it was a fairly simple procedure to determine ordinal position, sex o f older and younger siblings, and spacing. Two different measures o f self-evaluation were used, each measuring a slightly different aspect o f self-assessment: Gecas' (1971) Self-Evaluation Scale and Harter's (1977, 1978) self-perceived competence scale. Gecas' is the more general self-evaluation measure (even though it is comprised o f several dimensions of self-assessment); Hatter's measure is an assessment of self in terms o f various competencies. The Gecas Self-Evaluation Scale is a 12-item semantic differential with each item set on a 5-point scale. The subjects were asked to rate them6Several characteristics of the sample are worth noting: approximately half the sample are boys (N = 387) and half are girls (N = 375); the mean age = 15.5 (with a standard deviation of 0.88); average number of children in the family = 3.95 (SD = 1.84); 66% of the children live with both (natural) parents, 14% live with mother only, 10% with mother and stepfather and the rest with father, grandparents, or others; 40% of the fathers of these children had a college education, with another 26% having had some college. Except for the slightly larger family size and the somewhat greater representation of college-educated fathers, this sample does not seem unusual. One characteristic of the sample, however, is quite strange: There are substantially more "youngest"children in terms of birth order (N = 257) than "oldest" children (N = 170). We are at a loss to explain this unequal representation of oldest and youngest children.
Birth Order and Self-Concept
selves "as you ordinarily think of yourself" on each of the 12 adjective pairs (there were 14 items originally, but 2 were dropped-"attractive" and "tolerant" - because their factor loadings were too low). On the basis of exploratory factor analysis of these items, three scales were constructed: Self-Efficacy, Self-Worth, and General Self-Evaluation (SE) (see Appendix 1). The Self-Perceived Competence Scale was developed by Harter (1977) to measure self-perceptions of grade school children. Its application to high school students in the present study posed no special problem. The scale consists of 20 pairs of statements, each emphasizing a particular skill or competency. The respondent is asked whether he/she identifies with children who have or do not have this competency, and the degree to which this is true. Harter has conducted extensive factor analyses of these items, on the basis of which she constructed four subscales: Cognitive Competence, Social Competence, Physical Competence, and General Competence. Factor analysis was also performed on the present data. Similar factors and loadings were found (see Appendix 2). It is clear from Table I that the Gecas and Harter sets of self-concept scales are related, but measure different aspects of self-perception and evaluation. For example, the correlation between Gecas' General SelfEvaluation (based upon the semantic differential items) and Harter's general Competence is a moderate r = 0.33, indicating modest overlap. The intercorrelations between subscales within each of the two scales is, expectedly, much higher. Since all of the self-evaluation measures constitute at least ordinal level scales, data analysis consists of comparisons of mean scores for various groupings of subjects. Analysis of variance (one-way, two-way, and three-way) was used to determine the statistical significance of mean differences. Table i. Intercorrelations of Self-Evaluation and Self-Perception Scales
Gecas Self-Evaluation (SE) General SE
SEEfficacy
Gecas General SE SE-Efficacy SE-Worth
0.91 0.90
0.68
Harter General Cognitive Social Physical
0.33 0.30 0.27 0.28
0.31 0.29 0.27 0.35
Harter Self-Perceived Competence
SEWorth
General
Cognitive
Social
0.28 0.27 0.21 0.17
0.41 0.60 0.44
0.37 0.32
0.51
Physical
528
Gecas and Pasley
FINDINGS It was hypothesized that the self-evaluations of oldest and only children would be more positive than the self-evaluations o f younger children. The data in Table II do not support this expectation. While the three Gecas self-evaluation subscales show the category oldest (but not the only) to have the highest self-evaluation means, the differences between means across ordinal positions (based on analysis o f variance) are not statistically significant. In fact, o f the seven self-evaluation subscales reported in Table II, only one shows birth order to have a statistically significant effect at the 0.05 level or less (Harter's self-perceived competence on the cognitive dimension)--and even here, the mean scores are not quite in the predicted direction (since the youngest has the highest mean score). Only one of the t tests, comparing oldest and only versus middle and youngest, were statistically significant at p < 0.05: The Gecas General SE scale. For the other self-concept scales, the mean differences were insignificant a n d / o r in the wrong direction. We also hypothesized that middle-borns would have the lowest selfevaluation scores of the four ordinal positions. There is a slight tendency in the direction of this hypothesis on half o f the scales in Table II, but here again, with the exception of Harter's cognitive subscale, these mean differences are not significant. We must conclude that hypothesis 2 is not supported either. The findings are more interesting and more ambiguous when sex o f respondent, sex o f nearest sibling, and spacing are taken into account. The two general self-evaluation subscales are used for this analysis: Gecas' General SE (G-SE), and Harter's General Self-Perceived Competence (HSPC) scales (Table III). We hypothesized that the self-evaluations o f middle and the youngest would be lower if their nearest older sibling was o f the same sex. We find that, for middle-borns, the presence o f a same-sex sibling, either younger or older, is associated with lower self-evaluations. But this association is neither very pronounced nor very consistent. For youngest children, curiously, the presence o f an older sister as the nearest sibling is associated with the most positive self-evaluations (on three o f the four comparisons). Ironically, the pattern o f findings for the oldest siblings comes closest to supporting the relationships in hypothesis 3A (even though this hypothesis was stated in terms o f middle and youngest siblings). For oldest children, having a younger sibling o f the same sex is most favorable for their self-evaluations; a cross-sex younger sibling is associated with less favorable self-evaluations. This pattern is more pronounced on the Harter scale, for which a two-way analysis o f variance (sex o f respondent x sex of sibling) was found to be significant at the 0.01 probability level (F = 13.64).
(N (N (N (N
= = = =
18) 170) 317) 257) 2.08 1.65 b
49.33 51.06 49.11 50.36 1.66 1.34
17.28 17.75 17.08 17.58
SEEfficacy
1.88 1.35
18.11 19.16 18.45 18.91
SEWorth
Gecas Self-Evaluation (SE) General SE
1.74 - 1.25
12.94 13.36 13.70 14.21
0.59 - 1.23
13.17 13.36 13.65 13.78
Social
0.58 - 1.20
ti.61 12.66 12.65 12.54
Physical
(based on a one-tailed test) is significant at p _< 0.05.
bt tests were performed on (combined) only and oldest versus (combined) middle and youngest, t value
4.34* 1.25
11.67 12.47 11.56 12.56
Cognitive
Harter Self-Perceived Competence General
"One-way analysis o f variance indicates F i s significant at p -< 0.05.
F t
Only Oldest Middle Youngest
Birth order
Table Ii. Birth Order and Measures o f Self-Evaluation
e~
O
,-p ¢3
ca,
530
Gecas and Pasley Table 11I. General Self-Esteem (G-SE) and SelfPerceived Competence (H-SPC) by Gender, Birth Order, Sex of Nearest Sibling, and Spacing Spacing (years) Oldest Younger brother < 2 --> 3 Younger sister -< 2 3 Middle Older brother _< 2 :" 3 Older sister _< 2 -> 3 Younger brother 2 -> 3 Younger sister - 3 Youngest Older brother -< 2 >- 3 Older sister -< 2 ~: 3
G-SE
H-SPC
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
50.71 53.40
49.75 51.50
13.78 I4.70
I2.87 12.50
52.40 50.12
51,67 51.83
t 1.84 13.75
15.54 14.83
49.93 49.92
48.34 50.38
13.68 13.20
13.63 13.85
48.88 51.46
48.02 47.76
13.71 14.50
14.02 12.92
49.21 48.75
48.93 49.76
14.32 12.53
13.14 I3.75
49.27 51.79
49.45 45.06
13.86 14.33
13.64 14.08
50.85 52.00
47.04 50.46
14.29 13.67
13.60 13.27
50.64 51.83
51.89 48.32
15.42 14.39
15.57 14.15
This was the only significant F value for these within-ordinal position relationships. In general, however, the pattern of relationships when sex of respondent and sex of nearest sibling are considered is neither very strong nor very consistent across these two self-evaluation measures. At best, hypothesis 3A receives very modest and ambiguous support. The inclusion of spacing into the analysis does not add much clarity to these relationships. It was hypothesized that the shorter the time span between same-sex siblings, the more adverse the effect upon the self-evaluations of the younger siblings. There seems to be no consistent pattern with regard to spacing, and hence, no support for hypothesis 3B. Lastly, we hypothesized that the self-conceptions of oldest and only children would be more similar to the self-conceptions of their parents than self-conceptions of younger siblings and their parents. The Gecas General
Birth Order and Self-Concept
531
Table IV. Summary Differences Between Parent-Child Self-Conceptions by Birth Order* Birth order Father-child difference scores Oldest Middle Youngest Mother-child difference scores Oldest Middle Youngest
Boys
Girls
11.72 12.33 I 1.03
10.34 9.95 I 1.75
12.45 12.97 11.75
I 1.10 10.60 11.50
°F = NS for any o f the relationships.
SE scale was used to test this hypothesis (because this was the only selfesteem scale we used for both children and parents). Difference scores were created by subtracting the child's score from that of the parent on each of the 12 semantic differential items, and then adding the absolute values for a summary difference score. The smaller the score, the greater the similarity between child and parent. The findings, relevant to hypothesis 4 (Table IV), are unambiguous: There is no support for the hypothesis. The differences in self-conceptions of parents and their children in various ordinal positions and various gender combinations are not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, we found very little support for any of our hypotheses relating birth order to self-evaluations in adolescence. There was a slight tendency for middle-borns to have the lowest self-evaluations, and for the self-evaluations of oldest siblings to increase with the presence of a samesex younger sibling. But these tendencies were neither very strong nor very consistent. Furthermore, our hypotheses that oldest and only children would have the highest self-evaluations, that they would have self-conceptions more similar to their parents than younger siblings, and that shorter spacing between siblings would accentuate differences in self-evaluations were not supported. In light of these findings, what can we say about the relationship between birth order and self-evaluations of adolescents? Perhaps birth order effects upon self-concepts are more conspicuous during childhood, when family influence in general is stronger. Adolescence is frequently depicted as a time of rebellion against family influence, when the adolescent seeks increasing independence and autonomy from parents and
532
Gecas and Pasley
siblings in the process of developing a personal identity and consolidating a self-concept (Erickson, 1959; Coleman, 1961). In the course of this process, peers and other extrafamilial influences may become more important for self-definition and evaluation than parents and siblings. So whatever differentiation in self-evaluations may have resulted as a function of birth order during childhood could well have vanished by the end of adolescence. Of course, we would need longitudinal data to test this possibility. Our weak and mostly insignificant relationships might also be due to the omission of other "conditional" variables that should have been considered. We were able to take into account some birth order contingencies (e.g., sex of nearest sibling, spacing), but obviously could not assess the whole sibling configuration for each child (i.e., the ages, sex, and spacing for all of the children in each respondent's family). This would require either a very large sample or a different methodology (more along clinical or case study lines). We must also consider the possibility that birth order simply does not explain very much after all (as Schooler, 1972, has previously argued, and Ernst and Angst, 1983, more recently conclude). There may, indeed, be too many more direct influences on such personality variables as self-evaluation for the effects of birth order to be very noticiable.
REFERENCES Adams, B. (1972). Birth order: A critical review. Sociometry 35:411-439. Bachman, J. G. (1970). Youth in Transition, Vol. 2, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Clausen, J. A. (1966). Family structure, socialization, and personality. In Hoffman, M. L., and Hoffman, L. W. (eds.), Review of Child Development Research, VOI. 2, Russell Sage, New York. Coleman, J. S. (1961). The Adolescent Society, Free Press, New York. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order, Free Press, New York. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The Antecedents of Self-Esteem, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. PsychoL Iss. 1: 1-171. Ernst, C., and Angst, J. (1983). Birth Order: Its Influence on Personality, Springer-Verlag, New York. Franks, D. D., and Marolla, J. (1976). Efficacious action and social approval as interacting dimensions of self-esteem. Sociometry 39: 324-341. Galbraith, R. C. (1982). Sibling spacing and intellectual development: A closer look at the confluence model. Dev. Psychol. 18: 151-173. Gecas, V. (1971). Parental behavior and dimensions of adolescent self-evaluation. Sociometry 34: 466-482. Grotevant, H. D., Scarf, S., and Weinberg, R. A. (1977). Intellectual development in family constellations with adopted and natural children: A test of the Zajonc and Markus model. ChildDev. 48: 1699-1703. Harter, S. (1977). Perceived competence scale for children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Albuquerque, N.M.
Birth Order and Self-Concept
533
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Hum. Dev. 21: 34-64. Kammeyer, K. (1967). Birth order as a research variable. Soc. Forces46: 71-80. Kidwetl, J. (t982). The neglected birth order: Middleborns. J. Mart. Faro. 44: 225-235. Lewis, M., and Kreitzberg, V. K. (1979). Effects of birth order and spacing in motherinfant interactions. Dev. PsychoL 15: 617-625. Nystul, M, S. (1974). The effects of birth order and sex on self-concept. J. lndiv. Psychol. 30:211-215. Olneck, M. R., and Bills, D. B. (1979). Family configuration and achievement effects of birth order and family size in a sample of brothers. Soc. Sci. Quart. 42: 135-148. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-hnage, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York. Sampson, E. E. (1965). The study of ordinal position: Antecedents and outcomes. In Maher, B. A. (ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York. Schooler, C. (1972). Birth order effects: Not here, not now! PsychoL Bull. 78: 161-175. Sears, R. (I 970). Relation of early socialization experiences to self-concepts and gender role in middle childhood. ChildDev. 41: 267-289. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. J. Marr. Faro. 30: 558-564. Zajonc, R. B. (1976). Family configuration and intelligence. Science 192: 227-236. Zajonc, R. B., Markus, H., and Markus, G. B. (1979). The birth order puzzle. J. Personal. Soc. PsychoL 37: 1325-1341.
APPENDIX 1 Gecas Self-Esteem Scale-- Self-Efficacy, Self-Worth, and General Self-Evaluation Scales
Questionnaire Item .
Please show how you ordinarily think of yourself by placing an "X" somewhere between the two opposite words. For example, suppose that you have the pair of words: S t r o n g - W e a k Strong:~:__ Very Strong
_ _ : _ _
__"
Weak
Fairly Very Strong Average Weak Weak
If you think of yourself as being average, mark an "X" on the space above "average." For each of these pairs of words, place an "X" on the point of the scale that best represents the way you think about yourself.
534
Gecas and Pasley Table AI. Factor Analysis of Gecas' Self-Esteem Scales: Varimax Rotation, Two-Factor Solution Two-factor solution 1 Self-Efficacy
Items Powerful -- powerless Confident-lack confidence Strong--weak Wise-- foolish Do most (few) things well Brave--cowardly
Principal factor loading
I1 Self-Worth
.472 .559 .540 .529 .618 .481
.533 .605 .562 .586 .594 .510
Honest--dishonest Good --bad Kind - cruel Dependable-- undependable Generous -selfish Worthy-worthless
.538 .508 .682 .524 .454 .404
.601 .585 .471 .503 .429 .706
APPENDIX 2
Harter's Self-Perceived C o m p e t e n c e Scale
Sample Item: "What I'm Like" Really True
Sort o f True
Sort o f True Some kids feel that they are really g o o d at their schoolwork.
but
O t h e r kids worry about whether they can do the school work assigned to them.
Really True
Birth Order and Self-Concept
535
Table A2, Factor Analysis of Harter's Self-Perceived Competence Scale: Varimax Rotation, Four-Factor Solution Item abbreviation Cognitive 1. Good at schoolwork 2. Do schoolwork quickly 3. Remember easily 4. Can understand what is read 5. Can figure out answers Social 1. Easy to make friends 2. Have a lot of friends 3. Kids like me 4. Popular with peers 5. Important to classmates Physical 1. Do well at sports 2. Good enough at sports 3. Better at sports than others 4. Good at new games 5. First chosen on teams General 1. Like to stay the same 2. Sure of myself 3. Feel good about the way I act 4. Sure I'm a good person 5. Happy the way I am
(1)
(If)
(Ill)
(IV)
Cognitive
Social
Physical
General
0.691 0.756 0.749 0.614 0.757 0.744 0.773 0.651 0.704 0.398 0.789 0.364 0.773 0.613 0.647 0.701 0.506 0.650 0.588 0.752
Birth Order and Self-Concept in Adolescence 1 V i k t o r Gecas 2 and Kay Pasley 3
Received March 15, 1983 The effect o f birth order on self-concept was examined in a sample o f adolescent boys and girls. Based upon self-theory, which suggests that the two main processes o f self-concept formation (e.g., reflected appraisals and social comparisons) are affected by the power and role relationships associated with ordinal position in the family, several hypotheses were tested: (1) The self-evaluations o f only and oldest children are more positive than those o f younger siblings; (2) middle-borns have the lowest self-evaluations; (3) these relationships are affected by the sex and spacing o f nearest sibling; and (4) the self-conceptions o f oldest and only children are more similar to those o f their parents than the self-conceptions o f younger siblings and their parents. Using analysis o f variance and several different measures o f selfevaluation, very little support was f o u n d f o r any o f these hypotheses. The strongest support was f o u n d f o r the hypothesis on middle-borns, but even these relationships were not large. Several explanations are offered f o r these weak and inconsistent findings.
JWork on this study (Scientific paper 6485) was supported by Project 0364, Department of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Research Center, Washington State University. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Washington, D.C., 1982. ~Professor of Sociology and Rural Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164. Received Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Minnesota (1969), where he specialized in social psychology and family sociology. Research interests are socialization and self-concept formation, especially within the context of family relations. SAssociated Professor of Family Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506. Received Ed.D. in child development and family life from Indiana University (1974). Current research interests are family relations and child development within the context of remarriage. 511 0047-2891/83/1200-0521503.00/0 © 1983 Plenum PublishingCorporation
522
Gecas and Pasley
INTRODUCTION The effect of birth order upon personality development continues to be a lively topic in the family socialization literature. Much o f the appeal o f birth order as a family structural variable stems from the intuitive sense that children occupying different positions in the sibling order experience different patterns o f interaction with parents and siblings, and these differences have personality consequences. Yet the research findings on birth order effects have been remarkably inconclusive in regard to various behavioral, affective, and cognitive outcomes. Most o f this research has focused on birth order implications for intellectual development and achievement motivation. 4 Research has been much less extensive on the implications o f birth order for the self-concepts o f children. Yet there are a number o f reasons why birth order is expected to be consequential for the child's self-concept development. Theories o f selfconcept formation (such as those developed by Mead, Cooley, and James) have emphasized the importance o f primary group interaction. The sibling system, as part of the family system, is a group characterized by intimate, extensive, and relatively enduring interaction. This interaction is affected by certain structural features o f the g r o u p - - t h e size, age, and sex composition of the sibling system. The most conspicuous feature o f the sibling system is that it is hierarchical in regard to such things as power, competencies, and responsibilities. Typically, older children are bigger, stronger, m o r e competent, and are given more responsibilities than young children in the family. Interaction with both parents and siblings is affected by one's position in the sibling order. First-born children have an advantageous position in this regard (which is the main reason that, in most o f the research on birth order effects, the m a j o r comparison is between first-born and later-born children). First-horns receive a greater a m o u n t o f parental attention, both
4While the evidence is fairly consistent with regard to achievement motivation--first-borns have higher achievement motivation and tend to do better in school (Adams, 1972; Clausen, 1966)-it is quite inconsistent regarding intellectual development. Zajonc (1976; Zajonc et al., 1979) sparked a major controversy on this topic in a series of articles which argued that intellectual competence declines almost in a linear fashion with birth order, so that the oldest sibling (on the average) will be the most intelligent in the sibling order and the youngest will be the least intelligent (the only child ranks second to the oldest in intelligence). Zajonc's explanation for this relationship (which he found to be supported in several large cross-sectional surveys) was based essentiallyupon the opportunity for interaction with parents that is available to the child. This opportunity is greater for older than for younger children, and is consequential for the "intellectual environment" that each child experiences. Researchers, using data on intrafamily comparisons, however, have failed to find a relationship betwen birth order and intelligence (OIneck and Bliss, 1979; Grotevant et ak, 1977; Galbraith, t982).
Birth Order and Self-Concept
523
in terms of support and control (Lewis and Kreitzberg, 1979). Also, they are more likely to be given responsibility and control over younger siblings, and to have higher expectations associated with their performance. This is consistent with the finding that first-borns have higher achievement motivation than later-born children. It is also the basis for the speculation that firstborns are more likely to identify with parents and to internalize parental values (Adams, 1972; Kammeyer, 1967). The distinctive feature of the position of younger children in the birth order is that they are more subject to child-level interaction, and are typically subordinate to older children. Younger children (with the possible exception of the last-born) receive less attention from parents, less encouragement, less responsibility, and have a harder time carving out a distinct "niche" for themselves in the family system. These tendencies are accentuated as family size increases, but are also attenuated by the sex composition of the sibling order and the spacing between positions. What implications do different patterns of family interaction associated with birth order have for the self-conceptions of children? Two of the main processes involved in self-evaluations are reflected appraisals and social comparisons. Reflected appraisals, based on Cooley's (1902) idea of the "looking-glass self," suggest that self-evaluations derive from our perceptions of how others (especially significant others) evaluate us. To the extent that we think we are favorably perceived by others, we will have high self-esteem. Self-evaluations are also based on our comparisons of self with others on some characteristic or trait, such as intelligence, strength, or attractiveness. These social comparisons are typically made with regard to a referent other or reference group. Our self-evaluations will vary with the degree of favorableness or unfavorableness of these comparisons. The consequences of social comparisons and reflected appraisals are most pronounced on the characteristics we consider most important for our selfconceptions (this qualifier is captured by Rosenberg's 1979 concept of "psychological centrality" and Stryker's 1968 concept of "identity salience"). Within the family, the process of reflected appraisals is more likely to be salient to parent-child relations in the development of the child's selfconcept; the process of social comparisons is most relevant to sibling relations. Children are more likely to consider parents as significant others and to care about their evaluations than those of their siblings. However, because children are more similar to their siblings than to their parents (in age and competencies), and to the extent that they a r e similar to their siblings (in age and sex), they are more likely to use siblings rather than parents as standards of comparison. On the basis of both reflected appraisals and social comparisons, we would expect first-borns to have higher self-evaluations than later-born siblings. The greater attention and encouragement from parents should con-
524
Gecas and Pasley
tribute to first-borns' greater sense of worth and importance; and firstborns' typically greater power and competence vis-a-vis other siblings should contribute to more favorable social comparisons. Previous research offers limited support for these expectations. Rosenberg (1965) and Bachman (1970) found, in samples of high school students, that only children have slightly higher self-esteem than others. But there was very little variation in self-esteem across the other ordinal positions. Coopersmith (1967) and Sears (1970) found that first-borns and only children have-higher self-esteem than later-borns. But others have found no relationship between birth order and self-esteem (Nystul, 1974; Schooler, 1972; see Sampson, 1965, for a review of earlier studies). These weak and inconsistent findings are surprising in light of the persuasive theoretical basis for expecting birth order to affect self-evaluation. The problem, we think, is that birth order is a deceptively simple variable to study. What could be easier than determining the ordinal position of a person? Yet birth order effects are influenced by several other features of the sibling system (e.g., sex composition of the sibling order, child spacing, family size, age and sex of target child). In fact, when some of these features are taken into account, the effects of birth order on self-evaluation become more pronounced. Kidwell (1982), in a national sample of adolescent males, found middle-borns to have significantly lower self-esteem than first-borns and last-borns, especially when the average spacing of the nearest sibling is two years. She also found a middle-born male's self-esteem to be higher when his siblings are all females, compared to all males or mixed. She offers a "uniqueness theory" to account for these findings that is quite consistent with our discussion of reflected appraisals and social comparisons as processes in self-concept formation. According to this argument, first- and last-borns enjoy an inherent uniqueness in their position that facilitates status, recognition, and attention by parents and other siblings. Middleborns have a harder time establishing their uniqueness and, hence, have lower self-esteem, unless they are the only males in the sibling order. Rosenberg (1965) also found that later-born boys in predominantly female sibling systems have exceptionally high self-esteem; furthermore, the selfesteem of these boys, in contrast to that of other boys, was unrelated to any objective accomplishments (such as schoolgrades, club memberships, and other activities). It seemed to be the result of unconditional parental acceptance and attention, giving the "younger-minority"boy an unshakable sense of self-worth and esteem, derived essentially from these positive reflected appraisals. 5 ~Rosenberg (1965, p. 126) suggests (and Franks and Marolla, 1976, have explicitlyargued) that self-esteembased upon the unconditionalacceptance of significantothers may be less desirablethan self-esteembasedon one'saccomplishments.
Birth Order and Self-Concept
525
In the present study, we examine the relationship between birth order and self-concept of adolescent boys and girls, taking into account the effects of spacing and sex of nearest siblings. Several aspects of selfconcept are considered: self-evaluations in terms of global self-esteem and with regard to assessments of personal competence and efficacy along several dimensions (physical, social, and cognitive). Based upon theory and previous research, our examination is guided by several hypotheses: 1.
Self-evaluations of only and oldest children will be more positive than self-evaluations of younger siblings. 2. Middle-borns wilt have the lowest self-evaluations. 3A. Self-evaluations of middle-borns and youngest children will be lower if their nearest older sibling is of the same sex than if the nearest older sibling is of the opposite sex. 3B. Self-evaluations of middle and youngest children who have samesex older siblings should be lowest when the spacing is two years or less. Social comparisons between self and sibling are most likely to occur under these circumstances, and the younger child is more likely to be at a disadvantage in such comparisons. .
Self-conceptions of oldest and only children will be more similar to those of their parents (especially the same-sex parent) than self-conceptions of younger siblings and their parents.
METHOD Sample and Procedures The data for this study were gathered in 1978. Two separate procedures were used. First, questionnaires were administered to 770 high school sophomores in five school districts in eastern Washington (number of usable questionnaires = 762). The communities in which these high schools are located range from a population of 250,000 to 10,000. Students completed the questionnaires in classrooms selected for their representativeness of the student population (i.e., during classes that were generally required of all students, such as English, science, and social studies). Data for
526
Gecas and Pasley
testing the first three hypotheses are derived from these questionnaires. 6 The second stage in the data-gathering procedures involved interviews with parents. Names and telephone numbers o f parents were obtained from the students who filled out questionnaires. From this pool o f parents, a sample of intact families was selected. Telephone contacts were made, and interviews with the fathers set up in the parents' home. Fathers were interviewed because one o f the original objectives o f the study was to obtain detailed information (requiring probes) on the fathers' occupational circumstances and job conditions. During the interview, mothers were given a self-administered questionnaire which paralleled the fathers' interview schedule on all items, except the detailed information on job condtions. Eighty percent of the parents contacted by telephone participated in the study (N = 208 families). Data relevant to hypothesis 4, involving selfassessments o f parents as well as children, are derived from this source. Measures and Data Analysis All o f the information on birth order was derived from two questionnaire items: "Please write the ages o f each o f your brothers," and "Please write the ages o f each o f your sisters." From this information (along with information on the respondent's age), it was a fairly simple procedure to determine ordinal position, sex o f older and younger siblings, and spacing. Two different measures o f self-evaluation were used, each measuring a slightly different aspect o f self-assessment: Gecas' (1971) Self-Evaluation Scale and Harter's (1977, 1978) self-perceived competence scale. Gecas' is the more general self-evaluation measure (even though it is comprised o f several dimensions of self-assessment); Hatter's measure is an assessment of self in terms o f various competencies. The Gecas Self-Evaluation Scale is a 12-item semantic differential with each item set on a 5-point scale. The subjects were asked to rate them6Several characteristics of the sample are worth noting: approximately half the sample are boys (N = 387) and half are girls (N = 375); the mean age = 15.5 (with a standard deviation of 0.88); average number of children in the family = 3.95 (SD = 1.84); 66% of the children live with both (natural) parents, 14% live with mother only, 10% with mother and stepfather and the rest with father, grandparents, or others; 40% of the fathers of these children had a college education, with another 26% having had some college. Except for the slightly larger family size and the somewhat greater representation of college-educated fathers, this sample does not seem unusual. One characteristic of the sample, however, is quite strange: There are substantially more "youngest"children in terms of birth order (N = 257) than "oldest" children (N = 170). We are at a loss to explain this unequal representation of oldest and youngest children.
Birth Order and Self-Concept
selves "as you ordinarily think of yourself" on each of the 12 adjective pairs (there were 14 items originally, but 2 were dropped-"attractive" and "tolerant" - because their factor loadings were too low). On the basis of exploratory factor analysis of these items, three scales were constructed: Self-Efficacy, Self-Worth, and General Self-Evaluation (SE) (see Appendix 1). The Self-Perceived Competence Scale was developed by Harter (1977) to measure self-perceptions of grade school children. Its application to high school students in the present study posed no special problem. The scale consists of 20 pairs of statements, each emphasizing a particular skill or competency. The respondent is asked whether he/she identifies with children who have or do not have this competency, and the degree to which this is true. Harter has conducted extensive factor analyses of these items, on the basis of which she constructed four subscales: Cognitive Competence, Social Competence, Physical Competence, and General Competence. Factor analysis was also performed on the present data. Similar factors and loadings were found (see Appendix 2). It is clear from Table I that the Gecas and Harter sets of self-concept scales are related, but measure different aspects of self-perception and evaluation. For example, the correlation between Gecas' General SelfEvaluation (based upon the semantic differential items) and Harter's general Competence is a moderate r = 0.33, indicating modest overlap. The intercorrelations between subscales within each of the two scales is, expectedly, much higher. Since all of the self-evaluation measures constitute at least ordinal level scales, data analysis consists of comparisons of mean scores for various groupings of subjects. Analysis of variance (one-way, two-way, and three-way) was used to determine the statistical significance of mean differences. Table i. Intercorrelations of Self-Evaluation and Self-Perception Scales
Gecas Self-Evaluation (SE) General SE
SEEfficacy
Gecas General SE SE-Efficacy SE-Worth
0.91 0.90
0.68
Harter General Cognitive Social Physical
0.33 0.30 0.27 0.28
0.31 0.29 0.27 0.35
Harter Self-Perceived Competence
SEWorth
General
Cognitive
Social
0.28 0.27 0.21 0.17
0.41 0.60 0.44
0.37 0.32
0.51
Physical
528
Gecas and Pasley
FINDINGS It was hypothesized that the self-evaluations of oldest and only children would be more positive than the self-evaluations o f younger children. The data in Table II do not support this expectation. While the three Gecas self-evaluation subscales show the category oldest (but not the only) to have the highest self-evaluation means, the differences between means across ordinal positions (based on analysis o f variance) are not statistically significant. In fact, o f the seven self-evaluation subscales reported in Table II, only one shows birth order to have a statistically significant effect at the 0.05 level or less (Harter's self-perceived competence on the cognitive dimension)--and even here, the mean scores are not quite in the predicted direction (since the youngest has the highest mean score). Only one of the t tests, comparing oldest and only versus middle and youngest, were statistically significant at p < 0.05: The Gecas General SE scale. For the other self-concept scales, the mean differences were insignificant a n d / o r in the wrong direction. We also hypothesized that middle-borns would have the lowest selfevaluation scores of the four ordinal positions. There is a slight tendency in the direction of this hypothesis on half o f the scales in Table II, but here again, with the exception of Harter's cognitive subscale, these mean differences are not significant. We must conclude that hypothesis 2 is not supported either. The findings are more interesting and more ambiguous when sex o f respondent, sex o f nearest sibling, and spacing are taken into account. The two general self-evaluation subscales are used for this analysis: Gecas' General SE (G-SE), and Harter's General Self-Perceived Competence (HSPC) scales (Table III). We hypothesized that the self-evaluations o f middle and the youngest would be lower if their nearest older sibling was o f the same sex. We find that, for middle-borns, the presence o f a same-sex sibling, either younger or older, is associated with lower self-evaluations. But this association is neither very pronounced nor very consistent. For youngest children, curiously, the presence o f an older sister as the nearest sibling is associated with the most positive self-evaluations (on three o f the four comparisons). Ironically, the pattern o f findings for the oldest siblings comes closest to supporting the relationships in hypothesis 3A (even though this hypothesis was stated in terms o f middle and youngest siblings). For oldest children, having a younger sibling o f the same sex is most favorable for their self-evaluations; a cross-sex younger sibling is associated with less favorable self-evaluations. This pattern is more pronounced on the Harter scale, for which a two-way analysis o f variance (sex o f respondent x sex of sibling) was found to be significant at the 0.01 probability level (F = 13.64).
(N (N (N (N
= = = =
18) 170) 317) 257) 2.08 1.65 b
49.33 51.06 49.11 50.36 1.66 1.34
17.28 17.75 17.08 17.58
SEEfficacy
1.88 1.35
18.11 19.16 18.45 18.91
SEWorth
Gecas Self-Evaluation (SE) General SE
1.74 - 1.25
12.94 13.36 13.70 14.21
0.59 - 1.23
13.17 13.36 13.65 13.78
Social
0.58 - 1.20
ti.61 12.66 12.65 12.54
Physical
(based on a one-tailed test) is significant at p _< 0.05.
bt tests were performed on (combined) only and oldest versus (combined) middle and youngest, t value
4.34* 1.25
11.67 12.47 11.56 12.56
Cognitive
Harter Self-Perceived Competence General
"One-way analysis o f variance indicates F i s significant at p -< 0.05.
F t
Only Oldest Middle Youngest
Birth order
Table Ii. Birth Order and Measures o f Self-Evaluation
e~
O
,-p ¢3
ca,
530
Gecas and Pasley Table 11I. General Self-Esteem (G-SE) and SelfPerceived Competence (H-SPC) by Gender, Birth Order, Sex of Nearest Sibling, and Spacing Spacing (years) Oldest Younger brother < 2 --> 3 Younger sister -< 2 3 Middle Older brother _< 2 :" 3 Older sister _< 2 -> 3 Younger brother 2 -> 3 Younger sister - 3 Youngest Older brother -< 2 >- 3 Older sister -< 2 ~: 3
G-SE
H-SPC
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
50.71 53.40
49.75 51.50
13.78 I4.70
I2.87 12.50
52.40 50.12
51,67 51.83
t 1.84 13.75
15.54 14.83
49.93 49.92
48.34 50.38
13.68 13.20
13.63 13.85
48.88 51.46
48.02 47.76
13.71 14.50
14.02 12.92
49.21 48.75
48.93 49.76
14.32 12.53
13.14 I3.75
49.27 51.79
49.45 45.06
13.86 14.33
13.64 14.08
50.85 52.00
47.04 50.46
14.29 13.67
13.60 13.27
50.64 51.83
51.89 48.32
15.42 14.39
15.57 14.15
This was the only significant F value for these within-ordinal position relationships. In general, however, the pattern of relationships when sex of respondent and sex of nearest sibling are considered is neither very strong nor very consistent across these two self-evaluation measures. At best, hypothesis 3A receives very modest and ambiguous support. The inclusion of spacing into the analysis does not add much clarity to these relationships. It was hypothesized that the shorter the time span between same-sex siblings, the more adverse the effect upon the self-evaluations of the younger siblings. There seems to be no consistent pattern with regard to spacing, and hence, no support for hypothesis 3B. Lastly, we hypothesized that the self-conceptions of oldest and only children would be more similar to the self-conceptions of their parents than self-conceptions of younger siblings and their parents. The Gecas General
Birth Order and Self-Concept
531
Table IV. Summary Differences Between Parent-Child Self-Conceptions by Birth Order* Birth order Father-child difference scores Oldest Middle Youngest Mother-child difference scores Oldest Middle Youngest
Boys
Girls
11.72 12.33 I 1.03
10.34 9.95 I 1.75
12.45 12.97 11.75
I 1.10 10.60 11.50
°F = NS for any o f the relationships.
SE scale was used to test this hypothesis (because this was the only selfesteem scale we used for both children and parents). Difference scores were created by subtracting the child's score from that of the parent on each of the 12 semantic differential items, and then adding the absolute values for a summary difference score. The smaller the score, the greater the similarity between child and parent. The findings, relevant to hypothesis 4 (Table IV), are unambiguous: There is no support for the hypothesis. The differences in self-conceptions of parents and their children in various ordinal positions and various gender combinations are not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, we found very little support for any of our hypotheses relating birth order to self-evaluations in adolescence. There was a slight tendency for middle-borns to have the lowest self-evaluations, and for the self-evaluations of oldest siblings to increase with the presence of a samesex younger sibling. But these tendencies were neither very strong nor very consistent. Furthermore, our hypotheses that oldest and only children would have the highest self-evaluations, that they would have self-conceptions more similar to their parents than younger siblings, and that shorter spacing between siblings would accentuate differences in self-evaluations were not supported. In light of these findings, what can we say about the relationship between birth order and self-evaluations of adolescents? Perhaps birth order effects upon self-concepts are more conspicuous during childhood, when family influence in general is stronger. Adolescence is frequently depicted as a time of rebellion against family influence, when the adolescent seeks increasing independence and autonomy from parents and
532
Gecas and Pasley
siblings in the process of developing a personal identity and consolidating a self-concept (Erickson, 1959; Coleman, 1961). In the course of this process, peers and other extrafamilial influences may become more important for self-definition and evaluation than parents and siblings. So whatever differentiation in self-evaluations may have resulted as a function of birth order during childhood could well have vanished by the end of adolescence. Of course, we would need longitudinal data to test this possibility. Our weak and mostly insignificant relationships might also be due to the omission of other "conditional" variables that should have been considered. We were able to take into account some birth order contingencies (e.g., sex of nearest sibling, spacing), but obviously could not assess the whole sibling configuration for each child (i.e., the ages, sex, and spacing for all of the children in each respondent's family). This would require either a very large sample or a different methodology (more along clinical or case study lines). We must also consider the possibility that birth order simply does not explain very much after all (as Schooler, 1972, has previously argued, and Ernst and Angst, 1983, more recently conclude). There may, indeed, be too many more direct influences on such personality variables as self-evaluation for the effects of birth order to be very noticiable.
REFERENCES Adams, B. (1972). Birth order: A critical review. Sociometry 35:411-439. Bachman, J. G. (1970). Youth in Transition, Vol. 2, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Clausen, J. A. (1966). Family structure, socialization, and personality. In Hoffman, M. L., and Hoffman, L. W. (eds.), Review of Child Development Research, VOI. 2, Russell Sage, New York. Coleman, J. S. (1961). The Adolescent Society, Free Press, New York. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order, Free Press, New York. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The Antecedents of Self-Esteem, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. PsychoL Iss. 1: 1-171. Ernst, C., and Angst, J. (1983). Birth Order: Its Influence on Personality, Springer-Verlag, New York. Franks, D. D., and Marolla, J. (1976). Efficacious action and social approval as interacting dimensions of self-esteem. Sociometry 39: 324-341. Galbraith, R. C. (1982). Sibling spacing and intellectual development: A closer look at the confluence model. Dev. Psychol. 18: 151-173. Gecas, V. (1971). Parental behavior and dimensions of adolescent self-evaluation. Sociometry 34: 466-482. Grotevant, H. D., Scarf, S., and Weinberg, R. A. (1977). Intellectual development in family constellations with adopted and natural children: A test of the Zajonc and Markus model. ChildDev. 48: 1699-1703. Harter, S. (1977). Perceived competence scale for children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Albuquerque, N.M.
Birth Order and Self-Concept
533
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Hum. Dev. 21: 34-64. Kammeyer, K. (1967). Birth order as a research variable. Soc. Forces46: 71-80. Kidwetl, J. (t982). The neglected birth order: Middleborns. J. Mart. Faro. 44: 225-235. Lewis, M., and Kreitzberg, V. K. (1979). Effects of birth order and spacing in motherinfant interactions. Dev. PsychoL 15: 617-625. Nystul, M, S. (1974). The effects of birth order and sex on self-concept. J. lndiv. Psychol. 30:211-215. Olneck, M. R., and Bills, D. B. (1979). Family configuration and achievement effects of birth order and family size in a sample of brothers. Soc. Sci. Quart. 42: 135-148. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-hnage, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York. Sampson, E. E. (1965). The study of ordinal position: Antecedents and outcomes. In Maher, B. A. (ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York. Schooler, C. (1972). Birth order effects: Not here, not now! PsychoL Bull. 78: 161-175. Sears, R. (I 970). Relation of early socialization experiences to self-concepts and gender role in middle childhood. ChildDev. 41: 267-289. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. J. Marr. Faro. 30: 558-564. Zajonc, R. B. (1976). Family configuration and intelligence. Science 192: 227-236. Zajonc, R. B., Markus, H., and Markus, G. B. (1979). The birth order puzzle. J. Personal. Soc. PsychoL 37: 1325-1341.
APPENDIX 1 Gecas Self-Esteem Scale-- Self-Efficacy, Self-Worth, and General Self-Evaluation Scales
Questionnaire Item .
Please show how you ordinarily think of yourself by placing an "X" somewhere between the two opposite words. For example, suppose that you have the pair of words: S t r o n g - W e a k Strong:~:__ Very Strong
_ _ : _ _
__"
Weak
Fairly Very Strong Average Weak Weak
If you think of yourself as being average, mark an "X" on the space above "average." For each of these pairs of words, place an "X" on the point of the scale that best represents the way you think about yourself.
534
Gecas and Pasley Table AI. Factor Analysis of Gecas' Self-Esteem Scales: Varimax Rotation, Two-Factor Solution Two-factor solution 1 Self-Efficacy
Items Powerful -- powerless Confident-lack confidence Strong--weak Wise-- foolish Do most (few) things well Brave--cowardly
Principal factor loading
I1 Self-Worth
.472 .559 .540 .529 .618 .481
.533 .605 .562 .586 .594 .510
Honest--dishonest Good --bad Kind - cruel Dependable-- undependable Generous -selfish Worthy-worthless
.538 .508 .682 .524 .454 .404
.601 .585 .471 .503 .429 .706
APPENDIX 2
Harter's Self-Perceived C o m p e t e n c e Scale
Sample Item: "What I'm Like" Really True
Sort o f True
Sort o f True Some kids feel that they are really g o o d at their schoolwork.
but
O t h e r kids worry about whether they can do the school work assigned to them.
Really True
Birth Order and Self-Concept
535
Table A2, Factor Analysis of Harter's Self-Perceived Competence Scale: Varimax Rotation, Four-Factor Solution Item abbreviation Cognitive 1. Good at schoolwork 2. Do schoolwork quickly 3. Remember easily 4. Can understand what is read 5. Can figure out answers Social 1. Easy to make friends 2. Have a lot of friends 3. Kids like me 4. Popular with peers 5. Important to classmates Physical 1. Do well at sports 2. Good enough at sports 3. Better at sports than others 4. Good at new games 5. First chosen on teams General 1. Like to stay the same 2. Sure of myself 3. Feel good about the way I act 4. Sure I'm a good person 5. Happy the way I am
(1)
(If)
(Ill)
(IV)
Cognitive
Social
Physical
General
0.691 0.756 0.749 0.614 0.757 0.744 0.773 0.651 0.704 0.398 0.789 0.364 0.773 0.613 0.647 0.701 0.506 0.650 0.588 0.752
![[Epilepsy and birth order].](/assets/img/hold.png)
