A Relationship with Birth Position - Case Study Example

How Being an Only Child Effects Personality There is a general belief that the birth order has an effect on the personality in some way. Parents normally think whether their childrens birth order has altered their progress. Many people have made their own way of understanding about the birth order theory and personality. Many have most likely been exposed to birth order theory, of either technically established or mythological origins. The majority people have a dominant birth order personality that equals their birth position. However, that personality is affected by other features such as nature, sex and other family conditions. Therefore it is not concerned so much where one is born in the family but how he/she functions matters. How a person functions usually show a relationship with birth position. Birth order assumption summarize four types of personalities- first born, second born, only child and youngest. The first born people want to be leaders and like to direct others. They wanted to feel control of themselves and are tending to oppose change, which are both power and a weakness. Their aptitude to concentrate on a purpose and their inclination to organize others shows that they can accomplish anything they plan. They are reluctant to take risk however they are strong like rocks around which organizations can be raised. Support of authority is essential for this group therefore don’t anticipate them to shake the boat too much. In any way the first born want to forge ahead. The ‘only children’ are the high fliers, the finishers; they look forward to nothing less than the most excellent. This group will hoist the bar for one and all around them as not anything but the finest will do. Their vast potency is their capability to labor for long duration of time on their own hence they are immense project finishers and deliberate intellectuals; however, they can be mysterious and may not deal well with a clash. Appreciation is significant to the ‘only child’ group. Usually the ‘second born, are the compromisers, and the adjustable people. They are ready to get motivated by a reason and will take pleasure in working along with people. They normally will prefer a career that will give them a sense of ownership. Friends are imperative to this group; as a result they will study to get along with the group or society. These people often want guidance from others to go ahead although they are the bond that keeps the groups jointly. Relations are vital to this group thus make certain they incorporated in all activities. The youngest in the birth order chain considered as the initiators, dreamers and the challenger. They are the creative, fun loving and put dynamism into their behavior. At the same time as the significance for first born is to alleviate it appears that this youngest group take things more gravely at times. Grand initiators and very intolerant doer, they persist to get something started however frequently are not the supreme of finishers. This group is ready to do something to be apparent therefore take care to pay attention to their efforts (Grose, 2005). Personality measurements for dominance, emotional stability, responsibility, sociability, and confidence were evaluated across birth order groups. It is proved that the first born and only children have an intellectual edge over the other birth order groups, with disproportionately large number in college, IQ measurements, SAT achievements in the US and corresponding tests in the UK being the most important pointers of this trend (Parker, 1998; Zajonc & Mullally, 1997). In the Gordon Personal Profile (GPP) responsibility sets apart persons who value reliability, which is as well revealed as superior perseverance and greater awareness span. Once pooled with other variables it could take the form of the ‘self-starter’ selflessness, or even the dictatorial (Dyer, 1984). The first-born and the only-born have been accounted to take more internal responsibility for their proceedings (Falbo, 1981). According to Falbo’s theory the oldest children had possibly developed this sense of responsibility since they were frequently made in charge of some operations and they had no one else to blame things on. In the same way it is observed that first and only children tend to ascribe others work performance to internal features more so than later-born. For instance, first-born weight lifters showed a more internal locus-of-control in addition to a greater desire for attainment than later-born (Hall, et.al., 1980). Further study too supports the thought that first-borns and only children show more accountability than later-born (Howarth, 1980). GPP Sociability mirrors the level to which a person takes pleasure in social communication. It is fundamentally a measure of unreservedness (Dyer, 1984). GPP ascendancy is basically an appraisal of dominance or assertiveness, mostly verbal expressions thereof. High achievers have a propensity toward aggressiveness. In the meta-analysis of only children research, Falbo and Polit (1986) established that only children scored lesser on sociability when the data was self-report, but there was no variation in sociability when the evaluation technique was peer ranking. The only child appeared to have a lesser need to be sociable but was not alone (Falbo, 1981). Yet another study, Harris and Morrow (1992) established first-born males to be more dominant than first-born females, but the reverse was true for last-born. The study on sociability and birth order concluded that last-born were the most sociable (Segal, 1978) for the reason that they were not liable to succeed at competition because of their younger age and inferior capability. Schneider (1981) found that only children had lesser Social Interest Scale scores than first-, second-, or middle-born with middle-born scoring higher than younger born. Emotional stability is basically a measure of apprehension against well being, where emotions are controlled rather than highly erratic (Dyer, 1984). In a study of the literature, Eisenman (1992) reported that first-borns are more fearful, and that some first-borns demonstrate more anxiety and creativity. The reason may be owing to parents being more restraining and concerned with first-borns in addition to first-borns have more time with their parents. Middle-born are more emotionally stable while first- and later-born are more anxious. According to the GPP self-respect level is produced by adding the scores from Ascendancy, Sociability, Responsibility, and Emotional Stability. This sum reveals the various optimistic statements that examinees make about themselves (Dyer, 1984). In a meta-analysis, Falbo and Polit (1986) conducted a wide-ranging appraisal of only children and discovered that they exceeded the groups that all other birth orders combined in accomplishment, emotional adjustment (low anxiety, high self-esteem, androgyny), character (leadership, autonomy) and intelligence. The study result on the connection between self-esteem and other birth groups have been conflicting. It is found that the ‘only born’ had the maximum self-esteem. Coopersmith (1967), in a broader study of young persons, found that only children and first-born boys were overrepresented in the high self-esteem group. Yet another study had shown that first-borns in two-child families had a more optimistic self-concept when the age gap between the two siblings was less (Bloom et al., 1984). Adler (Weiten, 1998), well known for his assumptions concerning striving for dominance, was as well anxious with the effects of birth order on personality. Adlers concept stressed the social aspect of personality growth and consequently projected the likelihood of birth order and its implication in the interpersonal relationships of family life. He indicated that each position in the order, whether first or last, had separate distinctiveness. He theorized, for instance, that firstborns are problem children and that only children are liable to be blemished because of parental overindulgence (Weiten, 1998). Researches have proven that environment is not the single personality influencing factor, though; environment is not insignificant and should be measured, particularly when studies concerning birth order have been revealed to have some reliability. Firstborns have been shown to be more reliable, striving, academically oriented, conforming, traditional, tending in the direction of leadership, and reverent of their parents than their later-born siblings. On the other hand, children born later in the birth order have a propensity to be more eccentric, flexible, and rebellious (Sulloway, 1997). Only children, being firstborn, inclined to show qualities more analogous to those of other firstborn children. Nevertheless, only children appear to have superior self-esteem and are top achievers than children who have siblings (Brophy, 1989). Children with siblings have to struggle for parental interest and family resources. Whereas it is not necessary for the only children to deal with such problems and the absence of siblings tolerates for greater variance of personality types among only children. But lack of siblings has consequence for the only childs later social connections (Koontz, 1989). People respond pessimistically when asked to explain personality distinctiveness of an only child because of the assumption that only children are spoiled. In China, couples are advised to have single child in order to help control population growth. These children are usually seen as spoiled monster. But research carried out by Brophy, (1989) a psychologist known for work in the area of birth order, point out otherwise. It is observed that Chinese only children fared no worse in personality or accomplishment than their counterparts with siblings. Nevertheless, only children are also repeatedly seen as top scorers, motivated, and victorious. As only children not have siblings, they have no instant availability of others with whom to interrelate socially. To facilitate to increase normal social capability, only children must be out in the open with other children of the same age through other means. Conversely, only children must gain friends since family life does not provide them. In accordance with the behaviorist theory of operant conditioning, only children would experience conditioning to influence their performance in social situations. Effective conditioning engrosses the conditioning of behavior according to the consequences it creates (Mischel, 1993). In this fashion, only children would be accustomed to perform in a sociable way, if they are to win friends, since they have no assured family playmates. This conditioning would happen in spite of of a childs natural tendency in the direction of extraversion or introversion if the child desires to make friends. Inner-directed persons, or introverts, tend to be anxious with the internal world of their thoughts and feelings. Outer-directed persons, or extraverts, have interest in the external world of things and people (Weiten, 1998). Since the only children have a bigger variation of personality types, logic would dictate that introversion and extraversion are equally possible qualities in only children. The psychologist Eysenck (Weiten, 1998), as mainly approving the role of genetics in shaping personality, was also a pioneer in the ideas of extraversion and introversion. He recommended that introverts be likely to have superior levels of excitement than extroverts. Because of that introverts are effortlessly conditioned than extraverts and, since social situations cause arousal, the increase of arousal will make introverts uneasy and accustomed to keep away from social interaction. Therefore they become introverted (Weiten, 1998). As the only children do not have siblings with whom to act together, they are trained to be children on their own. Though parents and play groups can assist, eventually children turn out to be conditioned to depend on themselves. Even though this self-sufficiency can have its advantages, it can as well mean that only children are fundamentally alone as their personalities grow. If only children have got to develop in social circumstances which are not appropriate to their personalities, the notion of introversion and extraversion should be re-evaluated in the consideration of only children. Eventually, an only childs background forces him or her to take on both uniqueness of introversion and extraversion regardless of natural tendencies to be one or the other. It is possible for an introverted child to show extraverted traits if he or she desires to make friends; similarly, a naturally extraverted child can learn to show introverted qualities by being satisfied to focus on his or her own view when friends are away. As a matter of fact, a small number of persons are firmly extraverted or introverted. The majority of people would fall somewhere in between the two. To place an only child introverted or extraverted would be to involve that child into its natural propensity toward that certain personality type with little influence from its surroundings. Even though environmental pressure is not the single influence in personality growth, only children ought to expand their personalities in unique environmental conditions. Their surroundings force them to act against their natural inclinations in order to function normally. Possibly this effort helps to clarify several of the common characteristics that come out among the only children, such as the tendency not to take part in many events but leading the ones in which they do participate or learning to be comfortable being alone. Maybe because the emotional troubles that only children are prone to have such as extreme sensitivity, hypochondria, or trouble expressing anger (Brophy, 1989) are consequences of environmental pressure but not in the way most commonly understood. These emotional difficulties could be ascribed to struggle between opposing forces that is the natural tendency toward extraversion or introversion opposed to the environmental pressures to suppress those tendencies so as to function. From the time when Adler brought forth the thought of birth orders effect on personality the only child has been seen as having separate personality qualities. Even though surroundings have not been revealed to be the only pressure in personality expansion, only children grow in a unique social situation. Hence, maybe their surroundings exercise sufficient control in their growth to emphasize personality traits and force an effort against natural inclination (Eischens, 1998). Another recent research conducted by Kevin Leman (2000) talks about several factors concerned in measuring birth order, in addition to the conventional behaviors that each birth order tends to hold. Leman (2000) proposes that there are nine significant features to think about when investigating the birth order. They are: the age difference between children; sex; physical, mental, and emotional differences; sibling deaths and its cause; adoption; the birth order position of each parent; the relationship between parents; the critical aspect of the parent; and the blending of two or more families. In almost all respects Leman’s research on birth order personality distinctiveness supports Adler’s findings. Leman (2000) states that oldest born tend to be reliable, well planned, serious, dream driven, believers in authority, perfectionists and independent. Leman (2000) differs in a few aspects with Adler when it comes to the characteristics and reputation of only children. He says that only children tend to be confident, perfectionist, organized, ambitious, logical and scholarly. At the same time only children can be egotistical and selfish. Further to that the only children take some of these traits, such as perfectionism, into their interpersonal relationships. This cause in high expectations for anyone an only child comes in contact with (Leman 2000). According to Leman (2000) middle children tend to be peacekeepers and are choosy about who they confide in. Youngest children tend to be amiable, people-oriented, obstinate, loving and attention-seeking. They also tend to just “do” things – without thinking about the effects of their actions. This is a trait that would come into play during relationships as well (Leman 2000). To study the outcome of birth order on interpersonal relationships, a fifteen-item review was dispersed, questioning the members about their birth order and about the birth orders of people they had interpersonal relationships with. This researcher’s conceptual assumption says that the kinds of interaction people form are affected by birth order. Five set assumptions are observed in this study: (a) if a personal reports having a close friendship with someone of the same sex, then that person will report that he/she and the friend have the same/similar birth order; (b) if an individual reports having a close spiritual friendship with someone of the opposite sex, then that friend will be reported as having the same/similar birth order as the participant; (c) if an individual reports having a winning romantic relationship with someone, then that romantic partner will be reported as having an opposing, but compatible birth order than that of the participant; (d) if a person reports having been divorced, then that person will report that he/she and the divorced person will have the same/similar birth order positions; And, (e) not counting the divorce, if a person reports having had an unsuccessful romantic significant romantic relationship, then that person will report that he/she and the ex-romantic partner have similar birth order positions. These assumptions are stable with Leman’s (2000) study on ideal marriage partners for the various birth orders and Gillies’ (1976) research on friendships. The assumption (a) stated that the birth order of the participant and the birth order of the same-sex friend would be the same/similar. This turned out to be insignificant and the fact that the p-value was high at the .826 level suggests that birth order does not have effect on same-sex friendships. The (b) hypothesis turned out to be not significant at a p=.343 level. Furthermore, (c) only 49 of the 91 members reported having an opposite-sex friend. Both of these aspects point to that there needs to be a bigger sample and the survey would have to be adjusted so that the questions are clear in what they are asking. In short, this research did not support the researcher’s initial hypothesis. The assumption (d) stated that the birth order of the participant and the birth order of the divorced person would be the same/similar. This also turned out not to be important on a p=.535 level. The unique assumption concerning divorce and birth order was not supported by this research. The assumption (e) is more interesting. It stated that the birth order of the participant and the birth order of the ex-romantic partner would be the same/similar. This turned out to be noteworthy at the p=.05 level; as well, the outcome were in the same direction as the original hypothesis. Thus, the fifth assumption was supported by this research. This research reveals that birth order has a major effect on with whom there do not have successful relationships with. For further studies in future it is suggested that to divide the participants up into the three different work settings to see if there were differences between the groups. And instead of testing the biological birth order, maybe it would be helpful to decide the mental birth order by giving lists of traits of each birth order and having the participants select which list best portrays them overall. This could then be linked with the biological birth order to see whether it supports current research, and then be evaluated with the different interpersonal correlation types in this study (Schilling, N.D.). References Bloom, L.J., Anderson, S., & Hazaleus, S. (1984). Personality correlates of age-spacing in first-borns. Child Study Journal, 13, 247-257. Brophy, B. (March 6, 1989). It doesnt hurt to be alone. U.S. News and World Report, 106, 54-55. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. Freeman: San Francisco. Dyer, F. J. (1984). Gordon Personal Profile-Inventory: An interpretive guide. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corportation, Harcourt, Brace, Jovonovich. Eischens, A.D. (1998) The Dilemma of the Only Child, Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/eischens2.html Eisenman, R. (1992). Birth order, development, and personality. Acta Paedopsychiatrica International Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55, 25-27. Falbo, T. (1981). Relationships between birth category, achievement, and interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 121-131. Falbo, T. & Polit, D. (1986). Quantitative review of the only child literature: Research evidence and theory development. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 176-189. Gillies, Jerry. (1976). Friends: The Power and Potential of the Company You Keep. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc. Grose, Michael. (2005, June 22). Birth Order - Understand How It Affects Your Personality. EzineArticles. Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Birth-Order---Understand-How-It-Affects-Your-Personality&id=45481 Hall, E.G., Church, G.E., & Stone, M. (1980). Relationship of birth order to selected personality characteristics of nationally ranked Olympia weight lifters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 971-976. Harris, K.A. & Morrow, K.B. (1992). Differential effects of birth order and gender on perceptions of responsibility and dominance. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 48, 109-118. Koontz, K. (February 1989). Just me. Health, 21, 38-39. Leman, Kevin. (2000). The New Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are. Minnesota: Baker Book House Company. Mischel, W. (1993). Behavioral conceptions. In W. Mischel, Introduction to personality (pp.295-316). New York: Harcourt Brace. Parker, W.D. (1998). Birth-order effects in the academically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 29-38. Schilling, R.M. (N.D.) The Effects of Birth Order on Interpersonal Relationships Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2001/schilling.htm Schneider, L.J. (1981). The impact of birth order and sex on social interest. Journal of Psychology, 37, 102-106. Segal, J. (1978). A childs journey. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York. Sulloway, F. J. (September 1997). Birth order and personality. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 14, 5-7. Weiten, W. (1998). Personality: Theory, research, and assessment. In Psychology: Themes and variations (pp.472-515). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Zajonc, R. B., & Mullally, P. R. (1997). Birth order: Reconciling conflicting effects. American Psychologist, 52, 685-699. Read More