Mental Health Corner

By Rabbi Azriel Hauptman

Birth order, we are often told, is a deterministic factor in the life of a child. Firstborns are considered to be high-achievers, reliable, conscientious and controlling. Youngest children are considered to be uncomplicated, outgoing, attention-seeking, and self-centered. Then of course you have the hapless middle child who is a people-pleaser, rebellious, and lives a lifetime of recovery from being the neglected child. These themes are part of the collective unconsciousness of our culture, but is it true?

The notion of the importance of birth order was first developed over one hundred years ago by Dr. Alfred Adler, an Austrian psychologist and colleague of Dr. Sigmund Freud. He theorized that the oldest child benefits from the exclusive love and attention of his parents, but then feels dethroned when a second child comes along and competes for the parents’ attention. Middle children feel that they are overlooked and neglected leading to what is known as the Middle Child Syndrome. Youngest children are pampered and experience a much looser parenting than the older siblings. Adler was of the opinion that these childhood experiences have an enduring effect on a child influencing his personality and attitudes for the rest of his life.

Adler’s theories became widely accepted by the general public in spite of the lack of scientific evidence. In the early twentieth century, psychological theories were developed based on the personal experience of clinicians with their clients. This means that the subjective experience of one individual psychologist can form the basis of an entire theory of psychology. Perhaps Adler saw these patterns within his client base, but that is not nearly enough to constitute a scientific study.

The field of psychology has evolved tremendously over the last century, and theories are now subjected to research studies to determine their veracity. As far as birth order is concerned, many studies have found a very slight advantage in IQ for earlier born children, but not nearly enough to make any practical difference. As far as everything else in life besides IQ, most studies have found no perceptible difference based on birth order.

Therefore, if you have an overly sensitive child who happens to be a middle child, it is likely that this heightened sensitivity is ingrained in the child’s nature and would have occurred regardless of the birth order. Similarly, if you have a child with leadership qualities who happens to be a firstborn, it might be convenient to say that being first in the birth order created the environment that fostered this quality, but most likely the birth order is unrelated.

This entire debate revolves around the belief that birth order has lifelong effects. What is probably somewhat true is that birth order plays a pivotal role in a child’s position within the family. It is entirely plausible that within the family environment, an older child might play a leadership role, the youngest child might be doted on by his older siblings, and the middle child will be, well… in the middle. However, scientific studies have shown that this does not have a significant impact on what kind of person he will be outside of his family of origin.

When all is said and done, the development of personality is a complicated and fascinating topic that gets to the very heart of the well-known nature vs. nurture discussion. But whatever the myriad factors are that go into one’s personality, birth order does not seem to be that significant.

Ruby Lasker Designs