Birth Order

Rebel without a cause effect: Birth order and social attitudes
American Sociological Review vol 64, issue 2; pp. 207-231
Albany; Apr 1999;
Jeremy Freese; Brian Powell; Lala Carr Steelman;

The enduring effects of an individual's birth order have been subject to a long and lively debate in sociology and other disciplines. Recently, in response to Sulloway's (1996) Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives, interest has increased in the possible effects of birth order on social attitudes. Using quantitative, historical data, Sulloway found that birth order is a better predictor of social attitudes than is gender, class, or race. His novel, evolutionary theory asserts the universal influence of birth order across eras and cultures. We use contemporary data to test Sulloway's contention that firstborn adults are more conservative, supportive of authority, and "tough-minded" than laterborns. Examining 24 measures of social attitudes from the General Social Survey (GSS), we find no support for these claims, either in terms of significant effects or even the direction of nonsignificant coefficients. An expanded inquiry using all (202) relevant attitudinal items on the GSS yields similar results. In our analysis, variables discounted by Sulloway-gender, race, social class, and family size-are all linked to social attitudes more strongly than is birth order. Our findings suggest that birth-order theories may be better conceptualized in terms of modest effects in limited domains and in specific societies.

Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives
Journal of Marriage and the Family vol 60, issue 2. pp. 538-539
May 1998
by Jetse Sprey

Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. Frank J. Sulloway. New York: Pantheon Books. 1996. 653 pp. ISBN 0-67944232-4. $16.00.

Born to Rebel is a lengthy and ambitious book. Apart from its main story, 70 of its 653 pages are devoted to appendices, 96 to end notes, and 84 to an extensive bibliography. Furthermore, the reader is confronted with many tables and a collection of remarkable illustrations. Its author's central argument is that, all things being equal, one's birth order furnishes the best possible predictor of one's personality and future life course. This, in turn, leads to Sulloway's claim that questions about why some people rebel and initiate "radical revolutions" are "synonymous with the question of why siblings are so different" (p. xiii). Some people, in his view, simply "are born to rebel" (p. xiii). The origin and nature of such differences among siblings are explained as follows:

It is natural for first-borns to identify more strongly with power and authority. They arrive first within the family and employ their superior size and strength to defend their special status.

Relative to their younger siblings, first-borns are more assertive, socially dominant, ambitious, jealous of their status, and defensive. As underdogs within the family system, younger siblings are inclined to question the status quo and in some cases to develop a "revolutionary personality." In the name of revolution, later-borns have repeatedly challenged the time-honored assumptions of their day. (p. xiv)

The focus on the family as a system in conflict is not new in the family field. A small band of conflict theorists have been stressing the basically competitive structure of marriage and family process for almost 30 years. In that perspective, the explanatory focus is, as in this book, on the strategies that individuals and their potential allies in families employ to maintain a functioning, negotiated order of process. What is original in Sulloway's work is a single-minded insistence on the general and deterministic nature of his explanations. Also unique is his use of the facts of history in order to demonstrate the general validity and the timeless quality of his conclusions. By "retelling history" (p. 356), he aims to transform it into a genuine science.

Born to Rebel is divided into four sections. Its main argument rests on a wealth of data and is augmented by sophisticated statistical procedures, as well as an array of case materials. My brief comments focus on the credibility of the author's theoretical orientation and on the relevance of his findings to the family field.

It makes sense to assume that most people grow up in some type of family setting and that many are raised together with siblings. The explanatory worth of "birth order," sketched in the two earlier citations, therefore, does deserve the attention of family scholars. The same holds for the claim that "behavioral solutions to the dilemmas of family life preadapt people to the merits of change" (p. xviii). One wonders, however, how "natural" it is for firstborns to identify more strongly with power than their younger siblings? Moreover, should they do so, whose power? The father's? The mother's? That of living grandparents? What is "natural" in the complex reality of family living? Does the notion of naturalness imply a measure of biological determination? If so, how much? And what exactly is determined? In a similar vein, one may question the assumption that laterborns invariably are "underdogs." Their position in their families of origin does not depend exclusively on their relations with their firstborn brothers or sisters, but also on those with their parents and other siblings. Conceiving of a family as a microsystem directs one's analysis toward what happens between, rather than within, its members. Birth order may well affect the quality of such bonds, but one cannot assume that it determines them or, for that matter, the personalities of those involved.

Sulloway's explanatory approach is one in which mass psychology is aimed at a large, quite selective, historical sample. I agree that laterborns, a larger social category than firstborns, are in a position to acquire different survival tactics than their firstborn brothers or sisters. This special kind of know-how may carry over into their relations with outsiders and may influence their fate in society at large. The author's statistical findings seem to support this suggestion. However, his data do not identify the many strategies open to laterborns in their attempts to cope with their specific circumstances. Some of them, indeed, may develop "revolutionary" attitudes, and others may learn to deal with authority through manipulation, deceit, or avoidance. Sulloway's research focuses on those who opted for some kind of noncompliance and who, for some reason, managed to become part of recorded history. What, then, about those "underdogs" who did not make a name for themselves? Did their rebellions fail'? Did they decide to follow different strategies? Who knows? Sulloway's theoretical orientation is unabashedly Darwinian. His discussion of Charles Darwin as a scholar and a man of his time is quite informative. His treatment of the Darwinian creed, however, seriously oversimplifies its complex message. Consider, for example, his brief discussion of "hypothesis testing" as a means to move the discipline of history into that of science: Like natural selection, which adapts species to their environments, hypothesis testing sooner or later eliminates unsuccessful theories.... Just like successful species in nature, creative scientists occupy the most favorable niches. They employ hypotheses testing to evolve conceptually and hence to avoid intellectual extinction. (p. 367)

The idea of "natural selection" is used only as an analogy in the foregoing, but some readers may not be aware of this. There is a fine line between scholarly reasoning and the use of pop-Darwinian rhetoric, something the author seems to overlook, at times. As I see it, Nature does not have a history but just a past. The latter stands for what really happened; history is what humans make of it. Any historical fact, regardless of its reliability, only describes something that took place but that did not have to happen. Whatever caused it merely sufficed. Charles Darwin's seminal idea of natural selection refers to outcomes and, in that capacity, identifies a powerful explanatory principle, rather that a causal law. Sulloway knows this, of course, but his narrative occasionally comes dangerously close to positing causality. Birth order among humans, as such an evolutionary outcome, shows that, so far at least, Homo sapiens tends to continue reproducing after the birth of a first child. This fact does have "selective" consequences that originate in family settings but reach beyond their immediate boundaries. The author's research on the life course of a large nonrandom sample of prominent scholars of the past clearly illustrates this point. Such consequences, however, were not selected for, but represent outcomes in a process that is blind to any future. I see no theoretical justification, then, to extend the findings of the author's comprehensive study into the future. His book documents that birth order, as an attribute of family structure, did significantly influence the lives of those he studied.

This may continue to be the case-a prediction, however, that rests not on science, not on Darwin's theory, but rather on common sense and faith. Despite my reservations, I do not hesitate to recommend Sulloway's book to family scholars.

It makes good reading and significantly contributes to our understanding of the history of science. I suggest, however, that its basic premise and its conclusions be approached with caution and a level of circumspection bordering on disbelief.

Back