The Dilemma of the Only Child
Alissa D. Eischens
Northwestern University
This paper examines the phenomenon of birth order as it particularly relates to only
children. Only children are unique in birth order in that they are the first- and last-born
children in their families. Various theories of prominent psychologists such as Adler, Freud,
Skinner, and Eysenck will be examined in their application to the importance of birth order
in personality development. A theory concerning only children will then be presented,
dealing chiefly with their difficulty with the labels of introversion and extraversion.
Personal observations as well as a proposal for testing the theory will be given.
Procreation has been an essential task for all human beings in order to continue the
existence of the species. Before the advent of modern medicine and birth control, common
sense would dictate that females would give birth to a large number of children, helping to
ensure that at least one would survive to adulthood and thus create children of his or her
own. However, as time has passed, humans have become able to control the number of
children they have. Many choose to have more than one child, some choose to have none
at all. Still others choose to have only one. Whatever the decision, the number and order of
birth of human offspring seems to have at least a small effect on their personality
development. Only children are special cases and must be looked at in a slightly different
manner.
Birth Order and Its Repercussions
Adler and Birth Order
Adler (Weiten, 1998), best known for his theories regarding striving for superiority, was
also concerned with the effects of birth order on personality. Adler had a successful older
brother, but Adler was weak as a child and thus was most likely affected with the desire to
assert himself and prove his worth.
Adler's theory stressed the social aspect of personality development and therefore proposed
the possibility of birth order and its significance in the interpersonal relationships of family
life. He felt that each position in the order, whether first or last, had distinct characteristics.
For example, he hypothesized that firstborns are problem children and that only children
are likely to be spoiled due to parental overindulgence (Weiten, 1998, pp. 483-484).
Characteristics of Positions in Birth Order
Studies have shown that environment is not the sole personality determinant. However,
environment is not trivial and should be considered, especially because studies regarding
birth order have been shown to have some consistency. Firstborns have been shown to be
more conscientious, ambitious, academically oriented, conforming, conservative, inclined
toward leadership, and respectful of their parents than their later-born siblings. Conversely,
children born later in the birth order tend to be more unconventional, flexible, and
rebellious (Sulloway, 1997, p. 5). Only children, being firstborn themselves, tend to exhibit
traits more similar to those of other firstborn children. However, only children seem to
have better self-esteem and are higher achievers than children who have siblings (Brophy,
1989, p. 54).
Children who have siblings must also contend with something that does not affect only
children, namely sibling rivalry. Children who have siblings must compete for parental
attention and familial resources. Only children do not have to deal with this kind of
competition. Not having siblings allows for greater variance of personality types among
only children; however, lack of siblings has repercussions for the only child's later social
interactions (Koontz, 1989, p. 38).
Stereotypes of Only Children
The only child is automatically stigmatized. When asked to describe personality
characteristics of an only child, many people will respond negatively, indicating the
presupposition that only children are spoiled brats. In China, couples are encouraged to
have only one child in order to help curb population growth. These children, or "little
emperors," as they have been called, are generally seen as spoiled monsters. However,
research conducted by Falbo (Brophy, 1989), a psychologist known for work in the area of
birth order, indicates otherwise. Falbo found that Chinese only children fared no worse in
personality or achievement than their counterparts with siblings. However, only children
are also often seen as high-achieving, motivated, and successful (Brophy, 1989, p.56).
Social Interaction
Because only children lack siblings, they lose the immediate availability of others near
their own age with whom to interact socially. In order to develop normal social skills, only
children must be exposed to other children of the same age through other means. For
example, play groups can be valuable for the learning of social skills. However, only
children must work to win friends because family life does not provide them.
Introversion/Extraversion and the Only Child
According to Skinner's behaviorist theory of operant conditioning, only children would
undergo conditioning to affect their behavior in social situations. Operant conditioning
involves the conditioning of behavior according to the consequences it produces (Mischel,
1993, p. 307). In this way, only children would be conditioned to behave in an outgoing
manner, if they are to win friends, because they have no guaranteed familial playmates.
Said the pediatrician M. Kappelman, "Only children don't easily assimilate into large
groups, and when they do they tend to dominate" (Brophy, 1989, p. 55). This conditioning
would take place regardless of a child's natural inclinations toward extraversion or
introversion if the child wishes to make friends.
Jung was the first psychologist to describe the inner- and outer-directed types of
personality. Inner-directed persons, or introverts, tend to be concerned with the internal
world of their thoughts and feelings. Outer-directed persons, or extraverts, tend to be
interested in the external world of things and people (Weiten, 1998, p. 483). Because only
children have a greater variation of personality types, logic would dictate that introversion
and extraversion are equally likely traits in only children.
The psychologist Eysenck (Weiten, 1998), while largely endorsing the role of genetics in
determining personality, was also a pioneer in the ideas of extraversion and introversion.
He suggested that introverts tend to have higher levels of arousal than extroverts. Therefore,
introverts are more easily conditioned than extraverts and, because social situations cause
arousal, the heightening of arousal will make introverts uneasy and wont to avoid social
interaction. Hence they become introverted (Weiten, 1998, pp. 495-496).
The Dilemma of the Only Child
Because only children do not have siblings with whom to interact, they learn to be children
on their own. Parents and play groups can help, but ultimately children become
conditioned to depend on themselves. Says one adult only child, "Possibly the best part
was developing the ability to enjoy being alone and to entertain myself. I've always had
plenty of friends, yet people are surprised by how much of a loner I can be" (Koontz, 1989,
p. 39). Although this self-sufficiency can have its benefits, it can also mean that only
children are inherently alone as their personalities develop.
Because only children must develop in social situations that may not be suited to their
personalities, the concepts of introversion and extraversion must be re-evaluated in the
consideration of only children. Ultimately, an only child's environment forces him or her to
take on both characteristics of introversion and extraversion despite natural inclinations to
be one or the other. A naturally introverted child must show extraverted qualities if he or
she wishes to make friends; likewise, a naturally extraverted child must learn to show
introverted qualities by being content to focus on his or her own thoughts when playmates
are unavailable.
Of course, very few humans are strictly extraverted or introverted; most fall somewhere in
between the two. The term "ambivert" has been coined to describe those persons who show
both characteristics. However, the term "ambivert" is not accurate in describing only
children. To call an only child introverted, extraverted, or ambiverted would be to imply
that the child developed into its natural tendency toward that certain personality type with
little influence from its environment. Thus only children are caught in a dilemma.
Although environmental influence is not the sole influence in personality development,
only children must develop their personalities in unique environmental situations. Their
environments force them to act against their natural tendencies in order to function
normally. These "only-verts" then must always at times be acting in ways against their
natural tendencies. Perhaps this struggle helps explain some of the common characteristics
that emerge among only children, such as the tendency to not participate in many activities
but leading the ones in which they do participate or learning to be comfortable being
"loners" by learning to retreat within themselves. Perhaps because the emotional
difficulties that only children are prone to have such as excessive sensitivity, hypochondria,
or trouble expressing anger (Brophy, 1989, p. 55) are results of environmental influence
but not in the way most commonly assumed. Rather than solely the effects of sibling-free
socialization, these emotional difficulties could be attributed to an almost Freudian struggle
between opposing forces: the natural tendency toward extraversion or introversion versus
the environmental pressures to subdue those tendencies in order to function.
Of course, Freud's theory, although testable, cannot be proven or disproven scientifically
(Grünbaum, 1986, p. 221) and any situation analogous to Freudian theory would be
difficult to test as well. However, a questionnaire could be designed much like one to
measure extraversion and introversion with modifications to take into account the special
case of only children to try to get some sense of how only children feel about themselves
and their interaction with the world around them. For example, a study could be used to
determine how adults feel their upbringing as only children affected them.
Ever since Adler brought forth the idea of birth order's effect on personality (and possibly
before), the only child has been seen as having distinct personality traits. Although
environment has not been shown to be the only influence in personality development, only
children develop in a unique social setting. Therefore, perhaps their environments exert
enough influence in their development to accentuate personality traits and force a struggle
against natural tendencies.
Peer Commentary
A Monkey Wrench in the Study of Birth Order
Nathan Jones
Northwestern University
As Eischens points out, the only child is a unique breed. Acting as the first- and last-born
in a family, the only child takes on a multitude of roles and responsibilities unlike those of
any other sibling. The only child breaks down the positions in birth order. The author of
the article lays down these differences in a concise manner, taking time to give a strong
base to her argument. She then elaborates on the real issue that separates only children
from others, introversion versus extroversion.
Although nobody exists as purely introverted or extroverted, the only child cannot show a
strong tendency towards one or the other. Instead, both introversion and extroversion
become important as the only child is forced to take on both personality types depending
on the given situation. Because of the lack of familial bonds, one has to learn to depend
upon oneself for thoughts and entertainment. In this isolated environment, the only child
takes on the characteristics of an introvert. The lack of familial bonds also becomes
important when the child looks for entertainment outside of her- or himself. In social
settings, the only child is much more desperate for the friendships of others his or her own
age than the child with siblings. In order to make these necessary friendships, the only
child must take on the qualities of an extrovert. The result is that the only child is a hybrid
of the two personality types. The author does not have empirical evidence of this theory,
yet she offers possible tests that would give proof. She does not state her ideas as concrete,
but instead offers them as suggestions to understand the differences between the only child
and all others.
The shortcomings of the article come in the lack of evidence for the points made by the
author. She makes questionable statements as truth and then builds her argument
progressively from these. Early in the paper, she states that, "Not having siblings allows for
greater variance of personality types among only children." Although this may be true,
inadequate evidence is given and the author uses this statement as a base for the rest of the
paper. Although it is true that only children have no sibling comparisons for personality
development, there are several factors that extend past this difference. It could be argued
that a variety of things could outweigh this difference, including genetic aspects and other
environmental variables. These things might make the dilemma of the only child minimal.
Also, perhaps sibling rivalry creates personality differences that the only child does not
experience. It is true that brothers or sisters will help define personality, but siblings will
also be a source of differences. Differences will appear in children because of their desire
to define themselves within the family. This goes along with the definition of the word
rivalry itself. Instead of emulating other siblings, children may break away in order to win
parents' favor. Perhaps only children, instead of emulating siblings, will turn to the other
familial constant, and their personality types will be guided more by their parents. It is
difficult to take the personality definitions of birth order as truth, and adding the only child
as a source of variation is difficult to prove.
Using the variation within the only child, Eischeus goes on to say that, "logic would dictate
that introversion and extroversion are equally likely traits in only children." But would not
logic also dictate that introversion and extroversion are also both highly likely in all
children? All children have to extend outside of their natural tendencies. Home does not
provide a complete social outlet, and therefore children are always desperate in social
situations. Natural introverts need to interact to build relationships. Likewise, natural
extroverts must learn how to function on their own as well. These are things present in all
children, not merely in only children. The only child is just a more extreme example of the
hybrid nature of personality. The natural tendencies of introversion and extroversion do not
disappear in only children, they just become more hazy. Only children establish more of a
balance between the two, but can never be rid of the natural tendencies that appear in all
children.
Finally, the author does not take the necessary steps to prove that only children do not fit
into their stereotypes. Her only evidence comes from a study of Chinese families.
Although the study is most likely true, one must question whether the study can be applied
to our own culture. Cultural differences could present enormous problems for these
findings. The study is from a world that functions differently on most every level,
including the family. There are indeed constants in family life the world over, but there are
also differences put into place by culture that cannot be ignored. The "high-achieving,
motivated, and successful" only children of the study are part of a Chinese community that
puts different stress on success and education than our own. It is quite possible that the
research is generalizable to all nations, but without another example of such findings, one
cannot help being hesitant with the author's proof.
Overall, the author brings to light some very interesting ideas that separate the only child
from other children. We are given not only an overview of the importance of birth order,
but also a look at a unique role that has qualities greatly different from others. Their social
setting leaves definite traces in the personality of only children that prevent them from
falling under the characteristics of birth order that have been previously studied. Eischens
may leave out empirical evidence to back up her claims, but the claims seem to make sense
and it is easy to follow her logic. Based on what she states, the only child brings confusion
to the usual stdy of birth order. Her essay finds its success not in proving points, but
instead in its ability to make us question and re-evaluate our understanding and study of
birth order.
Peer Commentary
Only Children Develop Unique Socialization Trends;
However, Empirical Evidence Is Needed
Purva H. Rawal
Northwestern University
"The Dilemma of the Only Child," by Eischens, describes the socialization pressures and
effects on only born children. Although the author raises interesting theories, much of the
evidence cited lacks an empirical basis. Eischens presents intriguing theories on the
introversion and extroversion dichotomy forced onto only children by the inherent fact that,
although they have no siblings, they must learn to interact and form meaningful peer
relations.
Adler's work is presented in a speculative light, as the author develops her own
interpretation for Adler's research and obvious interest in birth order. She establishes well
that Adler established that one's birth order is accompanied by distinct characteristics.
However, no empirical evidence is cited for his work and following the speculative
discussion on his interest in the field, the reader becomes unsure as to whether the
discussion on Adler's theory was not also prone to speculation.
The author succinctly and clearly describes the well-established findings of birth order
characteristics. The inclusion of descriptions of first-born children and later born children
act as a baseline for comparison to only born children through the remainder of the paper.
Most people can think back to a time when they were affected by such familial phenomena
as sibling rivalry. The effects of such social mechanisms often have important
ramifications, both positive and negative, for child development and later sibling relations.
Eischens mention the concept of sibling rivalry, but fails to elaborate on a topic that is
relevant to many. Sibling rivalry may act as a socializing agent in the sense that it teaches
children how to constructively cope with conflict. The comparison of the effects of sibling
rivalry to the effects of its absence in only children provides insight into the unique
development of only children.
One of the paper's greatest strengths is the inclusion of cross-cultural myths and findings
on only children. The relevance and importance of cross-cultural work has often been
ignored in psychological research; however, an increasing modern trend toward
globalization and cultural understanding has fostered an increasing interest in cross-cultural
work throughout the twentieth century. Psychology by its very definition is the study of
human culture and it is imperative to construct a culturally holistic picture. Having the
advantage of examining other cultures' outlooks on what we may classify as phenomena
exclusive to our social realm encourages a more critical and cosmopolitan perception of
psychological occurrences.
One of the greatest argued losses to only children is their lack of social interaction within
the family structure as a consequence of the absence of potential sibling playmates. A
study conducted by Mueller and Vandell (1995) found that children with older siblings
offering an outlet for interaction were more responsive socially to other children their own
age. This interaction propels them into social situations in which they actively seek out
playmates in settings away from home. The foundation for developing healthy peer
relations is laid in the home at an early age. This foundation is solidified via the exposure
to siblings as they communally partake in activities including social-role playing and
scripts. Children are socialized as to acceptable social roles, and actions within those social
roles, largely through interaction with their siblings. The author perhaps could have
elaborated on this point as it is of utmost importance to the social development of the only
child.
The Jungian theory and Eysenck's elaboration on the introversion and extroversion
tendencies provide a firm basis for the presentation of the theory that the only child's
unique familial environment forces the child to incorporate qualities of both introverts and
extroverts into the child's personality. Only children must learn when each trait is
appropriate so that they are able to establish healthy peer relations, while also learning to
develop on their own in a lonely environment. However, Skinner's theory on operant
conditioning, although well laid out, is not tied into the argument of the inclusion of both
introvert and extrovert tendencies in only children. Likewise, the few sentences outlining a
Freudian interpretation of only child characteristics do not bolster the credibility of the
author's argument. Freud's theories lack a scientific foundation and are largely speculative
in nature. Nevertheless, the author captures the reader's attention with her theory on the
unique personality development of only children.
The paper presents a unique argument for the incorporation of both introvert and extrovert
tendencies into the personalities of only children. However, the author is unable to
adequately provide support for the theory supplementary to Jung's and Eysenck's
contribution. Some of the psychologists cited, such as Freud and Adler, do not add to the
author's arguments. Overall, Eischens provides readers with an interesting outlook on the
unique personality development and environmental forces involving only children.
Peer Commentary
The Real Dilemma Lies in the Birth Order Theory
Barbara M. Trzop
Northwestern University
Birth order is an interesting, but scientifically weak, phenomenon that attempts to explain
how a child manifests the personality characteristics that he or she exhibits. Eischens's
paper describes in nice detail the foundations and framework of the theory. However, the
lack of empirical evidence does not lend support to a theory that, at best, makes
generalized statements about correlative behaviors that may or may not really have
anything to do with the order in which children are born.
Eischens's description of procreation seems to be a weak introduction to why birth order is
considered important to personality theorists, and to psychologists in general. Of course the
goal of human beings is to successfully reproduce themselves, thereby giving rise to future
generations. However, what does birth order have to do with this, and why would birth
order influence personality, according to this evolutionary point of view?
In order to give this introduction the support it needs, Eischens needed to introduce the
theories of sociobiology and, more specifically, evolutionary psychology. As Eischens
points out, humans of past generations did not have the advantages of modern medicine
that we have today. Infant mortality rates were high, given the vulnerable states of
newborns, and the squalid conditions into which many were born. Having a child survive
past its first year of life took as much luck as it did resources. Therefore, it made sense that
parents would lavish their attention and care on a child who "made it" past his or her
critical period. First-borns are guaranteed the most resources, because they are the
"survivors." It is better to place one's bets on an older child who has already passed the
most critical period of his or her life than to waste them on the weaker, younger child who
is not yet guaranteed to survive. Therefore, the stereotypes of the successful, confidant,
domineering first-born, and the dependent, overcompensating, last-born could stem from
this theory. It is a harsh, almost cruel way of looking at family structure, but it fits the
"survival of the fittest" paradigm.
Taking this viewpoint, it makes sense that only children emulate first-borns in their
personality structures. Parents who have only one child must make sure that this child
survives, because there are no "backups" to take his or her place. Therefore, parents spend
all of their resources on the child, molding the child into an individual with the most
chance for survival. In fact, the only child should have an even better chance for success,
because there are no other children to take resources away from him or her. The child
grows up to be an independent, self-sufficient, successful individual, because these are the
traits necessary for survival.
However, can one take this viewpoint and say with complete certainty that all only
children grow up to be high-achievers? Of course not, because the outcome of any
individual depends on the interaction of inherent traits and environment. Any child with
high achievement motivation who grows up in a supportive family has the potential for
success, whether this child be the tenth-born or the only-born. Of course, a child with
personality traits that predispose him or her to dependent behavior may come out another
way.
As Eischens points out, only children often have the stereotypes of being "spoiled brats."
Eischens does a nice job of explaining the cultural significance of this, by citing examples
of a similar phenomenon in Chinese cultures. However, not all "spoiled brats" grow up to
be the high-achieving, successful individuals that Eischens makes them out to be. Being
"spoiled" often indicates lavish and overindulgent attention by the parents, which
sometimes indicates a lack of discipline or control on the parents' part. This type of
behavior, interacting with a child's tendency for low acheivement motivation, may result in
the opposite effect. The child may grow up expecting things to be done for the child all of
the time, and may learn to become dependent on others to do everything for him or her.
Living a life of luxury, without the normal, everyday conflicts that having siblings bring,
may cause the child to have a distorted view of the world. The transition to adulthood and
self-sufficiency might be difficult for such a child, who may find himself or herself seeking
others onto whom he or she could cling.
I disagree with Eischens as she says that only children essentially learn to be children on
their own. Children will behave like children. This is inherent. An only child does not need
to be taught how to play. Also, it is not necessarily correct to say that only children deal
with a "unique" environment that forces them to go against their natural tendencies. The
natural tendency of a child is to be a child! If the child is introverted, the child will seek
out other introverts as part of his or her peer group. The same is true for extroverts. It is no
different than any other form of social interaction. Although I agree that sometimes only
children may have to learn how to act against their nature (i.e., acting more extroverted in
an aggressive play situation), this is not always necessary, as Eischens suggests. In fact, I
would go so far as to say that siblings are more prone to act against their natural tendencies
toward introversion-extroversion, because they are often forced to play together and to
agree with each other. In order to get along, siblings must sometimes modify their
personalities, or else they will hear it from their parents! Only children have the luxury of
choosing their playmates, and if they find none suitable, they are perfectly happy playing
on their own.
Most of these observations come from personal experience, because I myself am an only
child. I will be the first to admit that self-report is not always reliable, nor is it always valid.
However, I believe that this is the general problem with considering birth order to be a
causal factor in shaping personality. It is extremely difficult to come up with a systematic
way of doing this. Of course, one could take an inventory of the kinds of traits that
children in a specific "birth order slot" possess, and see if there are any correlations.
However, this does not seem to be any different than assessing the validity of astrological
signs. Do not the signs of the Zodiac dictate traits as a function of birth order? Using this
model, one could even argue that people treat one differently according to the month in
which one is born. You and I would both agree that this is bad science, with little empirical
foundation. I would have to say the same for birth order. Individuals are all different. The
interaction of traits and states dictates personality development, and they do not combine in
the same way for everyone. Therefore, it is difficult to say that birth order makes a
difference. Perhaps birth order makes a slight difference, but I believe that there are more
influential causal factors that determine personality in children.
Author Response
Merely Scratching the Surface of the Birth Order Dilemma
Alissa D. Eischens
Northwestern University
In my paper entitled, "The Dilemma of the Only Child," I make an argument for the
possibility that birth order can have an effect on the development of personality. I make no
claims about the significance of birth order, but I do suggest that it can be a factor in a
child's environment that could affect his or her personality. I take the idea of birth order
one step further and suggest that perhaps only children are affected in a unique way by
growing up in an environment lacking siblings. My suggestion deals specifically with the
tendencies toward introversion and extraversion and how only children may have to fight
against their natural tendencies. I thank Jones, Rawal, and Trzop for their commentaries
concerning my paper.
Jones does well to recognize the ideas I wish to put forth in my paper. In fact, he seems to
be so clear as to my intention that I was somewhat taken aback by the criticisms that
followed his summary. That said, I wish to address some of the criticism Jones presents.
Jones' main criticism lies in his finding fault with my lack of support for my arguments. I
agree that my examination of birth order theory is indeed cursory and warrants further
research and empirical evidence to be deemed credible. However, as Jones recognizes
when he says, "Her essay finds its success not in proving points, but instead in its ability to
make us question and re-evaluate our understanding and study of birth order," he makes
my point exactly. I did not presume to build an airtight case for my argument about only
children. Rather, I intended to introduce the possibility that birth order can affect only
children differently than children with siblings. I offer some evidence as a means to begin
building an argument; clearly, I need more support if my ideas are even to be tested, let
alone be called a theory.
Jones also makes an argument for the effect of birth order and sibling rivalry on children
who have siblings. I agree fully that children who do not have siblings are in a position
different than that of only children; it is precisely this difference in situations that I wished
to examine while focusing on the only child. Finally, Jones says that families do not
provide total social support, and all children, regardless of their birth order, must strive to
make friends. I agree and did not mean to argue otherwise; however, I would argue that the
presence of siblings at least gives children "practice" in socializing with others their age,
whereas only children are immediately "put to the test."
Rawal echoes this sentiment in her commentary. She sites a study in which socialization
with older siblings allowed for a sort of social practice that encouraged children to seek out
playmates outside the family. Like Jones, she too summarizes my paper clearly. Unlike
Jones, she sees the inclusion of information concerning Chinese only children as positively
cross-cultural. Jones felt that information to be too selective.
Rawal finds fault with my lack of empirical evidence and my inclusion of Adler's and
Freud's theories as support for my argument. I will not repeat my reasons for lack of
empirical evidence--I have stated them previously in my response. However, in response to
her criticism concerning the inclusion of Adler and Freud, I will comment. She will notice
that Adler appears in the introduction of my paper. As one of the earliest psychologists to
be interested in birth order theory, I thought it amiss not to include his ideas. As for Freud,
I was merely using his ideas as an analogy to help clarify the point I was trying to make
concerning the inner and societal struggles with which only children must grapple. I did
not intend the inclusion of Freud to add credibility to my argument.
I take exception to the manner in which Trzop offers her criticism. As I have already stated,
I intended to introduce the topic of only children and birth order, not support it
wholeheartedly or begin to prove it. Although Trzop makes valid criticism, I do not believe
making a mockery of my paper is the best way for her to bring her ideas to my or the
readers' attention. She first criticizes my introduction. I thank her for her suggestion for the
consideration of evolutionary psychology; her suggestion is valid, and should I pursue this
topic further it would definitely be taken into account. However, the purpose of my
introduction was not to illuminate the harsh realities of survival but rather to introduce the
topic of birth so I could move on to point out that people are obviously born in a certain
order within a family, and to suggest that perhaps that order plays a role in personality
development. Trzop also says, "The natural tendency of a child is to be a child!" and I
could not agree with her more. But I would say that although children developmentally go
through similar stages, their "natural tendency" when personality is involved cannot be
defined. I would ask Trzop to further explain what exactly "being a child" entails. She
draws upon personal experience for her argument, and I could do the same if I chose, being
something of an introvert myself. But as Trzop recognizes, personal experience is not the
best way to prove a point, so I shall refrain from sharing mine. As for her likening birth
order theory to being a "bad science" along the lines of astrology, I will not comment. My
horoscope told me that avoiding conflict would be in my best interest today.
References
Brophy, B. (March 6, 1989). It doesn't hurt to be alone. U.S. News and World Report, 106,
54-55.
Grünbaum, A. (1986). Précis of The foundations of psychoanalysis: A philosophical
critique. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 217-284.
Koontz, K. (February 1989). Just me. Health, 21, 38-39.
Mischel, W. (1993). Behavioral conceptions. In W. Mischel, Introduction to personality
(pp.295-316). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Mueller, E. C., & Vandell, D. L. (1995). Peer play and friendships during the first two
years. In H. C. Foot, A. J. Chapman, & J. R. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations
in children (pp. 181-208). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
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.
Last modified August 1998
Visited times since July 2001
Comments?
Home to Personality Papers
Home to Great Ideas in Personality