Posted on 02/12/2017 5:48:11 AM PST by BenLurkin
Scientists say the discovery could explain the "birth order effect," when children born earlier in families reported higher wages and education levels later in life.
Economists from the University of Edinburgh, the Analysis Group and the University of Sydney closely reviewed data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. More than 5,000 children were monitored from pre-birth to age 14, each undergoing assessments every two years.
Tests included "reading recognition, such as matching letters, naming names and reading single words aloud and picture vocabulary assessments."
(Excerpt) Read more at wcvb.com ...
I think you nailed it. If this study were constructed to ‘control’ for parental attention I think that the intelligence correlation would disappear.
Middle child and have certifiably tested higher on IQ, achievement test, SAT and National Merit Scholarship test than either of my sisters. However, they both did better in School than me because I’m just a little to anti-authority to do well in a typical school situation.
just a few words:
The study only shows a (weak) tendency. Something that is true 11 times out of 20 and false 9 times out of 20.
While we have known about birth-order effects for some time, the study takes advantage of the enormous amount of data on all members of family units in the national longitudinal survey, to explore the extent to which we can explain why there are birth-order effects. Is it, for example, due to having younger parents? Or, to more attention during the time a first-born is an only child?
As expected, it is found that first-borns are more engaged by parents than their siblings. They are read to more frequently, and they watch less television. These differences seem to correlate with higher achievement on standardized tests.
BOTTOM LINE: Read to your children. Bring them to church and to the ballpark. Include some enriching experiences in your vacation plans. Show some interest in their learning, their playing, their happiness. The point of the article is that this comes easier with first-borns than with their siblings.
Interesting.
I guess it shows early if they are followers or not.
I don’t know, but my first kid is a neuro-radiologist, and 4th just got a perfect ACT !!! It’s those two in the middle that worry me ..... and that caboose little girl who views the school day as a social outing !
That explains a lot. I grew up in a house with my mother and her parents, and she was their youngest, so when I was, say, 2 years old, the average age in our house was about 38, if you figure me into it. And 51 if you don't.
Its a general trend that is observable, but like everything it is not 100% true.
Generally this I believe is nothing more than the simple fact that a first born child receives more attention in general from their parents during the years prior to other siblings births, and with each passing child, the amount of time and attention available for each child lessens.
Its a nurture thing, not a nature thing.
Fredo would agree with the study.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A
My oldest worked the hardest for grades and did very well. The middle one hated school but wound up graduating from college and is now doing extremely well. The youngest had everything come easy. To me he just has “smarts” and excels at everything he does. He’s also the most driven, a real type A personality.
I have to correct myself. Santino was the oldest. But I still love the “I’m smart” line.
Obviously commissioned by first-born children.
Legitimate studies show that not only does the baby of the family by comparison to their elder siblings get everything they want they are also way smarter.
I am a Mensa member compared with my older first-born sister.
Studies like this are so worthless, they are not worth writing or posting.
Oldest children receive undivided attention until their first sibling is born. Then attention is naturally divided. This should not come as any sort of revelation, the oldest born has a natural advantage.
Lol, you beat me to it.
ALPHA, LEO, first born, female, more commonsense than the other 3. Youngest is the only male, least educated and a alcoholic.
His grandfather emigrated from Scotland, so we're quite connected to the land of tartans and kilts!
They say the oldest tends to be more independent which I was and the middle child is resentful for feeling ignored which my sister is. The youngest gets spoiled which my youngest sister definitely did get stuff we never got and got away with a lot.
I guess some of these stereotypes are for real. :-)
Same here. I guess my second, fourth and fifth can duke it out for the major award LOL. My eighth is still young, but he’s pretty sharp for his age ;)
My 8th turned 11 a couple of weeks ago. I don’t think he’s smarter than #6 or #3, but he’s more athletic than 3 and less weird than 6, so he should go far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.