Birth order is defined as a person's rank by age among his or her siblings. Birth order is often believed to have a profound affect on ones distinctive character, behavior and intelligence. For our culminating task I chose the topic of birth order because it birth order has a direct relation with the family and is vary relatable topic to everyone. I thought it would be interesting research and learn more about this theory; because it gives insight on to why people the way they are. The research question I sought to find out was: Does birth order effect the combination of characteristics and qualities that form an individual's personality, behavior and intelligence and if so, how does it affect a person's distinctive character? To begin my research I first formed a hypothesis based on my general knowledge and inquiry on the subject. My hypothesis was that the chronological placement of siblings within a family would affect the combination of characteristics and qualities that form an individual's distinctive character, behavior and intelligence. My thinking was that in General, parents are excited and anticipated about their first child and hence, tend to be overly protective and pay more attention, investment, as well as expectation on this child. However, parents’ attention, investment, and expectation vary across children. As the second child arrives in the family, the firstborn may experience dethronement and the same happens to the second born once a third child arrives and so forth. I believed that parental resources that a child received decrease as the size grows bigger. Therefore, every child experiences different level of parental resources and investment as a result of their distinct birth order while these unique experiences will in turn shape their developmental course. I believe that this would result in first born children: to be more likely to become a leader and also more likely to be more independent. I think that the first born will have the best grade. I believe that the middle child is more likely to be more personable. I think that in result to birth order the youngest will be least responsible, but also more outgoing. After creating my hypothesis I then proceed to do my secondary research to make my a qualitative survey. The purpose of my survey was to determine my research question: How does the chronological placement of siblings within a family effect the combination of characteristics and qualities that form an individual's distinctive character, behavior and intelligence? Alfred Adler was a pioneer in the study of birth order. His research suggested that the position a child had by the order of birth significantly affected the child's growth and personality. Research in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century shows even greater influence, contributing to character, behavior and intelligence(1). He put forth the idea, claiming that when a child is born deeply impacts their personality. According to Adler, eldest children are socially dominant, highly intellectual. He believed that they were most independent and also the most responsible of the group. He also believed that they’re also less open to new ideas, and prone to perfectionism and people pleasing – the result of losing both parents’ undivided attention at an early age, and working throughout their lives to get it back. Middle children, sandwiched between older and younger siblings, often develop a competitive nature – making them natural entrepreneurs later in life. (2)They tend to be the most diplomatic and flexible members of the family and often, eager for parental praise, develop musical or academic gifts. Youngest children, according to birth order theory, tend to be dependent and selfish – as they’re used to others providing for them. But despite the negatives, they’re also quite often the life of the party – fun, confident, and comfortable entertaining others. While much of the research on birth order is considered useful, many psychologists are quick to point out that it lacks strong scientific merit. One social psychologist has even likened birth order theory to astrology because of its rather liberal and far-reaching implementation. Another mentions that it is often a way for people to deny responsibility for their behavior. Judith Blake, author of Family Size and Achievement (1989), believes the size of the family into which a child is born is more important than the order of births in the family. She argues that the fewer the siblings there are, the more attention each child gets from the parents. And the more attention the child receives, the greater the chances of achievement in school verbal and behavioral skills are used more often through interaction with parents. A setback to birth order research came from the writings of two Swiss psychologists, Cecile Ernst and Jules Angst. In a noteworthy 1983 critique of over a thousand studies on birth order, Ernst and Angst openly criticized the method by which many of these studies were conducted(4). Background variables, they argued, were inadequately controlled within the research, thereby rendering much of the significance of birth order useless. They further argued that the differences between families and number of siblings might be the cause for particular trends. A similar critique by Carmi Schooler in the early 1970s also called into question the validity of much of the birth order literature, citing most often poor research design as the culprit in the misrepresentation of the effects of birth order(5). The article talks about The many reasons that family size could affect our predilections and personalities. More children mean that parental resources (money, time and attention) have to be spread more thinly. Perhaps more telling, family size is associated with many important social factors, such as ethnicity, education and wealth. For example, wealthier, better-educated parents typically have fewer children. If astronauts are more likely to have well-educated, comfortable parents, then they are also more likely to come from a smaller family and thus are more likely to be a firstborn(7). Although many sources indicate that birth order is not a valid theory, there is many sources that have proven otherwise in Alders favor. Devon Fansico talks about his studies. He believes that birth order has such a profound effect because we see the same characteristics in the adult child as we saw when the child was young. But is not can't always determine a persons character correctly due to so many other factors of family size and dynamics: events such as a parent’s early death, a divorce or remarriage can profoundly affect a child’s development. The same holds true if a parent has mental health or substance abuse problems. He talks about how family size also has an effect on the personality, behavior and intelligence. He goes on to attack the fact 21 of the first 23 astronauts into space were firstborns. He goes on to explain that a child from a two-kid family has a 50 percent chance of being a firstborn, whereas a child from a five-kid family has only a 20 percent chance of being a firstborn. So the fact that astronauts are disproportionately firstborns, for example, could merely show that they come from smaller families—not that firstborns have any particularly astronautic qualities. He goes on to then acknowledge that firstborns may indeed have astronautic qualities. His main point being that birth order does have an effect on personality, but there are many other contributing factors(8). Throughout my studies, I found there to be a direct correlation between birth order and personality. I found that the characteristics of the oldest siblings were that they most independent and also the most responsible of the group. When asked how responsible they were for handling school work the majority (27.8 %) answered four out of five. Then when being asked "how responsible for chores are you?" The majority of first born (38.9%) answered 3 out of 5 on a scale of one to five, five being the highest. I found that first born children considered themselves most independent out of their siblings. When asked to rate themselves on a scale of one to five 76% of them answer 5. I believe this to be true because they were put into a leadership role at a young age. First born children are most likely going to be one of the primary babysitters for their siblings. Also being the oldest they never had anyone to follow in the house hold, thus making them more independent.
I found that First born children seemed to be natural born leaders and can be "control freaks". When asked to Rate their leadership abilities on a scale of one to five the majority(61.1%) answered 4 out of 5. Then when asked they were if they liked to be in control 72% said yes. I believe this is because the eldest would be forced to be the role model and care taker of the younger siblings thus forcing them into those distinctive character, behavior.
In my study I found that many of first borns strive for perfection, and thrive on approval of authority figures. When asked "Do you respect/approve of authority figures more than your siblings do?" 55.6% of them answered yes. They tend to do well in school as 44.4% had an average of 71-80 and 38% had an average of 81-90% grade average. When asked how compliant they were 83.3% said 5 out of 5 more compliant than their siblings. I believe this because the parents would be more strict and protective of their first child. I believe this is the case because before their siblings were born at a young age they only had their parents to look up to and impress. As when the younger sibling would have had a older sibling to look up to instead of just older authority. This philosophy would translate into why also first born children would strive for perfection and be more compliant; because they are always looking approval over there siblings. I found that the characteristics of the middle child were: that they felt deprived of attention worried about being over-looked, and tends to be the most rebellious as a child. When asked "Do you feel your other siblings get more attention from your parents then you?" 55.5% answered yes. Then when asked " Do you feel your parents overlook you more often than your siblings?" 61.1% answer yes. " Do you feel you are more rebellious than your siblings?" 55.6% percent answer yes. And when asked " Are you more daring than your other siblings? " 61.1% answered yes. I think that because the parents had the help of the oldest and also having at least 3 children the parents time would be limited and the youngest was in need of the most attention the parents. And this would often over look the middle child. This would result in the child having less consequences for their actions, which would result in them becoming more daring and rebellious.
In my research I found that the middle child was more likely the compromise, and enjoy pleasing others. I found that most enjoy working in groups and feeling like they belong, and are good at making friends and getting along with others. When asked "Are you more open to making compromises then your siblings?" 77.8% respond yes. (side note- all middle child percents from here up are 0.3-0.7 % off due to manual calculation mistakes) Which I found interesting because when first borns and youngest majority liked having things their way rather than collaborating with others. When middle children were asked "Rate you ability to read others compared to your siblings on a scale of one to five?" 35.2 % said 4 out of 5 and 29.4% said 5 out of 5. When subjects we asked "On a scale of one to five, compared to your siblings how easy is it to make friends?" 52.9% said 4 out of 5. Which I found interesting because when fist born children were asked the same question only 27.8% answered 4 out of 5 and 22.2% answered 5 out of 5. When asked " Do you like working in groups?" 83.3% answered yes. I believe that middle child is more likely compromise, and enjoy pleasing others for the reason that their whole life they would look up to their oldest sibling. They would always want to be included in what the eldest was doing. And in order to maintain that the middle child would have to keep older child happy. The middle child would enjoy keeping them happy because in doing so would get to be included. I think it was important for the middle child to feel included because of the lack of attention from the parents. With this I believe that the middle child would often make compromises. This is probably why most of them liked working and are good at making friends and getting along with others When surveying the youngest sibling I found there character was that: The youngest child generally likes to be the center of attention. The last born also tends to be a bad decision maker and was the least responsible in comparison to their siblings. When asked "On a scale of one to five, how much do you like being center of attention?" 27.2% answer 4 out of 5. In comparison to first borns and the middle child this was significantly higher. Then when asked "how often do you make bad decisions, on a scale of never, sometimes, often and always, sometimes was 45% and often 27.9%. Which again in comparison was higher than the others. When asked " How responsible are you for your chores are you on a scale of one to five?" only 36.3% said 3 out of 5. I believe that the youngest likes to be the center of attention because growing up that is what they knew, the parents would be most focused on them and also had the attention of both sibling to help when parents could not. I believe that he last born also tends to be a bad decision maker and was the least responsible in comparison to their siblings because as a child they would always have someone to make decisions for them and the house hold had little responsibilities because the youngest only had to take care of themselves. And often the older children would be placed with the responsibilities because they were more capable. Out of the 60 surveys I only had two only children. I found that their favorite subjects were the one with language: French English and history. On a scale of one to 5, 5 being the highest on average they scored a 4.5/5. When asked to rate their leadership abilities 4.5/5. Then when asked how responsible for chores they were the average score was 3/5. Half of the surveyed first borns admitted to being an control freak and perfectionist. When asked about how open they were about their feelings they scored an average of 4.5/5. This also could have been influenced not because they were only children but that both surveyed only children we girls. In general it is more socially acceptable for girls to be open with feelings. 50% did not like working in groups and 50% did not like being the center of attention. When asked how often they make bad choices and how well do they handle money, they were on complete opposites sides of the spectrum. I believe that this was not a big enough sample size to determine anything definitively that could correlate with being an only child. In comparison to my secondary and primary research, I found many similarities and differences between my research and others. But also found many articles disproving the birth order theory and a small amount of articles with an opinion acknowledging both sides. When first looking for my secondary research, I found little to no statistics on birth order, most of which focused on just intelligence. I found Alfred Adler's theory to be most benefital to my research. I then found many articles disbelief of birth order theory and very little articles acknowledging both sides. My research was mainly consistent with Alfred Adler idea, that when a child is born deeply impacts their personality and my research deemed this to be true. Although according to Adler, eldest children are socially dominant, which in my I found that the middle child is the most socially advanced. He also stated that the first born is highly intellectual in comparison to their siblings. But in findings Intellect was not objective to birth order. Thought oldest, middle and youngest child the overall average was generally equal. Alfred Adler theory and my research came out to be the same on that first borns are most independent and also the most responsible of the group. Also that they less open to new ideas(controlling), and prone to perfectionism. Him and I both agree that is the result of losing both parents’ undivided attention at an early age, and working throughout their lives to get it back. Alfred Adlers view on middle children and my results had both similarities and differences. He believed that being sandwiched between an older and a younger siblings, often develop a competitive nature- making them natural entrepreneurs later in life. In my research I did not study competition thus had no similarities or differences. His theory and my research both resulted in the conclusion that the middle children tend to be the most diplomatic and flexible members of the family and often. Youngest children, according to Alfred Adlers birth order theory, tend to be dependent and selfish – as they’re used to others providing for them. And my research reflected that exactly. He also thought that, they’re also quite often the life of the party – fun, confident, and comfortable entertaining others. My research was limited to the that the youngest child children liked being the center of attention. But by extension could also in tale that they are – fun, confident, and comfortable entertaining others. In comparison to the many articles talking about how family size was way to determine; personality, behavior and intelligence, obviously my research was completely contradictory and had many differences. In this article They argued that the differences between families and number of siblings might be the cause for particular trends. My research stated that birth order did indeed have an effect. But our findings were similar in the fact that we both agree that family dynamics and the way we are brought up, is what makes a person the way we are. In comparison to Devon Fansico findings and my research we have many similarities. He believes that birth order has such a profound effect because we see the same characteristic. As does my research fully supports this statement. He talks about how it not can't always determine a person's character correctly due to so many other factors of family size and dynamics: events such as a parent’s early death, a divorce or remarriage can profoundly affect a child’s development. The same holds true if a parent has mental health or substance abuse problems. My research reflects this fully as there was many people who did not fit into their birth order stereo type.
In summary my research in comparison was generally consistent with Alfred Adler theory. It was not consistent with the articles disproving birth order and was consistent with Devon Fascias findings. In conclusion,. to answer my research question: Does birth order effect the combination of characteristics and qualities that form an individual's personality, behavior and intelligence and if so, how does it affect a person's distinctive character? Yes, Birth does effect the combination of characteristics and qualities that form an individual's personality, behavior and intelligence. It affect a person's distinctive character by the general experiences that is common throughout the roles taken on by the parents, eldest sibling, middle child and youngest. My hypothesis was correct in that that the chronological placement of siblings within a family did affect the combination of characteristics and qualities that form an individual's distinctive character, behavior and intelligence. I was correct in thinking that in first born children: to be more likely to become a leader and also more likely to be more independent. I was correct in thinking that the middle child is more likely to be more personable and that in result to birth order the youngest will be least responsible, but also more outgoing. My hypothesis was wrong in my thinking that the first born would have the best grades. I was generally correct in my reasoning behind why because most of my finding were correct. My secondary research made it clear that there are a verity of possible reasons other than birth order that could have affected my results although very unlikely because it had a very direct correlation between the two. If I were to do this study again I would pick a topic with more helpful secondary research available and that didn't take so long to go though and write about. I would pick a topic that focused on genders that way I would only have to summarize 2 sets of results, instead of 4.
Some errors that could have ruined the results is: I could have had manual error of looking through and recording results, I could have made a mistake manually calculating results, some people could maybe not have filled out surveys honestly or did not take it seriously and some people just didn't answer some questions. All these things could have affected my results.

.
Appendix

1http://www.ipedr.com/vol5/no1/7-H00037.pdf
2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Adler#On_birth_order
3)http://www.adlerian.us/birthord.htm 4)http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ruled-by-birth-order
5)http://www.birthorderandpersonality.com/
6)http://www.enotes.com/birth-order-reference/birth-order
7)http://www.parents.com/baby/development/social/birth-order-and-personality/
8)http://www.answers.com/topic/birth-order