How Birth Order Affects Juvenile Delinquency

Birth Order and Juvenile Delinquency

Psychologists have long studied the effects of birth order on a person's personality. Sigmund Freud, for example, believed that "the position of a child in the family order is a factor of extreme importance in determining the shape of his later life" (cited in Sulloway 1996: 468n).

The rest of social sciences, however, have been slower to accept such a sociobiological approach, preferring instead to explain social attitudes as a result of determinants like race, gender, age or class.

This paper examines whether this sociobiological approach holds true in the field of juvenile crime. Specifically, the paper examines whether birth order is a significant determinant in whether or not a young person commits crimes and in the rates of juvenile recidivism.

To examine this relationship, this paper takes an interdisciplinary approach to the issue of birth order and juvenile delinquency, drawing on diverse literature from fields including psychology, law, criminology and sociology. The extent of birth order on youth crime is explored through a critical survey and integration of current research on the various determinants of juvenile delinquency.

The first part of the paper examines the literature on how birth order affects the general attitudes and behavior of people, with a special focus on children and teens. The next section relates these findings to statistical data regarding the determinants of youth crime and recidivism.

In the third section, the paper examines the flaws behind many of the studies that ascribe inordinate importance to birth order. Some of these studies, for example, suffer from flawed techniques while others do not adequately account for the effects of socio-economic class or gender. In the last section, this paper concludes that given the conflicting evidence regarding birth order's effects on a person's attitudes and behavior, birth order alone is not a reliable determinant of a person's propensity to become involved in juvenile crime.

This study was limited by the lack of information regarding birth order in the many statistical data regarding juvenile crime. For future studies, it would be interesting to see if such data could be obtained, and if the effects of birth order mute or enhance other known determinants of criminal behavior, such as socioeconomic status, education and race.

Birth Order and Social Behavior

Until recently, social scientists generally did not give much importance to the effects of birth order on a person's social development. While conventional wisdom held that adults who were firstborns are generally more conservative, more likely to save money and more responsible, little empirical research was conducted to see if these claims held up to quantitative study.

However, recent studies like Frank J. Sulloway's Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives have ignited interest in the relationship between birth order and social attitudes. In the book, Sulloway posits a strong relationship between birth order and a wide array of social attitudes. In general, Sulloway contends that firstborns are generally more inclined to support the status quo, while later-borns are more inclined to be rebels and to agitate for change. In fact, Sulloway claims that "the effects of birth order transcend gender, social class, race, nationality, and for the last five centuries, time" (1996: 356).

Sulloway maintains that the effects of birth order do not stem merely from biology. Rather, he ascribes this to children's innate tendency to develop attitudes and personalities that are best suited for maximizing the resources that they get from their parents. Since siblings must compete for their parents' attentions, they carve out their own "family niches" relative to their brothers and sisters, a niche that is often defined by birth order (Sulloway 1996: 48).

Meri Wallace, a child development expert, locates the social construction of birth order roles on the part of the parents. According to Wallace, many of the characteristics resulting from a child's birth order and family position actually stem from their early relationship with their parents (Wallace 1999:7).

The following sections examine how these interrelated factors result in different roles and behaviors for firstborn, middle-born, youngest and only children.

Firstborn Children

Many studies have shown that firstborn children have a greater tendency than their later-born counterparts to be conformist and oriented towards authority and responsibility (Moore & Cox, 1990: 19).

The strong support of firstborns for existing authority have been observed as early as 1928, when Freudian psychologist Alfred Adler theorized that firstborn children are often exposed to the company of adults much earlier than their laterborn counterparts (1928: 14).

Similarly, Wallace believes that firstborns benefit strongly from being the sole focus of their parent's attention prior to the birth of the next sibling. Typically, firstborns often feel a strong identification with their parents. Since many first-time parents dive eagerly into their new caretaker role, a role that their firstborn children easily imbibe (Wallace 1999: 15).

According to Sulloway's quantitative findings, these conformist tendencies and identification with adults result in more conservative social attitudes. For example, firstborns were more likely to harbor traditional beliefs about gender than laterborns. As an example, he notes that Anita Bryant and Phyllis Schlafly are firstborn women who lobbied against many important legislation for women's rights. On the other hand, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and many other suffragettes were predominantly laterborn children (Sulloway 1996: 154-158).

Sulloway also contends that firstborns are "particularly inclined toward racism" (1996: 152). Historically, firstborn children also benefited from primogeniture. This factor may have also contributed to a firstborn's tendency towards conservatism because they were bound to their ancestral properties.

In more modern studies, more firstborns than laterborns were more likely to have voted for former President George Bush in the 1992 presidential elections (Frees et al., 1999).

Laterborns

Many people are familiar with the phrase "middle child syndrome," where a middle child often feels jealous and ignored as the older and younger siblings command more of the parents' attentions (Wallace 1999: 8).

However, there are also advantages to this position. A middle child is less pressured than the firstborn, and is less overprotected and more likely to be taken seriously than the youngest child. The flip-side of the equation, however, is that middleborn children are more likely to experience identity questions regarding their role within the family (Wallace 1999: 79).

The youngest children, on the other hand, are the babies of the family. As such, they enjoy longer childhood. The downside to this equation, however, means that younger children are also often actively engaged in defining their own identity in relationship to that of their older siblings (Wallace 1999: 79).

Most of the studies that explored the effects of birth order on social attitudes do not classify laterborns into their own subgroups. Rather, these studies analyze the attitudes of laterborns as a whole in relation to their firstborn siblings. Thus, the data on the social attitudes of laterborn children is comprised of middle children and younger children.

Based on a series of logistic regression coefficients, Sulloway presents how historical data shows a "propensity to rebel" among laterborn historical figures (1996: 456-457).

Of all the social reform movements presented in Sulloway's study, for example, the most disproportionate number of laterborns is found in the abolitionist movement (1996: 152). He further points out that of the 28 scientific revolutions that occurred in the 16th century, 23 were led by later-born children.

Because laterborns historically did not inherit their family's property, Sulloway contends that laterborns had more freedom to travel and have a broader range of experiences. As a result, laterborns are exposed to more ideas, encouraging them towards liberalism (Sulloway 1996: 136).

Primogeniture no longer exists today, and many inheritance practices that were biased towards the firstborns have given way to practices that divide property equally among all siblings (Hrdy and Judge 1993: 22).

Researchers like Lala Steelman and Brian Powell assert that laterborns now benefit more, financially speaking, from their later birth. Because they are more likely to be born at a time when their families are more economically secure, laterborn children often have an advantage when it comes to parental economic investments (Steelman and Powell 1991).

These factors, contend researchers like Sulloway and Adler, contribute to greater freedom from responsibility on the part of laterborn children. As such, they are more likely to question authority and to harbor beliefs that challenge the status quo.

Summary

It should be noted that the social and attitudinal effects of birth order are not genetic. Rather, they are a result of different roles, and different parental and social expectations regarding their birth order. It should be further noted, as seen in the case of primogeniture, that these effects vary over historical periods.

Because they are often socialized with adults, firstborn children are theorized to be more achievement-oriented. In contrast, laterborns are peer-socialized and thus are often seen as more popular. This peer-socialization also contributes to a greater acceptance of risk and a greater desire to be independent of authority (Carlson & Kangun, 1988: 57-59).

Effects of Birth Order on Criminal Behavior

If the thesis regarding birth order and social attitudes hold true for criminal studies, then juvenile crime statistics should reveal a greater number of laterborns indulging in delinquent behavior. After all, according to the prevailing theory, laterborns are more likely to flout authority while firstborn children are more likely to obey authority figures and to uphold the status quo.

Studies regarding birth order and crime, however, are conflicting at best. While some researchers have found links between criminal behavior and birth order, other studies are unable to replicate these results.

In an early study of delinquency among young women, for example, Jill Leslie Rosenbaum examined family background characteristics of 159 female juvenile delinquents who were committed to the California Youth Authority in the early 1960s. Rosenbaum found that 32% of those female delinquents were oldest children (1989: 36-37). While not a majority, this figure represents a substantial portion of the juvenile offenders and belies the hypothesis that laterborns are more likely to commit delinquent acts.

Other studies further challenge the conclusion regarding laterborn status and a propensity for delinquent behavior. A study alcohol and drug substance abuse among teens and college students, for example, reveals that having an older brother makes a student far less likely to abuse alcohol or to use illegal drugs (Tibbetts and Whittimore 2002: 324-325).

In both studies, however, birth order was only one of the factors used to study delinquent behavior. In the Rosenbaum study, the lack of a stable family and a stable mother figure emerged as the most important determinant of female juvenile delinquency, as only seven percent of the young women in the study came from intact families (Rosenbaum 1989: 32).

Likewise, the substance abuse study shows that in addition to having an older brother, being employed for at least 30 hours a week, having a high grade point average and being religious were all contributory factors for students who did not engage in substance abuse (Tibbetts and Whittimore 2002: 325).

In the book Roots of Delinquency, Michael Wadsworth culled data relations from the National Survey of Health and Development, a longitudinal analysis of data regarding children born during a week in March 1946. Like the Rosenbaum and Tibbetts and Whittimore studies, Wadsworth's findings contradict the expected relationship between birth order and delinquent behavior.

Wadsworth found that children who were often rated as poor or lazy by their teachers were also more likely to become delinquent. Of these likely delinquents, Wadworth recognized that many children were more likely to come from a lower social class and a large family, with parents who themselves only had a minimum education. These delinquents were also more likely to be firstborns or from a higher birth order (Wadsworth 1979: 102-105).

Again, this finding contradicts the hypothesis that laterborn children will be more likely to engage in delinquent behavior while older born children will be more respectful of authority.

In their survey of the literature regarding criminal and juvenile recidivism, researchers Elizabeth Oddone Paolucci, Claudio Violato and Mary Ann Schofield found conflicting studies and conclusions regarding the relationship between birth order and recidivist delinquent behavior.

Some studies, note Paolucci et al., find a strong predictive relationship between birth order and criminal recidivism. In a study conducted in 1941, for example, researchers conclude that there is not relationship between the number of siblings and recidivism. However, a later study conducted in 1989 found that researchers found that delinquents were more likely to be younger children from larger families, rather than first born or older children (cited in Paolucci et al. 1998).

Paolucci et al. also found that some evidence indicates that there is a strong relationship between extreme ordinal positions - being firstborn or lastborn - and the likelihood of criminal behavior. This study, however, was conducted in 1944 and has yet to be replicated in more recent times (Paolucci et al. 1998).

Several factors could account for the differences in results over the decades. Among of the key factors are the increasing number of two-parent homes and broken families. In the 1940s, for example, mothers generally stayed home and were thus able to keep a closer watch on their children, especially those who were prone to delinquent behavior.

By the late 1980s, however, economic need and the growing number of single mothers mean that more children are left to their own devices as more mothers join the workforce. This makes children more susceptible to the influence of peer groups. It is in line with Wallace's and Adler's findings that making peer socialization a greater influence on the development of laterborn children, rather than familial ties.

Many other studies point to conflicting results regarding the relationship between laterborn children and delinquent behavior. For example, Julye Myner et al. reviewed the profiles and probation files of 138 male juveniles. They found that the best predictors of recidivism were conviction, alcohol abuse, length of the first incarceration, group home placement and finally, birth order (Myner et al. 1998).

However, the Myner study contradicts the expected hypothesis that laterborn children are the rebels while firstborn children respect authority. Instead, Myner et al. found that firstborn male delinquents were more likely to commit crimes again than later born juvenile delinquents (Myner et al. 1998).

Despite these contradicting studies, Sulloway still finds support for his thesis. For example, Richard L. Zweigenhaft and Jessica von Ammon studied a group of college students who had been jailed for participating in civil disobedience action related to a labor dispute at a local KMart.

Though not delinquency per se, these actions resulted in jail time for more than 150 students who participated in rallies. Zweigenhalt and von Ammon found that the majority of the students who were arrested during the protests were indeed later-borns. This study was more significant because the researchers controled for possible intervening variables such as education and socio-economic status (Zweigenhaft and von Ammon).

One of the most comprehensive studies regarding the relationship between youthful criminal behavior and birth order was conducted by Alan Kazdin in his book Conduct Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence. For Kazdin, birth order significantly affects a host of "conduct disorders," including criminal behavior. Specifically, Kazdin finds that juveniles with older siblings are more susceptible to delinquent behavior (Kazdin 1995: 50-74).

In summary, the research seeking correlations between juvenile delinquency and birth order show conflicting results. Some studies, such as the early 1941 study, found no relationship between birth order on one hand and delinquency and recidivism on the other.

Others present opposite results. In line with the Sulloway thesis, for example, the studies done by Kazdin and Zweigenhaft and von Ammon show that laterborns tend to challenge authority more, either through criminal behavior or through civil disobedience and protest activities. On the surface, this seems to prove that birth order does have effects on social behavior, that firstborns behave more conservatively while laterborns are born to rebel.

However, other studies challenge these results. For example, while the Myner study did find a strong correlation between birth order and criminal behavior, this study found the opposite results. Firstborn children were more likely to commit juvenile crimes. Similarly, Wadsworth observed that delinquents were also more likely to be firstborns or to at least come from a higher birth status.

At the very least, these conflicting results highlight the need for more research on the social and behavioral effects of birth order. There is also a need for a more interrelated approach, one that locates birth order in the larger context of familial relations. After all, birth order by itself does not give rise to different behavior. Rather, it is the different roles and responsibilities assigned to birth order that results in various socialized behavior relating to criminality.

Critique of Birth Order theory

Much of the attention that has been focused on the effects of birth order on a host of social behaviors - including criminality - stems from the popularity of Sulloway's book Born to Rebel.

It is thus necessary to examine the quantitative methods Sulloway used to arrive at these conclusions.

Sulloway draws heavily on historical research, using biographies and ratings from 94 historical experts on thousands of figures in history. It is through data such as this that Sulloway teases out data on whether, for example, eminent figures in history converted to Protestantism or remained Catholic during the Reformation.

He further posits that firstborns tend to be more punitive. As proof, Sulloway notes that during the French Revolution, more deputies of the National Convention who were firstborn voted to have Louis XVI executed, while many laterborns voted to spare the King's life.

As such, Sulloway provides interesting quantitative evidence that birth order is a crucial, but overlooked, source of social division. He also shows that historically, birth order has played an important role in shaping the ideological ideas of people who participated in some of history's milestones.

However, problems arise when Sulloway contends that based on his data, birth order alone is enough to challenge sociological analyses of revolutions and social movements, such as Marxist studies of the French Revolution (Sulloway 1996: 309-315). This leads Sulloway to make the spurious claim that sociologists have overstated the effects of social structural variables like class, at the expense of family environment variables like birth order. In fact, Sulloway explicitly states that birth order is often a better predictor of social attitudes than gender, race or class.

Sulloway's findings, however, are based on quantitative analysis of historical figures, most of whom were upper-class white men. This fact alone casts doubt on his claims to the generality of the birth order effect.

Another problem lies with the historical approach itself. The social construction of birth order does not occur in a vacuum, and Sulloway's birth relations were defined in a different time. Women, for example, did not exert as much influence in the family as their brothers. Furthermore, primogeniture was in effect. The more egalitarian social norms of today have given rise to very different familial relations, even among brothers and sisters, as well as among firstborns and laterborns.

Therefore, while it may be valid for Sulloway to posit a relationship between firstborns and conservatism in a historical context, applying this general finding in a wider context becomes problematic.

This is easily seen in the example of the conflicting research of the relation between birth order with juvenile crime and recidivism. One main reason for the conflicting results is the different historical periods covered by the research. Research that mirrors Sulloway's sample - white males in a historical context - tend to support Sulloway's thesis.