"An
interstellar adventure story worthy of Golden Age masters like Isaac
Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein. " -
Dave Duncan, author
of the Seventh Sword series, the
King's Blades
series and
Children of Chaos
Web
edwardwillett.com
LIBRARY
NAVIGATION
SYSTEM:
Click on a CD to
access data
Interested in receiving my science column every week by e-mail?
You've got it! Just enter your e-mail address below.
And the First Shall
Be...Smarter?
Copyright 2007 by Edward Willett
A few years ago I wrote about the effect of
birth order on personality, a topic of
particular interest to me as the youngest of three boys.
At the time I noted that birth order has been studied since early last
century, when psychologist Alfred Adler suggested that an only child may
become over-protected and spoiled; a second child is often very
competitive, wanting to overtake the first child; a middle child may
feel insignificant and react by either being even-tempered or a fighter
against injustice; and a youngest child always wants to be bigger than
the others, may come up with huge plans that seldom work out, and may
well be spoiled.
More recent studies (I wrote) have found that only children and
first-born children tend to have more cognitive and analytical
interests, while later-born children tend to be more artistic and
outdoor-oriented; that first-borns tend to be more highly motivated to
achieve than later children; and that lastborns are slower at accepting
responsible roles, probably because they've never experienced being
older and more capable than someone else in their family.
I can live with all of that. But the latest study into birth order I
have a hard time with: it says that firstborn children score
significantly higher in IQ tests than their younger siblings.
Petter Kristensen of the University of Oslo in Norway and colleagues
reviewed data collected from 250,000 young men, aged 18 to 19, who took
IQ tests as part of their conscription into mandatory military service.
The researchers cross-referenced that data with the Norwegian birth
registry to find out whether the men had older or younger siblings, and
whether their siblings died shortly after birth or at a relatively early
age.
Their analysis showed that firstborn men (at least firstborn Norwegian
men) have an IQ about 2.3 points higher than second born--and that the
trend continues, so that second-born men have higher IQs than
third-born, and so on.
Researchers in the U.S. say that a difference of 2.3 IQ points could
translated into a difference of 30 points on an SAT score--which may not
sound like much, since the top possible SAT score is 1600, but could be
enough to determine whether someone gets into a top-ranked university.
The Norwegian researchers also studied about 600 families with at least
four children, and found that the eldest sibling typically had an IQ 2.9
points higher than the fourth-born.
Another way of looking at the data, the researchers say, is that the
eldest child in a family has a 13-percent higher chance of having
above-average intelligence than the second-born.
They checked to see if the men they were studying had elder siblings who
died at a young age because they wanted to be able to determine if it
was actual birth order or social birth order that mattered. They found
that second-born men whose elder sibling died at a young age, making
them socially first-borns, scored, on average, 2.3 points higher on IQ
tests than other second-borns whose elder siblings survived.
Having collected this data, of course, the researchers needed to account
for it. They came up with a couple of hypotheses. One is that older
siblings might have a higher IQ because they have to act as surrogate
parents (a.k.a. "they get stuck babysitting their kid
brothers/sisters"), tutoring their siblings in various ways.
Another possibility is that parents have more time and resources to
invest in their firstborn (which explains why my oldest brother's baby
book has a lot more stuff in it than mine does, I suspect--not that I'm
bitter). Among other things, the firstborn may spend more one-on-one
time with his or her parents, being exposed to a more sophisticated
vocabulary.
Scientists suggest that parents might be able to boost their later
children's IQs by striving to spend more individual time with them.
At this point, I would normally try to sum up my science column with a
pithy observation of my own, but frankly, it's all so complicated I'm
not sure I understand any of what I just wrote.
I guess I'd better get my big brothers to explain it to me.
These weekly columns on science appear
in the Regina
(Saskatchewan) Leader Post and Red Deer (Alberta) Advocate. They are
available for one-time publication or regular syndication to any
interested newspapers, magazines or on-line publications.
E-mail me for details.