Reader comments
BYU study finds first-borns have big edge in attention

I'm a first born, and I'm the least rich, educated, or anything else of any of the five of us born to my parents. That's because I was working and sacrificing and going without from the time I was seven to make things possible for my younger siblings.

Have parenting and family relations really changed that much in such a short time?

...and this takes a PhD and research dollars to figure out? What's next...studies that show that being nice is good.

Okay. Talk about discovering something completely obvious. Anybody who's had nieces and nephews or brothers and sisters could have told you what this BYU scholar only recently discovered when it hit him straight between the eyebrows that the firstborn gets the most attention. I guess we are living in the Beehive state. As the band "The Hives" would say...G-E-N-I-O-U-S.

First borns get it from grandparents too.

My 12 year old daughter is the oldest grandchild on both sides of the family...and the only grandchild for about 5 years. Everything she did was gushed over. She did all the cute baby stuff first, so they're not QUITE as enraptured with it from the other grandkids do because they already watched mine do it. Now mine is old enough to discuss books, politics and church, she's still a novelty.

Also, my parents were in their early 50's when mine was born and had lots energy to keep up with her. Now they're in their mid-60's, developing some health problems, and don't have the energy to keep up with the really little kids. They enjoy a quiet conversation or game of Monopoly with mine over a big, messy art project or game of Cootie with a 2 year old.

They definitely, absolutely love and dote on the younger grandchildren, but at Christmas I really noticed a difference in how they would slightly gravitate towards mine over my brother's significantly younger children.

Makes sense, since that first born is on this earth and in the family longer than anyone born later. For a time he doesn't have to share parental time with anyone else, so, he automatically accumulates more attention time by default.

I think the study is great. Sometimes things that seem obvious are not true. Like that recent study with diabetes.

Sweet! The guy finds way to be paid spending time with his kidds. or not!
And since he can't come to other conclusions can reapply for further grant money and have the tax payers pay for his kiddee watching observations.

My oldest did get the most attention, but also has the most responsibilities to help. Unlike "Whatever 12:57", I don't expect he will be poorer than his siblings. If anything his responsibilities will teach him responsibility and he will be better off for it. Sounds to me like your parents may have given you more than you could handle and in ways that wasn't helpful to you.

The study also found that first-born children are also better looking, more charismatic, and funnier.

We had 10 children and they got smarter and made more money down the line. They learned from each other as well as us. There is a definite advantage in being the last born. They gain confidence as they observe others up the line. They were better athletes as well. The study is flawed unless they only count families with 2 children.

This researcher failed to mention quality time with siblings. As the youngest of six, I know I could always count on someone bigger to help me with homework or answer my questions in a way I could understand.

My parents were often busy with all of life's demands, but my siblings certainly put in a LOT of time nurturing me and helping me understand how the world works.

Had anyone researched the benefits of having sibs?

Don`t ever "wonder" why professors are called "egg-heads"!
Sometimes the printed media just makes one want to quit reading...........

I am the fifth of seven. It was a male/female thing in my family. My brothers (both older and younger than me) were sent to 4-year colleges while I was sent to secretarial school. My brothers were given cars in trade for attending local colleges; I bought my own car even though the 18-month secretarial school I attended was local. The list goes on and on.

I just got my doctorate from SLCC and have recently conducted a large-scale analysis of multiple child families. All of my findings show that the first-born children are all older than their siblings. I also found that children who grow up without a television in the home know less about tv than kids who do grow up with one.
I will be applying for another tax-funded grant (this one actually does come out of Utahns pockets unlike RSL stadium) for my next study. I would like to dig deep to find out whether or not there are more skyscrapers in Utah than NYC or Chicago.

Did we really need a study to tell us that the more kids you have, the less time you have to spend with each of them?

Shocking that he is a first born. It sounds like really bad science to me.

Sounds like you need Dr. Phil. I don't think the bloggers are going to be able to shed much light on the martyrs here.

There's four of us. I'm number two in the pecking order. The oldest, my brother, is 52 and makes $9.00/hr. at Dillards. I'm 50 and make $40.00/hr. at my job.

I'm not sure if it can be true. I am the oldest of 7, my youngest sibling (turning 30 today) got a lot of attention while growing up not just from mom and dad but also from my sister and 4 other brothers. He had all of mom's attention for the first 5 years of his life because there is a 13 year gap between him and child born before him. I was living on my own and had a child (1 years old) when baby brother came along. My second born brother is smarter and makes more money then any of us. He is the third child. I on the other hand did go to college and graduated with honors - none of my siblings even went.

They may have done a good study and collected some interesting observations but they stopped doing science when they jumped to the conclusion that the reason is "its simply a result of parents becoming lazy." No facts cited support laziness. I personnally think it is much more complex than that. I think that the typical first born plays a very active role in dominating the time and energy of parents at the expense of the siblings. Laziness might explain with the professors didn't explore that possibility more.