Deseret News | Reader comments: BYU study finds first-borns have big edge in attention

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

Page:
1
2
Next >

Whatever | 12:57 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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?

Post Hole Digger | 1:02 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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

Sigmund Fraud | 1:28 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Comments continue below

Barbara | 4:15 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Grandma Anne | 4:11 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Richard | 5:44 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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

Grant Money | 6:19 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Re Whatever 12:57 | 6:16 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Humbled by the findings | 6:38 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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

Colleen | 6:52 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

But what about sibling time? | 6:51 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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?

pat@logiudice.com | 6:59 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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

Hepzibuh | 7:31 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

New Study! | 7:43 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Jilly | 7:43 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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?

David | 7:52 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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

Re: Hepzibuh | 8:05 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Marie | 8:23 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Some truth? | 8:27 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Matthew | 8:50 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

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.

Heather | 9:06 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

"More bad news for younger siblings"? I'm number 5 of 11 and I had plenty of parent alone time, thanks. This article assumes that kids are being raised in separate jars with holes punched out of the top, and the parent-scientists spend a set amount of time with each one. 'Tain't so. My siblings' involvement in my life has been just as valuable to me as my parents' time, & I'm a little annoyed that this study puts a negative spin on that relationship. Kids don't live in jars!

Rachsticle | 9:12 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

I am the oldest, smartest, prettiest, richest, and most educated of four. My parents also love me the most. This study undoubtedly confirms it.

Mike | 9:20 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Duh. As a second born I was usually religated to the backround although I belief that it was not intentional.

Anonymous | 9:47 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

i think that is partly true im the second younges of four and my other sisters got all the attiention

Debbie | 9:54 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Great!! I will forward this to our older daughter who moans that she is the "child of our poverty" and the other 2 got more because we were out of school and could afford more. Actually it is more a family joke than she really feels this way. While my oldest had 3 years of our undivided attention before the next came along, our youngest has now had 4 years home alone with us and enjoying the perks of parents who don't want to leave her out she she goes to all the fun stuff with us. Pity the middle child and only boy!!

Hepzibuh | 9:58 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Also, in my family, we were born in the mid-40's, through the 50's, and ending in 1964. Back then, children were supposed to entertain themselves. I don't remember my parents spending much time with any of us. That's what friends were for.

I had two children just so I could spend lots of time with each. The second one was equal to about four kids so I'm glad I made that choice.

mel | 9:59 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

This study is not new - I heard these same results back in the 70's when I was in Elementary Education. They are refering to a typical family and of course there are going to be a-typical families as well. I would imagine that in some cases the differences are even more extreem in this time (where more mothers have to work).

Nicole | 10:02 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

I have four children who are close in age. When my second was born, I was anxious to give her the same quality and quantity of attention her older sister had received. It was difficult for me to accept, but what I found was that my #2 didn't want all of that. Much of the time, she would rather play with her sister than with me. I think the oldest child gets so much parental time because that is the only choice. Once there are other kids around, they often prefer each others company. I noticed, too, that many of the things I spend hours teaching to my oldest, she taught to her little sister.

Krista | 10:02 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

They could have saved a lot of time and money. All they need to do is look family baby pictures. The firstborn is new, exciting and everything they do is precious. By the youngest, parents really don't care. The youngest is accused of being spoiled, but it's mostly due to neglect in parenting.

Scholar | 10:36 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

I don't think it is fair for everyone to jump to argue the merits of this research. What many "unacademics" do not understand is that in order to get the interesting stuff funded, you first have to prove the obvious stuff. Something may seem obvious to you, but how do you prove that it is true? You have to do a study and come up with concrete repeatable results. Then you can start to analyze the more interesting ideas, such as the "why is this the case" question.

Flaw | 10:40 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

2nd borns and so on have more quality time with older brothers and sisters than 1st borns...and depending on your family, that may be better than one on one time with your parents.

Mary | 10:39 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

I wouldn't want to be my oldest sibling..she's 61 years old, unemployed (and unemployable), never got her driver's license, never married, no children and, except for a brief period, always lived with our parents.

And, no, she doesn't have a disability. She's a college graduate!

But she did make a great example for us younger siblings and our children. My young adult son was welcome to stay in our home as long as he was in school and employed, but he moved out because he "didn't want to end up like Aunt So-and-so."

Quality research going on at BYU | 10:49 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Wow! I hope too much valuable grant money was not used up in that study, Professor. Those conclusions are right up there with saying, "Study concludes that first born children are older than their siblings." I hope you are not using this study as justification for gaining tenure anytime soon.

Nell mom of 10 | 11:10 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Will they ever get studies right? When the first 5 children come in rapid succession and Dad is going to school or starting out in the world, no one gets the majority of time, especially the oldest child who is 6.

A mom can still take time to read to the youngest 5 and play with them. The younger ones have the advantage of having mentors and examples. Experience says that the oldest doesn't even have to be a good example as the younger ones can see the failures of wrong choices in the older ones.

Come on. Use better criteria than making the most money. There are many other things to consider. For instance, all my children played the piano but it took until #10 to do it really well. Middle children frequently are the well adjusted ones. Younger ones may be the best athletes or students or etc. And then there are personalities to consider.

The amount of money one has made in life has no Eternal Significance. Contributions to the world do.

mel | 11:15 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

To Krista,
I don't think, in most cases, it is due to "neglect". I think needs are compounded with each child and parents can become overwhelmed before the know it. Also there is naturally more excitement with a first child because the first time parents haven't done it before so everything is new. There are pros and cons to big families - it's not for everyone, but I have seen some pull it off and the children are well adjusted.

Anonymous | 11:31 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

If that is the case will we start seeing the church advocate for smaller family sizes? or is it QUANTITY over QUALITY?

Anonymous | 11:34 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Collen- if your kids got "smarter on down the line" why did you stop at 10?? The world needs more people like you to flood it with your intelligent children.

Ernest T. Bass | 11:41 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

No wonder why they aren't considered a research institution. My 2nd and 3rd kids could have told you that #1 gets more attention.
I was the youngest of 8.....which probably explains a lot.

Competition | 12:11 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

I'm the 3rd child. After a remarriage from my dad dying, I'm the 8th child. I'm 27 and making a 6-figure salary, happily married with 2-kids. You wanna know what that means? Absolutely nothing. I love how people are trying to disprove this study with their own situations. Other studies show that women live longer than men do. But guess what? That doesn't happen 100% of the time either.

Instead of trying to disprove this study because our situation might be slightly different; maybe we should be asking a better question. "What can I learn from this?" "How can I apply this to my life?" For starters, maybe I should spend less time in front of the tv watching the Biggest Loser or Dr. Phil, and spend some good quality time with each of my children on an individual basis. Because I don't want any of my children at a disadvantage. There are studies regarding education (pre-school), athletics, religion, politics, socio-economic status, parents age, and a plethora of other studies that are available to HELP US understand problem areas. And if we use the findings to our benefit, we'll all be better off.
But I'm still better than my siblings.

RE: Nell mom of 10 | 12:31 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

So... maybe BYU would get more credibility across the U.S. (you know outside of the bubble we call Utah) if they measure the Eternal success of children by birth order. I can see it now, "Study shows that the 3rd child typically is more righteous according to Mormon standards than the older siblings." "Younger siblings spend less time in the bishops office than do the older ones."
Unfortunately, money is probably the best indicator of success. Most people who contribute to society are getting paid to do so. Not all contributions are that way, but most. There are also studies out there that measure the level of happiness. But overall success is probably best measured by money.

mel | 12:37 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Actually studies show that the middle children have the most problems as they age because they have fallen through the cracks.

Tom | 1:23 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Studies similar to this have been done ad nauseum. Also countless research also shows that only-children are the most successful.

Anonymous | 1:27 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Does BYU do research on anything other than the family?

Useful Findings | 2:01 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

As a mother of young children, I found this article to be quite helpful. Obviously I knew that my oldest received the extra attention before she had siblings. By measuring only children ages 4 and up, Dr. Price removes that piece of the puzzle (for the most part). I did not realize that there is a tendency for my oldest to continue to get more of my attention when compared to her siblings at the same ages. This makes me want to be more intentional about how I spread my attention to my children. I too would be interested in knowing how quality older sibling time plays into the scenerio. Thank you for publishing this interesting article.

Running Ute | 2:04 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

I guess BYU always has it all figured out when the U of U already knows the obvious and does not even need to bring up such controversy.
The youngest gets most of the attention. Not just from parents but from siblings also. The baby of the family is the spoiled one. I don't need a Ph.D to figure that out. It is just common sense and everybody else already knows about it. BYU studies are a waste of time. The Scriptures and the gospel are my beliefs and I lucky for me I can live them and keep the philosophies of men at BYU to stay out of my life.

Anonymous | 3:13 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Uh-Oh!
I think Running Ute must be a first born. :>

RICHARD DUMAAS | 3:30 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

No wander Y I is so darn dum.

MONET: youngest of 7 | 3:35 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

My husband and I are BOTH the youngest of seven.
We were raised in middle class, LDS families.
We are both college graduates and worked HARD to get where we are now. My hubby is a successful Dr.

When we tell people about our birth order, we get comments like: "oh, that must be hard..." Implying that we are naturally lazy, incompetent, and spoiled.

My siblings argue that I was spoiled. I see if differently: they took all of the energy out of my parents and left none for me. I was lucky to get the basics and stay out of major trouble.

There are advantages and disadvantages to EVERY birth order. I am starting to realize that with my two kids.

Thanks for doing this study - I can't wait to forward it to my siblings (and my hubby's)! It verifies what I have KNOWN for years - my siblings just couldn't see it.

Older & Wiser | 4:08 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

The oldest child does get more attention there's no doubt about that, but it's not always the best kind of attention. More is expected of the eldest child. Being the oldest means more responsibilities--from helping with care giving for the younger children to doing more chores in the home. My experience has been that the younger children have more fun, more play and leisure time and less emotional problems. With less responsibility comes a certain kind of selfishness too that "sometimes" carries over into adulthood for the younger children.

Fascinating | 5:03 p.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Not! I think the Smothers' Brothers had a deal where Dick always claimed that momma loved Tommy more. That's at least gig is at least 30 years old.

So, does this help explain any of my psychopathologies as a non-firstborn?

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.