Beliefs About Birth Rank and Their Reflection in RealityNicholas C. Herrera and R. B. ZajoncStanford UniversityGrazyna Wieczorkowska and Bogdan CichomskiUniversity of WarsawBeliefs about birth rank reflect what the society regards as social reality, and they may also influence thatreality. Three studies found that people believe those with different birth ranks differ in their personal-ities, thathigherbirthranksarelikelytoattainhigheroccupationalprestige, andthatthepersonalitycharacteristicsattributedtothevariousbirthranksfavortheactualattainmentofhigheroccupationalprestige. Inoneexampleofsuchbeliefs, firstbornswereratedasmost intelligent but least creativewhereas the opposite was true of last-borns. The 4th study found that those with higher birth ranks in factattain more prestigious occupations and actually do complete more years of schooling.If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and theyhave borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if thefirst-born is hers that is disliked, then on the day when he assigns hispossessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son ofthe loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, whois the first-born, but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of thedisliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is thefirst issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.Deuteronomy 21.1517 (Revised Standard Version)In most societies, laws of inheritance, customs of intestacy, andpractices of succession favor the male firstborn child. Such cus-toms and laws reflect cultural beliefs that firstborns, only children,and later-borns differ from each other in some fundamental ways.A recent study by McAndrew, King, and Honoroff (2002) foundthat namesakingthat is, bestowingtheparentsnameontotheoffspring, especially the male offspringvaries systematicallywithbirthorder. McAndrewet al. describednamesakingasastrategyfor procuringfutureinvestment of resources fromthefather(p. 851). McAndrewet al. foundthat amongtheunder-graduates at a liberal arts college, 60.3% of male firstborns werenamesaked, whereas only 37.5% of male later-borns were name-saked. Second-borns showed an intermediate pattern50.0%. Ba-linesechildrenaregivennames accordingtotheir birthorder:Wayan for the firstborn, Made for the second-born, Nyoman for thethird, and Ktut for the fourth (Lansing, 1995).Although studies on birth order number in the thousands(Ernst &Angst, 1983), research that has explored peoplesbeliefs about attributes relatedtobirthorder is scarce(Bas-kett, 1985;Musun-Miller, 1993;Nyman, 1995). Yetthesebe-liefs are significant because they both reflect some reality aboutthe correlates of birth order and may well influence the actualroleofbirthorderinsociety. Important decisionsininterper-sonal interaction, mating, appointments, promotions, awards,anddistinctionsmight well bemadewithbirthrankentering,often unconsciously, as an important consideration. It has beendemonstrated in research on self-fulfilling prophecies(Rosenthal &Jacobson, 1968) and behavioral confirmation(Snyder, 1984) that peoples beliefs doinfluencetheir judg-ments of others andtheir actual behavior towardthem. Thisarticle seeks to examine some significant beliefs about thecorrelatesofbirthorderandtheircorrespondencewithactualempirical differencesthat thesebeliefsandstereotypesmightreflect.The birth order literature is characterized by conflict and ambi-guity. For example, Sulloway(1996) andZajonc (1983) havereported systematic and significant effects, whereas other authorsclaim that there are simply no effects of birth order on personality(Ernst & Angst, 1983; Schooler, 1972). In a recent review, Sullo-way offered novel hypotheses about birth rank differences. Usingthe Big Five personality dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1985), heclaimed that firstborns are more achievement oriented, antagonis-tic, anxious, assertive, conforming, extraverted, fearful, identifiedwithparents, jealous, neurotic, organized, planful, responsible,self-confident, andtraditional. Moreover, theytendtoaffiliateunder stress and are more likely than later-borns to assume lead-ershippositions. Later-borns are, accordingtoSulloway, moreadventurous, altruistic, cooperative, easygoing, empathetic, opento experience, popular, rebellious, risk-taking, sociable, andunconventional.Itisinterestingtonotethatintheirreviews, ErnstandAngst(1983) and Sulloway (1996) arrived at opposite conclusions fromthe same birth order research. Sulloway concluded that the liter-ature . . . exhibits consistent trends (p. 74), whereas Ernst andAngst concluded that birth order influences . . . have beenwidely overrated (p. 242). In contrast, Harris (1998), who ques-tionedtheroleofparental influenceinpersonalitydevelopmentNicholas C. Herrera andR. B. Zajonc, Department of Psychology,StanfordUniversity; Grazyna Wieczorkowska andBogdanCichomski,Department of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.Nicholas C. Herrera is now at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.Thepresent studiesweresupportedbyNational ScienceFoundationGrant SBR-9726886 to R. B. Zajonc. We thank Hazel Markus and PhilipZimbardofortheirsuggestions. WealsothankGretaKlevgardandthestudents and teachers of ElevaStrum Central High School for their helpwith Study 2.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoR. B.Zajonc, Department ofPsychology, StanfordUniversity, Stanford, Cali-fornia 94305-2130. E-mail: zajonc@psych.stanford.eduJournal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.2003, Vol. 85, No. 1, 142150 0022-3514/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.142142altogether,1stated that popular stereotypes about birth rankdifferences do exist and that they reflect empirical consistencies.She pointed out that Sulloways description of the youngerbrother (p. 374) as well as the results of studies reviewed by ErnstandAngst inwhichparentswereaskedtodescribetheirchil-drens personalities or children were asked to describe their sib-lings (p. 375) agree with popular stereotypes. According to Har-ris, people believe that firstborns are serious, sensitive,responsible, worried, and adult-oriented (p. 375), and later-bornsare independent, cheerful, andrebellious (p. 375). She alsofoundthat second-bornsviewtheir elder siblingsasbossyandaggressive (p. 375).Ernst and Angst (1983) reported that based partially on spec-ulation or clinical and personal uncontrolled experience and par-tiallyonresearch(p. 85), peoplebelievefirstbornstobeadultoriented, affiliative, conservative, creative, dependent, fearful, in-trospective, uncertain, vulnerable, and interested in abstractthought; that they tend to express anger indirectly; and that theyarelikelytobecomeleaders, eventhoughtheyhavelowself-esteem. Later-borns accordingtothese authors, are ambitious,empathizing, extraverted, harmonious, leisurely, peer oriented,popular, inclinedtonewideas, interestedinpractical problems,andreadytocooperate; unlikefirstborns, theytendtoexpressanger directly. Ernst and Angst derived these traits, primarily, fromAdlers theory of sibling rivalry (Adler, 1927, 1928).Incontrast tothereadyconjectures about actual personalitydifferences associated with birth rank, studies of peoples beliefsabout birth rank differences in personality can be counted on thefingers of one hand, and studies about the psychological origins ofthese differences are, except for the original work of Alfred Adler(1927), virtuallynonexistent. Yet it is of notrivial interest todetermine the extent to which beliefs about birth order and actualdifferences due to birth order are correlated with each other, for itis a safe guess that some of the actual differences obtained for birthordercanbe,atleastinpart,attributedtothesocialbeliefsandstereotypes about it and about their consequences. In an early studyof peoples beliefs, Baskett (1985) had 278 participants completethree50-item, 7-point adjectivechecklists. Thechecklistsaskedthem to describe what they would expect a child without brothersor sisters, a child who was the oldest in his or her family, and achildwhowastheyoungestinhisorherfamilytobelike(p.442). The lists included the following items: academic, adjusted,adventurous, agreeable, altruistic, cooperative, creative, doesntseek attention, dominant, easily disciplined, extroverted, flexible,good peer relations, happy, hard working, helping, high achiever,independent, intelligent, leader, likeable, neat, not demanding, notjealous, not prone to anger, not self-centered, not spoiled, obedi-ent, organized, outgoing, outspoken, popular, relaxed, responsi-ble, secure, self-confident, self-critical, sociable, socially skilled,and tough. A factor analysis performed on the ratings yielded eightfactors: academic, likeable, not jealous, obedient, outgoing, secure,relaxed, and unspoiled. Post hoc comparisons indicated that par-ticipants believed that (a) firstborns are the most obedient, outgo-ing, and secure and the least spoiled; (b) only children are the mostacademic and spoiled and the least likeable; and (c) last-borns arethe most likeable but the least academic, obedient, outgoing, andsecure. Amongotherfindings, Baskettreportedthatparticipantsdescribed firstborns in more positive terms than only children orlater-borns and that there was some bias toward ones own siblingstatus group (p. 443).Twoother studies havereplicatedmost of Basketts (1985)findings. Usingthesamecheckliststhat wereusedbyBaskett,Musun-Miller (1993)2had 105 parents describe what they wouldexpect a hypothetical only, oldest, and youngest child to be like. . . [and] todescribe their ownchildren (p. 191). Afactoranalysis performed on the ratings yielded five factors: academic,likeable, obedient, outgoing, and unspoiled. Post hoc comparisonsindicated that participants believed that (a) firstborns are the mostobedient and outgoing and the least spoiled; (b) only children arethemost academicandspoiledandtheleast likeable; and(c)last-borns are the most likeable and the least academic, obedient,and outgoing.3Among other findings, Musun-Miller also reportedthat parents gave more positive ratings to firstborns.In a more recent study, Nyman (1995) had 139 participants listthreewordsthatdescribedthecharacteristicsofeachbirthposi-tion(p. 53). Nymanfoundthat participantsdescribed(a)first-borns as achievers, aggressive, ambitious, caring, dominant, inde-pendent, leaders, maternal, nurturing, responsible, and thoughtful;(b) only children as independent, self-centered, selfish, andspoiled; (c) middle-borns as achievers, ambitious, caring, friendly,outgoing, and thoughtful; and (d) last-borns as caring, dependent,friendly, outgoing, passive, spoiled, andthoughtful. Inaddition,Nyman reported that firstborns received the most favorable ratingsandthat participantsrankedtheir ownbirthpositioninaccor-dance with the ways others viewed that position (p. 56).The present studies sought to extend the previous research onpeoples beliefs and stereotypes about birth rank, but more impor-tant, to explore the empirical reality of birth order differences andtheir reflection in peoples beliefs. In Study 1, as an extension ofthestudiesbyBaskett(1985)andMusun-Miller(1993), partici-pantswereaskedabout thepersonalitytraitsoffirstborns, onlychildren, middle-borns, and last-borns. In Studies 2 and 3, peoplewere asked about their beliefs about the kinds of occupations thatwouldlikelybeheldbyfirstborns, onlychildren, middle-borns,and last-borns. Given that different personality patterns predisposepeopletoseekandbedirectedintodifferent careers, Study4examined just what sorts of occupations people of different birthrankdoinfact holdandwhat wasthelevel of their academicattainment.Study 1: Personality Attributions to Birth RankThisstudyexaminedbeliefsaboutpersonalityandabilitydif-ferences in birth order. It differed from previous studies in a fewimportantways. First, theparticipantsinMusun-Millers(1993)study and almost half of the participants in Basketts (1985) studywere parents, and most of the participants in Nymans (1995) study1Interestingly, Harris(1998) statedthat firstbornsbehavelikefirst-borns, and laterborns like laterborns, only when theyre in the presence oftheirparentsortheirsiblings . . . .Birthordereffectsonpersonalitydoexist: they exist in the home. People leave them behind when they leavehome (p. 375).2Formerly L. M. Baskett.3Note that these findings are the same as those of Baskett (1985), withthe exception of the findings that participants believed that firstborns arethe most secure and last-borns are the least secure.143BELIEFS ABOUT BIRTH RANKwereeitherAfricanAmericanorHispaniccollegestudents. Theparticipantsinthepresentstudywere, forthemostpart, young,childless, unmarried, and more representative of the ethnic diver-sity of the United States. Second, the effects of ones own birthrank on the participants judgments about the attributes of peopleintheir ownandother rankswereinvestigatedaswell. Third,unlikeintheBaskett or Musun-Miller studies, peoplesbeliefsabout middle-bornswerealsoobtained. Finally, self-attributionswere recorded to examine the possibility of self-serving biases.MethodOnehundredsix(45%)oftheparticipantswerefirstborns,417(7%)wereonlychildren, 41(18%) weremiddle-borns, 68(29%) werelast-borns, and the birth rank of 2 (1%) of the participants is unknown.Thirty-six participants had to be discarded because of missing data, leavinga total of 196.All participants(StanfordUniversityundergraduates) completedfour11-itemquestionnairesthat askedthemtoratefirstborns, onlychildren,middle-borns, last-borns, and yourself on 5-point (2 to 2) scales. Theseratingsweremadewithrespecttothefollowingdimensions:agreeabledisagreeable, boldtimid, creativeuncreative, emotionalunemotional,not enviousenvious, extravertedintroverted, intelligentunintelligent,obedientdisobedient, responsibleirresponsible, stableunstable, andtalkativesilent.Participants responded to each item by circling an answer; for example,answers for the question about the agreeabledisagreeable dimension were2very agreeable, 1moderately agreeable, 0neither, 1moderately disagreeable, and 2 very disagreeable. High scale valueswere always assigned to the positive end of the dimension.ResultsFigure 1 shows the results. The 196 participants rated firstborns,only children, middle-borns, last-borns, and themselves differentlyon the 11 traits, F(40, 7760) 19.57, p .001. They believed that(a) firstborns are the most intelligent, responsible, obedient, stable,the least emotional, and quite clearly the least creative; (b) onlychildren are the most disagreeable; (c) middle-borns are the mostenvious and the least bold and talkative; and (d) last-borns are themost creative, emotional, extraverted, disobedient, irresponsible,and talkative. Also, participants believed that the self exceeded allranks for agreeableness, intelligence, obedience, responsibility,and stability.Itisofinterestthatpersonalityratingsoftheparticipantsdif-fered both from their own birth rank and from the birth rank of thetargets they judged. These data are shown in Table 1, where theparticipants judgments on a 2 to 2 five-point scale are tabulated.The Targets Birth Order Raters Birth Order Trait interactionwas significant, F(120, 7760) 1.60, p .0001. In general, theparticipants gave the most positive ratings to themselves as indi-viduals(seeColumnYinTable1). Also, participantsgavethemost positiveratingstopeopleinthesamerankasthemselves.This last finding can be seen in Table 1 by inspecting the figuresin bold along the diagonal. The following patterns of results arealso evident from Table 1.1. Agreeabledisagreeable. The highest rating was given byfirstborns to themselves as individuals, and they also thought thatfirstbornsarethehighestonthisdimension. Middle-bornsratedthemselves quite high on this dimension and also rated their ownrank the highest. Both only children and last-borns rated their ownrank quite low in agreeableness, but rated themselves, regardlessof their rank, individually quite high.2. Boldtimid. Allranksratedlast-bornsastheboldest, andfirstborns rated themselves second highest on this dimension.Middle-borns were conspicuously low in their rating of their ownrank, and other raters also thought of them as the least bold.3. Creativeuncreative. Onlychildrengavetheir ownrankthehighest rating, but ratedthemselvesbelowonlychildreningeneral. Firstborns believed last-borns to be the most creative, andthe last-borns themselves also believed that their rank was the mostcreative.4. Emotionalunemotional. Firstbornswereviewed, ingen-eral, as the least emotional by other ranks and by firstborn partic-4Note that the proportion of firstborns (i.e., 45%) exceeds the popula-tion norm by more than 15%.Figure1. Personalityattributesassignedtobirthranks. Ratingsweremadeonascalefrom2(very)to0(neither) to 2 (not at all). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.144HERRERA, ZAJONC, WIECZORKOWSKA, AND CICHOMSKIipants as well. In fact, firstborns were attributed the lowest ratingonemotionality. Firstbornsratedlast-borns, andlast-bornsratedtheir own rank, as quite emotional, and participants of other ranksfollowed this rating as well.5. Not enviousenvious. Participants of all ranks, except last-borns, ratedthemselvesindividuallyasleastenvious. Theranksthat were rated as envious were middle-borns and last-borns.6. Extravertedintroverted. Most of theratings for this di-mensionweremoderate, withtheexceptionof last-borns, whowere rated highest on this dimension by all ranks.7. Intelligentunintelligent. All participants rated their intel-ligenceasconsiderablyhigherthanthatofanyofthefourbirthranks. All ranks rated firstborns as the highest in intelligence.8. Obedientdisobedient. As with intelligence, all partici-pants rated themselves individually higher in obedience than theyrated the four ranks. Firstborns thought of firstborns as the highestin obedience, whereas last-borns thought of last-borns as thelowest in obedience. In fact, all ranks gave low scores on obedi-encetolast-borns. Theseratingssupport Sulloways(1996)hy-pothesis that last-borns are seen as rebellious.9. Responsibleirresponsible. Sulloways(1996)rebelhy-pothesis also predicts that last-borns are seen as quite irresponsi-ble. Participants beliefs agreeinthis respect. Last-borns wererated by all ranks as the least responsiblein fact, as irresponsible;firstborns believed that their rank is the highest in responsibility;and participants of all ranks rated themselves individually higheston this dimension.10. Stableunstable. Although all ranks rated themselvesindividually as the highest in stability, last-borns were rated thelowest. This finding was consistent with ratings of themselvesTable 1Attributes Assigned by Various Ranks to the Various Ranks and to SelfRaterTargetRaterTargetFB OC MB LB Y FB OC MB LB YAgreeabledisagreeableFB 0.60 0.46 0.39 0.12 1.14OC 0.24 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.65MB 0.10 0.62 0.85 0.32 1.20LB 0.21 0.56 0.19 0.06 0.99BoldtimidFB 0.65 0.37 0.10 0.75 0.65OC 0.59 0.35 0.24 0.76 0.69MB 0.51 0.54 0.10 0.88 0.46LB 0.53 0.18 0.07 0.49 0.44CreativeuncreativeFB 0.45 0.46 0.56 0.66 0.77OC 0.06 0.82 0.56 0.76 0.65MB 0.18 0.43 0.66 0.73 0.80LB 0.44 0.32 0.43 0.60 0.72EmotionalunemotionalFB 0.25 0.52 0.52 0.63 0.40OC 0.00 0.06 0.18 0.59 0.41MB 0.17 0.88 0.02 0.83 0.24LB 0.14 0.35 0.53 0.57 0.34Not enviousenviousFB 0.14 0.15 0.74 0.41 0.16OC 0.19 0.69 0.76 0.18 0.63MB 0.07 0.02 0.32 0.29 0.20LB 0.24 0.14 0.47 0.18 0.12ExtravertedintrovertedFB 0.27 0.07 0.14 0.77 0.31OC 0.50 0.12 0.29 0.71 0.25MB 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.83 0.20LB 0.26 0.07 0.06 0.54 0.40Note. Ratings were made on scales from 2 to 2, with most positive ratings on the positive end of the scale. Boldface highlights ratings of people in thesame category as the rater. FB firstborn; OC only child; MB middle-born; LB last-born; Y self.StableunstableFB 0.94 0.04 0.02 0.06 1.08OC 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.18 1.06MB 0.54 0.24 0.59 0.15 1.00LB 0.38 0.12 0.03 0.32 0.96TalkativesilentFB 0.51 0.40 0.14 0.85 0.72OC 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.94 0.59MB 0.45 0.50 0.10 1.05 0.55LB 0.43 0.31 0.18 0.63 0.62IntelligentunintelligentFB 1.04 0.64 0.43 0.52 1.49OC 0.82 1.06 0.53 0.47 1.59MB 0.93 0.59 0.83 0.63 1.41LB 0.68 0.54 0.43 0.66 1.37ObedientdisobedientFB 0.98 0.04 0.09 0.71 1.11OC 0.71 0.47 0.18 0.56 0.82MB 0.46 0.27 0.32 0.73 1.02LB 0.37 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.87ResponsibleirresponsibleFB 1.34 0.02 0.10 0.68 1.41OC 0.76 0.56 0.12 0.47 1.56MB 0.78 0.02 0.37 0.59 1.12LB 0.78 0.13 0.21 0.10 1.15145BELIEFS ABOUT BIRTH RANKindividually. Firstborns rated firstborns as the highest instability.11. Talkativesilent. No systematic patterns emerged for thisdimension.These results generally support some of the findings of Baskett(1985), Musun-Miller (1993), and Nyman (1995). Baskett (1985)and Musun-Miller (1993) found that last-borns are believed to betheleast responsible. Inthepresent study, theparticipants en-dorsedtheirresponsiblesideof thescalefor last-borns. Thesebeliefs are also in overall agreement with Sulloways (1996)hypothesis. Ourdatashowamostinterestingpattern, notprevi-ouslyreported, whenwecomparebirthrankbeliefpatternsforintelligence and creativity. Whereas ratings of intelligence declinewith birth order, ratings of creativity increase.This last findingis aclear indicationthat thereis nooverallpositivitybiasfavoringhigher birthranks, althoughastrongandpervasive self-serving bias is evident for many attributes. Participantsrated themselves as the most agreeable, intelligent, and responsible.They also rated themselves as relatively high on creativity and emo-tionality. In most cases, these ratings varied with the participants ownbirth rank. Firstborns beliefs about firstborns intelligence, for exam-ple, were biased in their own favor.Study 2: Stereotypes About Occupation and Birth Rank:The Wisconsin SampleIf oneweretoconsider thepersonalityattributes that mightaffordpathstovariousoccupations, individualsof higher birthranks shouldexhibit attributes likelytoleadtooccupations ofhigherprestigemorethanindividualsoflowerbirthranks. Thefindings of Study 1 suggest that firstborns are believed to exhibitattributes that are likely to be regarded as necessary in occupationsrequiringleadershipandstability. Ontheotherhand, last-borns,being regarded as emotional, disobedient, talkative, and the leastresponsible, wouldnot qualifyfor positions of leadershipandoccupations high in prestige. Because firstborns are believed to bemore intelligent than other ranks and because this belief has beensubstantiated by data (e.g., Zajonc, 1983), we would expect first-borns to enter into occupations in which what is viewed as intel-ligence is a necessary or desired qualification. If last-borns, on theother hand, are seen as the most creative, as our data above show,and again if the stereotype reflects reality, we should find apreponderanceof last-bornsinoccupationsrequiringcreativity.The primary purpose of this study was to sample peoples beliefsregarding the likelihood that different birth ranks might enter eachof several occupations andtodetermine whether these beliefsreflect abiasinoccupational prestigeforhigherbirthranks. Ifwidespreadbeliefsabout birthrankdifferencesinoccupationalattainment exist in a given culture, one would expect these differ-ences to be reflected in personality and ability differences.MethodTwo hundred thirty-one students and 10 teachers from ElevaStrum CentralHighSchool completed25-itemquestionnairesthat askedthemwhetherafirstborn or a last-born is more likely to work in each of several occupations.Eleva and Strum are two small towns located about 20 miles south of EauClaire, Wisconsin, an agricultural area with many residents employed in EauClaire.Onehundredseventeen(49%)oftheparticipantswerefemale,123(51%) were male, and the gender of 1 of the participants is unknown. Allbut10oftheparticipantswerebetweentheagesof12and18(M16,SD 7.1). The questionnaire included the following occupations, which areranked according to the Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale ona scale from 0 to 100 (Treiman, 1977): firefighter (35), musician (45), pho-tographer (45), farmer (47), stunt man (49), computer programmer (51), actor(52),journalist(55),accountant(55),socialworker(56),artist(57),policeofficer (60), clergy (60), veterinarian (61), author (62), engineer (62), politician(63), high school teacher (64), airline pilot (66), dentist (70), architect (72),lawyer (73), college professor (78), physician (78), and astronaut (80). Partic-ipants were simply asked whether a firstborn or a last-born was more likely towork in each of the occupations.ResultsThe results are shown in Figure 2. We found that participantsbelieved that a firstborn is more likely to work as an accountantFigure2. Birthrankstereotypesforoccupationsvaryinginprestige: theWisconsinsample. Thedataareaverage likelihood proportions distributed between first- and last-borns. Ratings were made on a scale from 0.5(last-born) to 0 (either) to 0.5 (firstborn). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.146HERRERA, ZAJONC, WIECZORKOWSKA, AND CICHOMSKI(55), airline pilot (66), architect (72), astronaut (80), college pro-fessor (78), computer programmer (51), dentist (70), high schoolteacher (64), lawyer (73), physician (78), politician (63), andveterinarian(61).5Theybelievedalsothat alast-bornis morelikely to work as an actor (52), artist (57), clergy (60), firefighter(35), journalist (55), musician (45), photographer (45), socialworker (56), and stunt man (49).The average prestige rank of occupations attributed to firstbornswas 67.6, and that attributed to last-borns was 50.4. The correla-tion between attributed prestige of occupation and birth rank was.76.Study 3: Stereotypes About Occupation and Birth Rank:The Stanford SampleStereotypes about occupational prestige and its relationship tobirthrankmayvarywithclass, race, gender, andespeciallytheregionofthecountry. Study2examinedapredominantlyruralMidwesternpopulation. Study3, therefore, sought toreplicateStudy 2 on a rather different population.MethodParticipants (203 Stanford University undergraduates) completed an11-item questionnaire that asked them whether a firstborn or a last-born ismore likely to work in each of several occupations. The list of occupationsincludedfirefighter(35), musician(45), photographer(45), farmer(47),stuntman(49), accountant(55), policeofficer(60), highschoolteacher(64), lawyer (73), surgeon (78), and astronaut (80).ResultsThe data (Figure 3) indicate that participants believed a firstbornwasmorelikelytoworkasanaccountant (55), astronaut (80),farmer(47), lawyer(73), policeofficer(60), andsurgeon(78).They believed a last-born was more likely to work as a firefighter(35), high school teacher (64), musician (45), photographer (45),andstunt man(49). Theaverageoccupational prestigerankingassignedtofirstbornswas65.5, andthat assignedtolast-bornswas 47.6.Withfewexceptions, thesefindings, showninFigure3, areconsistent with the results of Study 2. However, unlike Study 2,Study 3 found that participants believed that (a) a firstborn is morelikely to work as a farmer, (b) a last-born is more likely to work asa high school teacher, and (c) a firstborn is more likely to work asa police officer. Yet as in Study 2, Study 3 found that firstborns arebelieved to have more prestigious occupations than last-borns. Inthis study, the correlation between the average birth rank and theoccupational prestige scores was .73, very near the value of thecoefficient obtained in Study 2.Recall that inStudy1, last-bornswereregardedasthemostcreative of all the birth ranks. Consistent with this belief, they werealso believed to become actors, artists, musicians, and photogra-phers, asseeninStudy2, andmusiciansandphotographers, asseen in Study 3. Also, in both Studies 2 and 3, the last-born waspredicted to become a stunt man, a prediction consistent with the5The occupations in Figures 2 and 3 are ranked according to theStandard International Occupational Prestige Scale (Treiman, 1977).Figure 3. Birth rank stereotypes for occupations varying in prestige: the Stanford sample. The data are averagelikelihoodproportions distributedbetweenfirst- andlast-borns. Ratings were made ona scale from0.5(last-born) to 0 (either) to 0.5 (firstborn). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.147BELIEFS ABOUT BIRTH RANKfact that of all the ranks, last-borns obtained the highest rating onthe boldtimid dimension. Firstborns were viewed as likely to beresponsible. Thus, inStudies2and3, theywerebelievedtobemore likely to become police officers, accountants, lawyers, andphysicians.Study 4: Actual Occupational Prestige and Level ofAcademic Attainment of the Various Birth RanksDo higher birth ranks in fact afford paths to higher social statusreflected in higher occupational prestige and more advanced scho-lastic attainment? In Study 4 we compared the various birth ranksfor the occupational prestige they actually attained and the years ofschoolingtheyactuallycompleted. Study4useddatafromthePolski Generalny Sondaz Spoeczny (Polish General Social Survey[PGSS]) conducted on a large representative cross-section sampleof the Polish population (Cichomski, 2001). The data also includedthe variable of family size, a close correlate of birth order (Zajonc,1983).In Studies 2 and 3, the correlations between birth rank and theprestigescoresoftheoccupationsthedifferentbirthrankswerebelieved to attain were at robust levels. Are then higher birth ranksin fact more likely to enter into occupations higher in prestige thanlower birth ranks? It is known that firstborns are more likely thanlater-borns to become chiefs of states and executive officers (Sul-loway, 1996). Isthisrelationshipgeneral over occupationsandbirthranks?Areoffspringofsmallerfamilieslikelytoachievegreater prestige intheir occupational careers, as Blake (1989)suggested?Similarly, occupational prestigebuildsonschool at-tainment. Hence, years of school completed were also expected tobe higher for higher birthranks andfor offspringof smallerfamilies.MethodAsampleof respondents representativeof thePolishpopulation, atleast 18 years of age, were interviewed in 1997 and 1999 as part of the fifthand sixth PGSSconducted by the Institute for Social Studies at theUniversity of Warsaw. Every 2 years, the PGSS collects data on a repre-sentative sample of the Polish population, data that are very similar to thatcollected by the Chicago National Opinion Research Center. PGSS oftenincludes information about the birth order and occupational prestige of therespondents.A detailed description of the method for selecting the PGSS sample iscontainedat thePGSSWebsite(http://www.iss.uw.edu.pl/osrodki/obs/pgss/en/index.html). PGSS strictly follows the constraints of national sur-veys. The successive surveys are conducted at the same time of the year,MayJune. The sample selected is checked for its correspondence to thenational demographics, and technical features of question design andinterview process are meticulously observed. The field research is carriedout by a network of professional interviewers of the Zakad BadanNaukowych Polskiego Towarzystwa Socjologicznego (Department of Sci-entific Research of the Polish Sociological Association; PGSS, 1992) andtheOsrodekRealizacji Badan SocjologicznychInstytutuFilozofii i So-ciologii Polski (Center for Sociological Field Research at the Institute ofPhilosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Science; PGSS, 1993, 1994,1995).Acomputer-basedcodingofoccupationsusedtwoparallelclassifica-tions: Polska Socjologicana Klasyfikacja Zawadow(the Polish SocialClassification of Occupations; Domanski, Sawinski, & Kucharska, 1995)and an International Standard Classification of Occupations (1990). Bothwere based on Treimans (1977) original work. Years of school completedwas basedonthe respondents answers inthe interview, sporadicallychecked for their reliability.ResultsFigure4showsaverageoccupational prestigeattainedbyre-spondentsof thevariousbirthranksandfamilysizes. Becauseoccupational prestige is correlated with the age of the respondents,analysesofcovariance(ANCOVAs)withageascovariatewerecarried out to test these effects. Occupational prestige was found tovarysignificantlywithbirthorder andwithfamilysize, F(4,2899) 4.01, p.003, andF(4, 2441) 12.83, p.001,respectively. Thetrendisnotentirelymonotoneforbirthorder,probably because of the instability of data for the lowest birth rank(i.e., therearefewfamilies withfiveor moremembers). Thefamilysizedata, however, showaconsistentdeclineinoccupa-tional prestige. The standard errors for birth rank and family sizewere 0.28 and 0.30, respectively. All differences except betweenRanks 2 and 3 and Ranks 4 and 5 were significant. Variations withfamily size were reliable without exception.Yearsof school completedastheyvarywithbirthrankandfamily size are shown in Figure 5. Again, ANCOVAs with age ofthe respondent as covariate were carried out on the data. Years ofschooling as a function of birth order and family size were bothsignificant, F(4, 3245) 8.31, p .0001, and F(4, 2743) 22.58,p.0001, respectively. Thestandarderrorsforbirthrankandfamily size were 0.055 and 0.058, respectively. Except for Ranks 4and5, all otherbirthorderandfamilysizemeansweresignifi-cantly different from each other.Study4was basedonapopulationof different cultureandnationalitythanStudies 1, 2, and3. Thecomparabilityof theresults, however, can be taken for granted. Consistent birth orderand family size differences in intellectual performance, like thosereported here, have been repeatedly found not only for AmericanFigure 4. Occupational prestige actually attained by various birth ranks,rated on a scale from 0 to 100. Error bars represent standard errors of themean.148HERRERA, ZAJONC, WIECZORKOWSKA, AND CICHOMSKIpopulations but also for several diverse ethnic and cultural groups.Thus, similar patterns of effects havebeenreportedfor Dutch(Belmont & Marolla, 1973), Israeli (Davis, Cahan, & Bashi, 1977),English (Douglas, 1964), Irish (Eysenck &Cookson, 1970),French (Tabah & Sutter, 1954), Belgian (Nuttin, 1970), Scottish(ScottishCouncilforResearchonEducation, 1949), Columbian(Velandia et al., 1978), and Nigerian (Zajonc, Berbaum, Hamill,Moreland, & Akeju, 1980) participants, as well as several others.Also, Treiman(1977)reportedthatoccupationalprestigehierar-chies are similar throughout the world. He found that the averageinter-country occupational prestige correlation (computed over 55countries) is .81 (p. 166).General DiscussionThe present studies found that people have definite beliefs thatcanwell qualifyas stereotypes about birthrankdifferences inoccupation and personality and that these beliefs have a faircorrespondence to actual differences in occupational prestige andacademic attainment, at least in Poland. These results suggest thatin some domains, peoples beliefs and stereotypes may have im-portant psychological and, most likely, behavioral and social con-sequencesandthatbeliefsaboutbirthrank, therefore, maywellinfluence decisions in a variety of important domains.Study 1 sought to isolate peoples beliefs about the link betweenbirth order and personality attributes and found that (a) firstbornsarebelievedtobethemost intelligent, obedient, stable, andre-sponsible and the least emotional; (b) only children are believed tobe the most disagreeable; (c) middle-borns are believed to be themost envious and the least bold and talkative; and (d) last-bornsare believed to be the most creative, emotional, extraverted, dis-obedient, irresponsible, and talkative. These results are consistentwith Baskett (1985) and Musun-Millers (1993) findings that first-borns arebelievedtobethemost obedient, onlychildrenarebelieved to be the least likeable, and last-borns are believed to bethe least obedient. They are also consistent with Nymans (1995)finding that firstborns are believed to be responsible and last-bornsarebelievedtobeoutgoingandfriendly, andwithSulloways(1996) hypothesis that last-borns are the most rebellious anddisobedient.Notfoundpreviouslyarethestrikingdifferencesbetweenbe-liefsabout theintelligenceandcreativityoffirstbornsandlast-borns. Whereas high intelligence was attributed to firstborns, last-borns were believed to be the most creative but not as intelligent.The occupations believed to be held by these ranks were consistentwiththe personalitytraits attributedtothese ranks. Thus, forexample, firstbornswereexpectedtobelawyersandphysicianswhereas last-borns were expected to be artists, actors, musicians,andphotographers.Thesedataindicatethatpersonalitytraitsat-tributedtothevariousbirthranksarenot simplyamatterofastrong positivity bias favoring higher birth ranks but do discrimi-nate among specific traits and abilities.Studies2and3bothfoundthatbeliefsandstereotypesaboutbirthrankaccordoccupationshigherinprestigetohigherranksthan to lower ranks. Moreover, the kinds of occupations believedto be held by individuals of different birth ranks were found to beconsistent withthecharacterological andpersonalitydifferencesattributed by the participants. Study 4 found that in fact individualsof higher birthrankandof smaller families actuallydoattainpositions of higher prestige. Study 4 found a systematic increase innumber of years of school completed as a function of birth rankand family size, a condition that increases the likelihood of favor-able socioeconomic attainment, another finding consistent with thebeliefs about the personality dispositions of the various ranks.Intheir reviews of the birthorder literature, bothSchooler(1972) andErnst andAngst (1983) concludedthat evidenceofbirthorder differences is inconsistent andweak. AlthoughtheFigure 5. Years of school actually completed by various birth ranks. Error bars represent standard errors of themean.149BELIEFS ABOUT BIRTH RANKpresent studies donot challengetheseresearchers conclusionsregarding actual personality differences associated with birth rank,theydosuggest that peoples beliefs insuchdifferences showstrong and consistent patterns, replicable over diverse populations.Moreimportant withrespect tohardoutcomes, suchas actualoccupationalprestigeattainedoryearsofschoolcompleted, theresults are significant. The difference between firstborns and fifth-borns in the years of school completed is over 1 year. Traditionalexplanations of birth rank differences have focused on differentialparental treatment of children of different birth orders (Paulhus,Trapnell, & Chen, 1999, p. 482; see Adler, 1927, 1928; Schachter,1959; Zajonc, 1983) and competition among siblings as they fightforafamilyniche(Paulhusetal., 1999, p. 482;seeSulloway,1996). Thepresent studiesaddanadditional focusonpeoplesbeliefs about and social representations of birth order. It is entirelypossiblethat peoples beliefs about birthrankdifferences mayinduce differences in parents expectations for their own childrenand about other people in general. They may also induce differ-ences in the attributions about their childrens abilities and behav-ior. As a result, people mayreact differentlytofirstbornandlater-bornchildren6andmaydifferentiallyreinforceandshapechild behavior that fits within these stereotypes (Baskett, 1985, p.444). That behavior, in turn, might strengthen their beliefs.6ErnstandAngst(1983)concludedthatdifferentialsocializationbybirth order . . . has been well established at least for first-borns in compar-ison to second-borns and at infancy and preschool age (p. 187).ReferencesAdler, A. (1927). Understanding human nature. New York: Greenberg.Adler, A. (1928). Characteristics of the first, second, andthirdchild.Children, 3, 1452.Baskett, L. M. (1985). Sibling status: Adult expectations. DevelopmentalPsychology, 21, 441445.Belmont, L., & Marolla, F. A. (1973, December 14). Birth order, familysize, and intelligence. Science, 182, 10961101.Blake, J. (1989). Familysizeandachievement. Berkeley: UniversityofCalifornia Press.Cichomski, B. (2001). PolishGeneral Social Survey, 1999[datafile].Warsaw, Poland: Institute for Social Studies. Available at http://www.iss.uw.edu.pl/osrodki/obs/pgss/en/index.htmlCosta, P., & McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Davis, D., Cahan, S., &Bashi, J. (1977, June 24). Birth order andintellectualdevelopment:Theconfluencemodelinthelightofcross-cultural evidence. Science, 196, 14701472.Domanski, H., Sawinski, Z., & Kucharska, E. (1995). Polska socjologicznaklasyfikacja zawodow [Polish social classification of occupations]. War-saw, Poland: Institute of Sociology, Warsaw University.Douglas, J. W. B. (1964). The home and the school. London: MacGibbon& Kee.Ernst, C., &Angst, J. (1983). Birthorder:Itsinfluenceonpersonality.Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Eysenck, H. J., &Cookson, D. (1970). Personalityinprimaryschoolchildren: 3. Family background. British Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 40, 117131.Harris, J. R. (1998).Thenurtureassumption:Whychildrenturnouttheway they do. New York: Free Press.International standard classification of occupations. (1990). Geneva: Inter-national Labor Office.Lansing, J. S. (1995). The Balinese. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.McAndrew, F. T., King, J. C., & Honoroff, L. R. (2002). A sociobiologicalanalysisofnamesakingpatternsin322Americanfamilies.JournalofApplied Social Psychology, 32, 851864.Musun-Miller, L. (1993). Siblingstatuseffects: Parents perceptionsoftheir own children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 189198.Nuttin, J. (1970). Classe sociale, dimension de la famille et aptitudeintellectuelle [Social class, family size, and intellectual aptitude].LAnnee Psychologique, 70, 467485.Nyman, L. (1995). The identification of birth order personality attributes.The Journal of Psychology, 129, 5159.Paulhus, D., Trapnell, P., &Chen, D. (1999). Birthorder effects onpersonality and achievement within families. Psychological Science, 10,482488.Rosenthal, R., &Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom:Teacher expectations and intellectual development. New York: Holt.Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.Schooler, C. (1972). Birth order effects: Not here, not now. PsychologicalBulletin, 78, 161175.Scottish Council for Research on Education. (1949). The trend of Scottishintelligence. London: University of London Press.Snyder, M. (1984). Whenbeliefscreatereality. InL. Berkowitz(Ed.),Advancesinexperimental social psychology(Vol. 18, pp. 247305).New York: Academic Press.Sulloway, F. (1996). Borntorebel: Birthorder, familydynamics, andcreative lives. New York: Pantheon.Tabah, L., &Sutter, J. (1954). Leniveauintellectuel desenfantsdunememe famille [Intellectual level of children of the same family]. In Leniveau intellectuel des enfants dage scolaire [Intellectual level ofschool-age children] (pp. 25115). Paris: Institut National dEtudesDemographiques.Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective.New York: Academic Press.Velandia, W., Grandon, G. M., & Page, E. B. (1978). Family size, birthorder, and intelligence in large South American sample. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 15, 399416.Zajonc, R. B. (1983). Validatingtheconfluencemodel. PsychologicalBulletin, 93, 457480.Zajonc, R. B., Berbaum, M., Hamill, R., Moreland, R. L., & Akeju, S. A.(1980). Familyfactors andthe intellectual performance of Nigerianeleven-year olds. West African Journal of Educational and VocationalMeasurement, 5, 1926.Received September 6, 2002Revision received December 13, 2002Accepted December 16, 2002 150HERRERA, ZAJONC, WIECZORKOWSKA, AND CICHOMSKI