First, the difference is small. Second, the effect is most likely due to differences between families and would not hold up if the research looked at children within families. Big families tend to be less intelligence, less educated, less rich and have fewer first borns. see admixture hypothesis.

JA, Melbourne, Australia

hello, i am the oldest of seven, smarter i'm not so

sure, i am the one with copd and i don't smoke

ihave allergys and stay the sickest, maybe this

report needs to be up graded, by the way, my

brother who is eleven yrs younger is overweight

but nice, but not nicer than me

thanks,

brenda wiggins, pittburgh, allegheny

The social dynamic between syblings seems to be a more important factor than 'indiviual attention' from parents- elders are constantly being told to 'take care' or 'watch out' for their syblings, while the younger ones are fearless partly because they're protected.

Stephanie, Jacksonville, USA

This is not true in our family and I'm not just saying that because I'm the youngest. The youngest had the highest IQ and was born to a mother of advanced maternal age. I don't believe there's any correlation to birth order. Since my siblings were born closer together and I was a surprise, I was pretty much an only child when I came along. My mother had more time to spend on me. It likely is dependent on a lot of factors and not solely on the birth order. This to me is a group of scientists projecting their biases on their study.

Jenny, Washington, US

Oldest Identify with the parents while younger Identify to each other! Parents being more mature in all respects would lead to better examples, thus performance.

Trust me on this, I'm a first born, I'm smarter than you! LOL!

Billy , Covina, USSA

I think it is more to do with nurture than nature.

Joseph, london,

I'm worried to see just one comment (and no mention in the article itself) questioning whether aspects of this trend may in fact be more symptomatic of the age of the parents at time of conception than of the influence of the family unit.

By definition, first-born children are born to younger parents providing fresher, higher-quality eggs and sperm to that child than they will be able to provide to subsequent siblings.

Given the known increase in detectable physical problems in children born to older parents (increase in risk of disability/mortality/miscarriage) isn't it realistic that some mental effects (e.g. reducing IQ, maybe even reducing impulse control) may be mixed up in these results?

Isn't this equally important to identify, given our increasing tendency to delay having children to later life? And wouldn't it be relatively easy to track, comparing the IQ performance of only-children against that of kids from larger families.

Jenni, Wirral, UK

It would be really interesting to look at the effect that gaps between births might have too - would a youngest child born much later than the first child behave/be treated more like a first-born again? Or if the gap is the other way around would a middle child be more like an eldest? And just to break it down further what if the first two are the same gender and the third is not? Luckily intelligence isn't the only characteristic we value in fellow humans - the world needs all the differences we have to offer.
(from a first born)

Sarah-Jane, Wellington, New Zealand

It is quite different in all the families with 3 kids in my big family, so I think the research is money waster as most of them - as James said - it has no statistical validity with such small testing group.

Mary, Birmingham,

What if you don't have any siblings..? Are you all of the above, most simular to a first-born or is it random?

Siv , Oslo, Norway

Based on a sample population of less than 0.1% of the global population the results have no statistical validaty.

I should know as the younger sibling I have 3 degrees to the older siblings 1 degree.

James, Boston, MA

In response to some of the comments on this article on the fact that the eldest child it the one with highest IQ, it seems that quite a few people worte that they themselves felt they are more cleverthan their elder siblings.
My argument is that if you, as a middle or last born, is reading an article like this one, then chances are, that you are not represending the "general population" of middle or last borns and thereby making it quite possible that you infact are more clever than your elder siblings (who might not be reading this article).

I am the eldest of 5, the 2 following being male and the last 2 male/female twins. I would like to hear more about what IQ is being measured. There are several intelligenses (social, musical, logical) which ones was taking into account? On some areas My younger siblings are brighter than me (they all spell better than me) wich contradicts the article, but as a whole I feel we are quite equal.

Birgitte, Odense, Denmark

I think the researchers (or the article) neglected to go over the complexity that male/female sibling relationships bring to the table.
I have a younger female sibling and we are very close in age. The attributes we individually have seem to be a mixture of both the younger child and older child. I believe the fact that we are not the same sex -and thus subject to different societal norms- can throw everything out of whack with regards to the research.

My own gut instinct is that for families with same sex children (or predominantly one sex), their findings would prove especially true. For two children homes with both sexes represented, I think the findings are going to be less accurate.

As an aside,
As an American I am embarrassed that another American (the one commenting below) would reinforce stereotypes about us with his ignorant comment.
I apologize (apologise), not all of us are that dumb.

Cheers,

Pablo Morales, Miami, Florida, USA

My experience as a middle child leads me to concur with most of the findings in the report but not necessarily the explanations and reasons. All families *are* different and often the nuture debate overlooks the fact that the respective sibling positions of each parent often influence the way that they relate to their children. A father's personality, for example, can be 'passed on' (unconsciously picked up) through infantile copying/social learning.

'Middle-child syndrome' need not be identical for all/every middle child but it does encapsulate the average feelings of the average middle child (obviously there are exceptions, for reasons stated above). Rebelliousness and introversion (Leave me alone) extroversion (Look at me!) are usually as a result of emotional disregard by the parents and so the child typically seeks that affection and attention away from the family, or feels that they can't 'adequately' relate to others since they were not related to by their parent.

Simon, Edinburgh,

No they didn't actually spell organised wrong - this is an English newspaper, so they spelt it the English way. Not everything conforms to the American ideal these days.

Lucy, London, UK

Load of nonsense - it doesn't apply either in my husband's or my family and plenty of others I can think of. His elder brothers are both fat and intellectually mediocre (good thing this is an anonymous forum!) and the first-born in my family is lazy and lives on welfare. We are both the youngest but also the brightest in both our families with the best academic records of all our siblings.

I would agree with one aspect of the article : we are both our parents' favourite children - largely for the reasons given above (as well as our immense modesty!).

MB, Scotland,

'organised' is the correct spelling in the UK. Where you Americans put a 'z' we often have an 's'. A much more literate spelling I would say.

carla, glasgow, scotland

In response to the comment from Tyson Hill - organized is an American spelling. Over the pond we spell it with an 's'.
Perhaps you should also trying reading some books?

Sonia E, London,

They spelled organized wrong... sort of makes me think this isn't a very reliable source for anything. If you are really interested in birth order maybe read some books.

Tyson Hill, Moorhead, USA/MN

RE IQ :
So, the eldest is 3 points ahead and the subsequent children are1 point ahead of the next.
My IQ tells me that, in the grand scheme of things, this is a nominal difference.

Elizabeth Pearson, Sydney, Australia

What an interesting article. I am 18, and the eldest of three, and I have to say this report, for my siblings at least, is very accurate, especially the personality traits stated. My sister, the middle child, is deffinately the more rebellious, procrastinator of us, though this could be due to her being the only girl.
I don't, as such, believe it is all down to nurture though, as my parents would never favour one of us over the other two. However, it's extremely likely that first borns initially gain more attention, for the sole reason that they are the first and only child, at least for a year or so.
The only element of the report I would disgree on is the intelligence, as we are all pretty much on an equal scale. Although, of course, this could be down to the help and influence of the older sibling (or so I like to think!).

Ian Prentice, Nottingham, England

Having read many of these reorts over the years as I come from a family of six siblings ,all female, this one on the whole does follow most of what has happened to us. Certainly in the case of myself, the oldest, and my youngest sister. The middle four have many of the reports tendancies and in the orders that they give. Although bear in mind you can read what you want into most reports and situations but I have to say this is pretty near accurate on our small family scale.

Mrs S Powell, Banbury, England

some questions...
Birth-order is referring to children and their mother, does their father matter in this? Does the study only relate to siblings who share the same mother and father?

T, D, Norwich,

As a psychology student I can back up this study - it is very well researched and seems to be valid. Of course the message is not political correct, but hey - that's nature.

The IQ difference seems to have genetic reasons (at least according to my professor for genetics...). However, scientists have *no* clue what the underlying reasons might be. And as others have stated before, of course there can be exceptions, and in the average sibling-couple the difference will be hard to examine without tests...

In my extended family the study couldn't be applied. But since it's about averages and not my family per se, the study can still be true and probably is. :-) By the way - the study is not new. Theories like that always draw attention, meaning that other people want to prove it is wrong. Seems not to have happened yet...

Katja, Bremen,

Really?Can this be true?I've taught for many years and I'd dispute this.Besides,I'm much brighter than my older brother!!

HD, Salisbury, UK

I believe that in a caring family, these differences will be minimal, whereas in too many families the firstborn might get reasonable levels of attention and care, at least at first, but the novelty soon wears off, and the selfish neglect of too many parents re-asserts itself. This would account for the perceived differences.

Arni, Aldershot,

I have 3 sons and they contradict absolutely everything you have said.
The oldest is extremely intelligent and has bad health.
The 2nd is also extremely intelligent and extrovert.
The youngest is maybe the most intelligent but extremely shy
and all 3 have university degrees.
They are all fantastic people and I absolutely adore them. After all I'm their mother!

Cathrene, Catania, Italy

It seems that there are a lot of second-borns responding to this article!

The study reports that, for whatever reason, the first-born has an IQ a few points higher *on average*; it does not say that *every* first born is the most intelligent. If indeed the average first born has an IQ three points higher than the average second-born, one expects a third of second-borns to be more intelligent than their elder sibling. Even if the difference were 20 points, then nearly one in ten second-borns would have a higher IQ than their elder sibling.

Every time research like this gets into the news people make the same mistake; it is like saying "my mum is taller than my dad, therefore men are not taller than women *on average*" - we can all see that this is faulty reasoning. One exception does not disprove a general rule. A million exceptions do not disprove a general rule, and, since the difference is only three points, the rule is very general.

Emmanuel Goldstein, Airstrip One,

I am number 7 of 9 children. The youngest in the family is by far the most intelligent and high achieving of us. Interestingly, the eldest did have terrible asthma and eczema, but so did number 5. Middle child syndrome seems to effect all of us to a greater or lesser extent, but perhaps that's not surprising! Various of the personal, social, intellectual and physical traits mentioned here can be found in some or all of us, but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. Maybe we've confused the system though!

Alice, Hamburg, Germany

It is a fallacy to equate examination success with IQ. The two are different. I am the eldest my my family. At the age of 10 I had the highest IQ recorded in Hertfordshire. My younger brother had far greater examination success than I because he worked harder, and it was more important to him to gain examination success. In my day, girls were expected to marry and have childred. It was considered bad form to be a blue stocking!

It is also true that my young, blond sister was everyone's favourite - and still is, including mine.

Diana, Brecon, UK

If what is said about the first born getting more parental attention which enhances (at least measurable) intelligence then what does this say about the children of parents who don't give them time, attention and intelligent stimulation? Link this to the complaints about children arriving at school without the ability to speak in sentences. Add the complaint that 'middle class' parents do 'too much' to get their children into the better schools so that 'working class' children end up at the badly performing schools and we see the problem of our anti achievement society. Will the trendy liberals see these connections? No, because they are probably all third borns.

Peter, Middlewich, UK

i wouldnt agree , with everything the study says ,, my younest daughter is very clever , and did well at school . my eldest daughter . was always in the shadow of her brother at school . and my eldest daughter gets sick just as frequently as the youngest I do agree ,the youngest child is the most favoured though ,, but I love all my children ,, with the same mothers heart . .

Thersa Foerster, Nuernberg , Germany

I am the mother of 4 children and can quite categorically state that this is not the case in our family - nor is it in my sister's family nor in many of my friends' families ... I, too, would love to see more of this so-called 'study'.

Mj, Lisbon,

I agree with Robert & Randy. More science and wider range of population/type of study--behavioural etc. I'd like to see the study on the folks from the early part of the 20th century. I'd like a link to each of these studies. Very interesting. For instance, what is the incidence of mental illness and is there a definite birth order type of study about that? Both my boys are very Gifted but they have a rash of emotional disorders. Also, I may be in that 1% area, but I can debunk some of this--I have 2 boys, 16 & 13 and though their IQ is extremely high, the younger's is a bit higher. He is also overweight. Another thing this article didn't touch upon was adopted children, of whom I am one. I happily after 10 yrs of searching have found my birth family, I find I have 3 half brothers and 1 half sister. I was RAISED an only child, but my 'actual' order is 5th. I wonder what the study would say about THAT!
Kudos to Randy, you said what was on my mind--I had to add my 2p! ;-)

Glenna Foreman, Seattle, WA USA

I am the eldest of three sisters (all in our sixties) and am really impressed at these findings because almost every point in this theory applies to my family.

June B, Somerset, UK

June Bastable, weston-super-mare, UK

It appears people are mistaking personal experience for evidence. Just because you can't identify anyone who fits the pattern, does not mean it doesn't exist.
The statistics probably show that on average, the oldest child has a higher IQ than their siblings, however this may only be a small majority. It certainly doesn't imply that this is the case for every family.
I'd like to see the data on which the researchers base their findings. Until then I have an open mind.

Robert, London, UK

These studies seem to exclude an extremely important factor, that being the psychological makeup of the family unit. Are these studies concurrent with studies on emotional health and creative success? Are there studies on exceptions to this hypothesis? This article reads more like an astrological forecast than a scientific review. More information, please, and factual evidence.

Randy Wolchek, Los Angeles, CA, USA

None of this theory is true for my family.
The youngest of us in my generation is the highest qualified but the smallest.
My younger son is the best qualified but taller by 5 " than his older brother . None of the other bits of this theory apply either.
If they do apply in some cases have you considered it is because the eldest may know its grandparents for longer?

yvonne, Cambs,

If later borns are more likely to be smaller and suffer from more medical problems no wonder they are also likely to have a lower IQ.

Older mums have less healthy children.

I can't believe the nurture crowd are trying to use these birth order studies as an example of nurture over nature.

mike, christchurch, new zealand

Unless we have more details of the empirical process employed, these results are to be taken with a grain of salt, nay, a huge grain of salt. My experience and circumstances of people I have seen and known is very contrary to the results posted here. But, I will not go to say that my observations are, in any way, scientific.

Saurabh Sircar, Philadelphia, USA

I do not personally believe the order in which in a family influences your intelligence, but what do i know.

MATHEY AYITE

MATHEY AYITE, Nebraska, USA