Parents spend more time with first-born children
Categories: Just For Moms, Preschoolers, Kids 5-7, Kids 8-11, Teens & tweens, Just For Dads, Fun & Activities, Siblings, Development
I was the youngest of three children. The oldest was my brother Steve, who suffered from birth defects and poor health. Of course, he got a lot of parental attention because his health demanded it. My sister and I never thought much of it because we never felt neglected. We felt lucky to be healthy and sorry that Steve wasn't.
While my brother's health played a large part in his getting more attention than my sister and I, the fact that he was the first born probably also contributed. A new study has shown that parents with more than one child spend considerably more time with the first-born when the children are between the ages of 4 and 13. The study, conducted by Cornell University Ph.D. student Joe Price, showed that while everyone may be getting the same attention on any given day, younger siblings aren't getting the same 'quality time' as the older sibling when they were at that same age.
The reasons for this inequality are varied. In some cases, by the time parents have a second or third child, they have become more efficient and require less time to get the job done. Also, as parents grow older and have more children, they may be further along in their careers and devoting more time there and less time at home. Another reason is that the the presence of older siblings allows parents to delegate some of the entertainment duties to them.
But another reason for the focus on the older child is the fact that they came first. As one parent puts it, "It's kind of like a novelty. Everything they do is new."
According to experts, this lack of attention to the younger children can be detrimental to their futures. Studies have shown that a child who does not receive enough attention has a higher chance of being a high school dropout and being arrested. One Norwegian study showed that younger children earn lower wages and are more likely to become teenage parents.
I have always felt that my parents, especially my mother, did a great job in trying to give my sister and I equal attention. Every once in a while, I was allowed to miss school so that she and I could spend a day together, just the two of us. We didn't do this often, but it made me feel special and important. How do you spread the love and attention in your home?
While my brother's health played a large part in his getting more attention than my sister and I, the fact that he was the first born probably also contributed. A new study has shown that parents with more than one child spend considerably more time with the first-born when the children are between the ages of 4 and 13. The study, conducted by Cornell University Ph.D. student Joe Price, showed that while everyone may be getting the same attention on any given day, younger siblings aren't getting the same 'quality time' as the older sibling when they were at that same age.
The reasons for this inequality are varied. In some cases, by the time parents have a second or third child, they have become more efficient and require less time to get the job done. Also, as parents grow older and have more children, they may be further along in their careers and devoting more time there and less time at home. Another reason is that the the presence of older siblings allows parents to delegate some of the entertainment duties to them.
But another reason for the focus on the older child is the fact that they came first. As one parent puts it, "It's kind of like a novelty. Everything they do is new."
According to experts, this lack of attention to the younger children can be detrimental to their futures. Studies have shown that a child who does not receive enough attention has a higher chance of being a high school dropout and being arrested. One Norwegian study showed that younger children earn lower wages and are more likely to become teenage parents.
I have always felt that my parents, especially my mother, did a great job in trying to give my sister and I equal attention. Every once in a while, I was allowed to miss school so that she and I could spend a day together, just the two of us. We didn't do this often, but it made me feel special and important. How do you spread the love and attention in your home?
Recent Posts
- G.I. Joe, My Little Pony Invading TV With New Children's Network (2/09/2010)
- Movies May Influence Children's Food Choices, Study Shows (2/09/2010)
- Report Cites 220 Cases of D.C. Teachers Abusing Students (2/09/2010)
- Chicago Candidate Drops Out of Race With Tearful Child On Display (2/09/2010)
- Juicy, But Not Juice (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Michelle 4-16-2007 @ 5:49PM
My second-born actually gets the lion's share of the attention because he is high needs. We strive to make sure our first-born daughter gets individualized attention, even if it's just to the store, and occasionally she gets to go on "dates" with Mommy and Daddy. Since my son refuses to sleep to a respectable time in the morning,(sometimes he's up as early as 2am, never past 5am) she often wakes up to find me and her brother cuddling on the couch. Sometimes, she tries to beat her brother to the punch and get up even earlier so she can get the early morning cuddles. While it makes for an exhausted and cranky Mommy, it also makes me sad. Does she feel she has to do this or she won't get her quota of love? We are a very affectionate family, both in word and deed. So, I don't think she is being shafted in that department, but maybe she does.
Reply
Ann Adams 4-16-2007 @ 7:41PM
In some ways, our oldest receives more attention because of her disability. But, as Michelle said, it could as easily be the older child who feels he/she is losing out.
I try to even it out as much as I can. When I hear too many complaints, I point out their skates and bicycles side by side with Elcie's wheelchair and crutches. Elcie has a little more of my time and attention; they have mobility and freedom.
With my own kids, I think the youngest (now 34) had the most attention from me. His brother was 4 years older and definitely his daddy's boy. I had lots of time to spend with the youngest.
Reply
rebecca Biernesser 4-16-2007 @ 10:58PM
i had to laugh at this...while I was reading, I thoughtwell duh, their are the oldest....and then I thought about it.
I love my oldest son to death, but I was not ready to be a mommy yet when he was born adn he is a dad's boy to his heart. We now have a 9month old, who I was actually ready for, and he is a mom's boy to his little heart. and he does get more of my attention b/c I don't work outside of the home and his brother is in school all day.
Does it mean I love my oldest less? nope, I just make sure we have time without the baby being around.
Reply
T 4-17-2007 @ 11:39AM
"According to experts, this lack of attention to the younger children can be detrimental to their futures. Studies have shown that a child who does not receive enough attention has a higher chance of being a high school dropout and being arrested."
Why be so subtle? Why not just announce that all of us are slowly dooming our second and third children to poverty and a life on the streets hooking?
After all, how much is 'enough attention'? When have we crossed that line and doomed our youngest children?
To be honest, I do appreciate the lack of context. We don't know whether the norwegian study focused on children who were essentially ignored in favor of the older children, or if they just recieved a weensy bit less attention. That makes it easier for me to assume the worst and just give up.
If you have any other news reports that you can describe with vague descriptions of 'studies' to increase my anxiety, that would be great. I need more fear.
Reply
Jessica 4-17-2007 @ 1:55PM
I understand your point, T. It is increasingly difficult to be a parent in this age of hyper-scrutiny. We are made to feel as if there is no possible way to do it right; that no matter what we do, we are hurting our children and dooming them to failure.
I imagine it is difficult for the bloggers to find a way around that, though. And, anyone, feel free to stop me if I am wrong. But, I imagine that they are only trying to be unbiased and present the stories as they come out of other news sources. Because, let's face it, every story 'written' on here is actually referring to a story somewhere else. So they are simply spreading the news, literally and figuratively.
With that being said, I DO, indeed, wish that the "leaders" of Parent Dish would pay more attention to the articles that are being put out on the blog. They seem to be a lot more negative and a lot more divisive. And almost (trying not to believe) seem to be instigating arguments between parenting styles. Like the post the other day about the daycare studies. That post was nothing but inflammatory.
Reply
T 4-17-2007 @ 2:47PM
Well, my annoyance/anger is really at the mainstream media, who tend to say things like, "What everyday vegetable could be slowly killing your children? Story at 11/turn to page 3." You watch/read the details, and it turns out that one batch of zuccinis, which have already been recalled and are off the shelves, and in any event were never on this side of the country (whatever side that is), caused one case of e.coli.
But people watch the shows and buy the newspapers, because we care about our kids. But just because the MSM needs to do it for ratings doesn't mean that Parent Dish should do it too. It isn't surprising that they do, given the media culture, but I don't think it should go unremarked upon.
I think responsible sites should be about providing answers, pointing out helpful things/news, pointing out areas of concern as well as (and this most importantly) reasonable ways to address those concerns.
In this article's case, the author could have chosen to simply encourage us to spend more time with the younger kids, OR, pointed out the studies which show harmful effects, BUT ALSO providing a metric so that we can determine if slight differences have significant effects, or if we would have to basically ignore the younger children to run into the dire consequences she mentions.
By neither providing a solution or a metric to see if the 'your child will die in poverty with a substandard IQ!' studies apply to us, we end up with just a little more fear and uncertainty than we had before. It gets people to read the article, but it's a cheap trick...
Reply
SKL 4-17-2007 @ 3:07PM
Here's another story trying to scare people out of having more than one kid. That's the ideal in many parts of our world. Personally, I don't buy into it at all.
There is no mention anywhere about the benefits of having more time with siblings, more responsibility, and more opportunities for independent thought and age-appropriate problem-solving.
I am #3 of 6 kids, and because I had no behavioral or learning problems, I probably got the least attention of all. I never craved attention either. I always thought it was ridiculous when I would hear people talking about kids doing things "to get attention from their parents." I would much rather be left to do what I wanted in my own way at my own pace.
I certainly did not lack healthy interaction, stimulation, or challenge in a family of eight. I had to go hide under or behind furniture if I wanted to enjoy a book in peace. I couldn't sleep in on Saturdays because my brothers thought I would die without my weekly dose of morning cartoons. I knew how to care for a baby before I was capable of conceiving. I knew how to manage a house and a budget, and to diagnose and treat most childhood illnesses, before I graduated high school at 16. Seeing my older brothers' accomplishments challenged me to learn reading early, teach myself to play the piano, develop above-average physical skills, and tackle books usually assigned to older kids. If I had been an only child, I don't think my parents could have provided as much stimulation and challenge. Besides, I would probably have been a spoiled brat, which in my personal opinion is NOT healthy.
Most importantly, there was always an abundance of love in our family. Even people down the street used to remark on it. There was no feeling that my neighbors, who had no or fewer siblings, felt more love.
What I have written above applies (more or less) to most of the people I know who grew up with multiple siblings. The exceptions are those whose parents had issues such as immaturity, spousal abuse, substance abuse, etc.
Reply
SKL 4-17-2007 @ 3:26PM
Another thing. The article is written as if your kid is going to compare what you did with #1 with what you are doing with him. But hello, kids don't know or care what you did before they were born / aware. They accept the daily routine because that's all they know. As long as things are reasonably balanced today, that's all that matters. Also, as was noted by the blogger, kids have enough sense to understand why special-needs siblings need more attention. The article was obviously written by someone with no real clue about how kids think.
Anyone here hold it against their parents that their older sibling was treated like an only child for XX months?
But just wait, tomorrow there will be another gloom-and-doom article about how older kids are compromised by the fact that the baby of the family gets more attention. Please. Just do what feels right and thank God if your children are lucky enough to have siblings. Mine were among the greatest blessings I ever received.
Reply