Does birth order affect relationships?
Filed under: Newborns, Toddlers Preschoolers, Your Pregnancy, Siblings, Health & Safety: Babies, Development/Milestones: Babies, Life & Style, Day Care & Education, Feeding & Sleeping, Baby-sitting, Research Reveals: Babies, Nutrition: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Expert Advice: Babies, Health & Safety: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Development: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Behavior: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Activities: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Gear Guides: Babies, Gear Guides: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Expert Advice: Toddlers & Preschoolers

A recent article regarding birth order and relationships on AOL's Personals site got me thinking of a conversation I'd recently had with my mother. We were talking about how many kids I wanted (I have one with another one on the way). I'd said ideally I'd love to have three someday, and then the topic of the middle child--and middle child syndrome--came up. Is it really true that middle children behave a certain way? They're neither the oldest, firstborn, nor are they the baby in the family. And, just perhaps, that birth order of being in the middle has an affect on their relationships when they get older.
According to the article, written by the folks at eHarmony Advice, firstborn children make good mates because they're reliable; of course, they can also make poor mates because they're not given to spontaneity and like to maintain control. Middle-born children are more likely to be laid back, which everyone enjoys, but they're also not inclined to deal well with conflict, avoiding it at all costs. This can be both good or bad for a relationship. And the youngest, the baby of the family, can be the most fun and exciting in a relationship, but that can also translate to not being accountable for actions and abuse of power.
What about the only child? According to the article they act much like the oldest child, and make great communicators who've been around adult relationships their whole lives. Expectations are the downfall for the only child, as is moving too slowly. Is this a load of hogwash, or is eHarmony on to something here? Does birth order really affect how an adult treats his or her mates in a relationship? Or is it more a matter of nature AND nurture--how the parents treat a child regardless of birth order? I'm going with the latter on this one, as it seems to easy to pigeon-hole someone into a type of behavior based on his/her birth order. Still, some say it's as real as anything else psychology has to throw our way. What do you think?
Pic by dsearls.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- Alot of .gov when submitting a program or proposal for government agency (be sure you personally can provide for the agency)
- 3 SHOWS A HOUR 7 HOURS = 21 (10 DAYS = 210) 10 STUDIOS = 2100 20 STUDIOS = 4200 (IN 10 DAYS) 3 (20 MINUTE SHOWS).
- Derian d hickman v. Internal revenue service superior court dc 2012











ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
9-01-2008 @ 4:56PM
Ancilee said...Well I am a middle child and I am laid back as they said. However, I deal w/ conflict moreso than most people on earth, I have noticed!!!..lol. So, I have to say I am 50/50 on this so far. I'm not buying it "all". But, they have something here.
Ancilee
Reply
9-02-2008 @ 1:05PM
Ethel said...It's all in the genes. My oldest is a step daughter. She acts exactly like her biological mother times two. This bilogical mother has always blamed her personality flaws on being a middle child. Living with my step daughter, it is clear to me that there is some definite hard wiring. My husband is an oldest child. He is the most laid-back, unconfrontational human being I have ever met. Which works well for us since I am the baby of the family and very responsible.
There you have it.
Reply
9-04-2008 @ 10:55PM
markycf said...I don't really believe any of this. I guess it is true for some people, but it certainly isn't true for my family.
Reply