Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:37:53.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Birth Order and Rebelliousness: Reconstructing the Research in Born To Rebel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Frederic Townsend
Frederic Townsend*
Affiliation:
Lake Bluff, Illinois, USA
Get access

Abstract

In Born to Rebel (1996), Frank Sulloway proposed that laterborns are more rebellious than firstborns. In the context of Sulloway's theory, this article examines the difficulties of defining and measuring rebelliousness. Rebellious acts (such as attempting to overthrow a government) are one measure of rebelliousness. Using this measure, an analysis of six of Sulloway's samples undermines the theory. As a second measure of rebelliousness, Sulloway relies on the personality traits of his subjects. Many of the rebellious traits he selected, however, appear unrelated to rebellious behavior. A reexamination of 28 scientific revolutions Sulloway analyzed reveals other weaknesses. Finally, Born to Rebel contains a meta-analysis of the birth order literature. The application of two methodologies to the reconstructed data is discussed. Neither methodology appears to replicate the results in Born to Rebel. The conclusion is that Sulloway's claims for birth order effects should be rejected.

Type
Roundtable Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 2000 , pp. 135 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biegelsen, C.E. (1976). “The Relationship of Being First or Laterborn and Vocational Academic and Personality Variables.” , Washington University. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International 37- B:1871–72.Google Scholar
Bosher, J.F. (1988). The French Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Boynton, R.S. (1996). “The Birth of an Idea.” The New Yorker (Oct. 7):72–81.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H.J. and Crookson, D. (1969). “Personality in Primary School Children 3. Family Background.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 40:117–131.Google Scholar
Ernst, C. and Angst, J. (1983). Birth Order: Its Influence on Personality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falbo, T. (1997). “To Rebel or Not To Rebel? Is That the Birth Order Question?” Contemporary Psychology 32:25–26.Google Scholar
Feraca, J. (1996). Interview with Frank Sulloway, WHA Radio, Madison, WI, Program 1021D, October 21.Google Scholar
Freese, J.P. and Powell, B. (1998). Review of Born to Rebel, by Sulloway, Frank J.Contemporary Sociology (January):57–58.Google Scholar
Harris, I.D. and Howard, K.I. (1968). “Birth Order and Responsibility.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 30:427–32.Google Scholar
Harris, J.R. (1998). The Nurture Assumption. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Horgan, J. (1999). The Undisclosed Mind. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
James, D. (1969). Ché Guevara: A Biography New York: Stein and Day.Google Scholar
Koch, H.L. (1955). “The Relation of Certain Family Constellation Characteristics and the Attitudes of Children towards Adults.” Child Development 26:13–40.Google Scholar
Koch, H.L. (1957). “The Relation in Young Children between Characteristics of Their Playmates and Certain Attributes of Their Siblings.” Child Development 28:175–202.Google Scholar
Koch, H.L. (1960). “The Relation of Certain Formal Attributes of Siblings to Attitudes Held toward Each Other and toward Their Parents.” Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development 25 (4):78.Google Scholar
Krinsky, S.G. (1963). “The Relationship among Birth Order, Dimensions of Independence, Dependence and Choice of a Scientific Career.” In Cooley, W.W. (ed.), Career Development of Scientists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Macbeth, B.L. (1975). “Birth Order, Personality and Scholastic Aptitude.” , University of Oregon. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International 36-B:4757.Google Scholar
Marshall, Y. (1997). Review of Born to Rebel, by Frank J. Sulloway. New England Journal of Medicine 336 (March 27):968.Google Scholar
Modell, J. (1997). “Family Niche and Intellectual Bent.” Science 275 (Jan. 31):624–25.Google Scholar
Orzack, S. (1998). Review of Born to Rebel, by Frank J. Sulloway. Quarterly Review of Biology 73 (March): 112.Google Scholar
Palmer, R.R. (1969). Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Patrick, A. (1972). The Men of the First French Republic: Political Alignments in the National Convention of 1792. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Purpura, P.A. (1971). “A Study of the Relations between Birth-Order, Self-Esteem and Conformity.” , Fordham University. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International 31-B:6266.Google Scholar
Rejai, M. and Phillips, K. (1983). World Revolutionary Leaders. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Rejai, M. and Phillips, K. (1988). Loyalists and Revolutionaries: Political Leaders Compared. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Rowe, D.C. (1997). Review of Born to Rebel, by Frank J. Sulloway. Evolution and Human Behavior 18:361–67.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1997). Review of Born to Rebel, by Sulloway, Frank J.Evolution and Human Behavior 18:369–73.Google Scholar
Sampson, F.E. and Hancock, F.T. (1967). “An Examination of the Relationship between Ordinal Position, Personality, and Conformity: An Extension, Replication, and Partial Verification.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5:398–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, A.B. and Lewis-Beck, M.S. (1999). “Social Science Fiction.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 30 (2) (Autumn): 259–271.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1991). “Modeling Responses to Scientific Innovation,” National Science Foundation grant proposal by Sulloway, F.J. Proposal No. DIR-9112305, Grant No. DIR-9112305, approved December 7.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1995). “Birth Order and Evolutionary Psychology: A Meta-Analytic Overview.” Psychological Inquiry 6:75–80.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1996). Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1997). Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives [paperback edition, with revisions]. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1998a). “Birth Order and the Nurture Misassumption: A Reply to Judith Harris.” EDGE (www.edge.org).Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1998b). “Errors and Inconsistencies in Ernst and Angst's Literature Review.” (Unpublished, available from F.J. Sulloway).Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1998c). “How Is Personality Formed? A Talk with Frank Sulloway.” EDGE (www.edge.org).Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1999a). “Birth Order.” In Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1999b). Personal correspondence, Sulloway, F.J. to Townsend, F., April 9.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (2000). Personal correspondence, Sulloway, F.J. to Townsend, F., January 6.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J.(in press). “Birth Order, Sibling Competition, and Human Behavior.” In Holcomb, H.R. III (ed.), The Evolution of Minds: Psychological and Philosophical Perspectives. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Sutton-Smith, B. and Rosenberg, B.G. (1970). The Sibling. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Tomeh, A.K. (1970). “Birth Order and Friendship Associations.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32:360–69.Google Scholar
Townsend, F. (1997). “Rebelling against Born to Rebel.” Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 20:191–204.Google Scholar
Yando, R., Zigler, E., and Litzenger, S. (1975). “A Further Investigation of the Effects of Birth Order and Number of Siblings in Determining Children's Responsiveness to Social Reinforcement.” Journal of Psychology 89:95–111.Google Scholar