Ссылки к Приложению 1. Личность и порядок рождения

Литература использованная в приложении 1

Appendix 1
1.    Adler, 1927; Zajonc, 1983.
2.    Schooler, 1972; Ernst & Angst, 1983, p. 284; Dunn & Plomin, 1990, p. 85.
3.    Somit, Arwine, & Peterson, 1996, p. vi.
4.    Sulloway, 1996.
5.    See Tavris & Aronson, 2007.
6.    Modell, 1997, p. 624.
7.    Ernst & Angst, 1983.
8.    Sulloway also discussed the work of Koch, who published ten articles on her study of a single group of 384 five- and six-year-old children from sibships of two. This work is included in E & As survey so it does not provide additional evidence.
9.    Sulloway used the change of an opinion in adulthood—for example, the acceptance of Darwins theory of evolution—as a measure of an enduring personality characteristic, openness. However, a single change (or nonchange) of opinion isn’t the same as a standardized personality questionnaire that has been tested and validated with a large number of subjects. It is more like a single item from a personality questionnaire—an item of unknown validity. Whether the change of opinion is correlated with other measures of personality has not been established.
10.    Sulloway, 1996, pp. 72-73.
11.    I counted a study as no-difference if one subgroup of subjects—for example, males—produced results favorable to Sulloway’s theory and the other subgroup, females, produced results in the opposite direction. I counted a study as confirming if one subgroup of subjects produced favorable results and the other produced no-difference results. An example of a study I couldn’t categorize was summarized by E & A as follows: "Middle children appeared at the same time more excitable and more phlegmatic, less fearful and more mature than first-and lastborns” (1983, p. 167). My tally is posted on the birth order page of Притворство воспитания website (http://xchar.home.att.net/tna/birth-order/index.htm).
12.    In the ten years since the first edition of this book was published, a good deal more has been learned about Sulloway’s methodology. See Townsend’s critique (2000/2004), Johnson’s editorial (2000/2004), and my commentary (Harris, 2000/2004). These papers, along with Sulloway’s reply to Townsend, are available online at http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Contents/Contents-2000-9/index.html. Also see my online essay, "The mystery of Bom to Rebel-. Sulloway’s re-analysis of old birth order data” (2002), at http://xchar.home.att.net/tna/birth-order/methods.htm.
13.    Sulloway, unpublished manuscript, January 25, 1998. The contents and origin of this unpublished manuscript are explained in my online essay, cited in the previous note.
14.    If you divide up the data and find a significant birth order effect for males but not for females, for example, you should record a no-difference outcome for females, as well as a confirming outcome for males. This is what Sulloway, in his unpublished manuscript, said he did. But if I had done my tally that way, I would have ended up with many more than 110 no-difference outcomes. And doing the tally that way still underestimates the number of no-difference outcomes that should be counted. If you split up the data and find no significant birth order effects for either sex, that should count as two no-difference outcomes. See my online essay (cited in Note 12) for a fuller explanation.
15.    Sulloway, 1996, p. 72. (Italics in the original.)
16.    Hunt, 1997.
17.    The failure to publish nonsignificant results is called the "file-drawer problem.” See my discussion of the file-drawer problem in the online essay cited in Note 12 and in Harris, 2000/2004.
18.    Less likely to be published: Hunt, 1997. Take longer to get into print: Ioannidis, 1998.
19.    LeLorier, Gregoire, Benhaddad, Lapierre, & Derderian, 1997, p. 536.
20.    The difference in masculinity may have a biological cause. Blanchard (2001) discovered that the rate of homosexuality is higher in laterborn males—specifically, in men with older brothers.
21.    Unclear results were those that did not relate in any obvious way to Sulloway’s theory and those that were not specified with adequate clarity in the abstract. The search was performed on August 20, 1997, and included items published between January 1981 and March 1997.
22.    Ernst & Angst, 1983, pp. 97, 167.
23.    Ernst & Angst, p. 171. (Italics in the original.)
24.    Harris, 2000a.
25.    Notice that parents’ ideas are more likely to be outmoded by the time the laterborn comes along. If firstborns are more likely to share their parents’ attitudes, it may be because the age gap between firstborns and their parents is not as wide as the age gap between later-borns and their parents. When families were larger and childbearing was spread over a period of twenty years or more, this difference could have been important, especially during periods of cultural change.
26.    Modell, 1997, p.624.
27.    Somit, Arwine, & Peterson, 1997, pp. 17-18, See also Freese, Powell, & Steelman, 1999.
28.    McCall, 1992, p. 17.
29.    Runco, 1991 (originally published in 1987).
30.    O’Leary & Smith, 1991.
31.    Toman, 1971.
32.    Townsend, 1997.
33.    Though most primates rear their young serially, humans do not: they rear them in overlapping fashion. See Harris, Shaw, & Altom, 1985, p. 186, Note 1.
34.    Daly & Wilson, 1988.
35.    The historical data in Bom to Rebel have also been called into question. See Johnson (2000/2004) and Townsend (2000/2004).
36.    A firstborn advantage in IQ: Bjerkedal, Kristensen, Skjeret, &C Brevik, 2007. Firstborns don’t make better grades: Ernst & Angst, 1983; McCall, 1992. Firstborns not more likely to go to college: Blake, 1989. For other evidence against birth order effects on intelligence, see Wichman, Rodgers, & MacCallum, 2006.