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 Sulloway, unpublished manuscript, January 25, 1998.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.