Born to Rebel and Its Critics

Abstract

Frederic Townsend's critique of Born to Rebel (Sulloway, 1996) is based on an unfortunate pattern of misrepresentation and faulty empirical methods. First, the historical data in Born to Rebel are neither unrepresentative nor undisclosed. They were compiled with the help of 110 expert raters, who validated their representative nature and operationalized the principal outcome measures. Second, birth order is moderately associated with political radicalism, especially in real-life and within-family studies. Third, the meta-analytic data are statistically compelling for various behavioral attributes, although effect sizes are generally modest. Fourth, recent studies using large samples and anchored scales demonstrate the influence of birth order on a wide variety of personality traits, especially in within-family comparisons. In addition, the relationship between birth order and openness to radical innovation—highlighted in Born to Rebel—has been replicated by other researchers. Because Townsend fails to employ formal methods of hypothesis testing—relying instead on selected anecdotal examples, adversarial tactics, and an inadequate grasp of statistical principles—he has drawn numerous false conclusions about the influence of birth order.

Brought Up to Rebel in the Sixties: Birth Order Irrelevant, Parental Worldview Decisive

“…Historians, with John Modell's critical review in Science as a notable exception (Modell, 1997), have tended to look the other way, ignoring Sulloway's claim to having discovered a major driving force behind radical revolutions of the political and religious kind as well as the scientific. The difficulty of replicating the historical findings in Born to Rebel on the basis of the information provided in the book has generated despair and disbelief, capped by a savaging of Sulloway—with a retribution in kind—in a theme issue of Politics and the Life Sciences that was delayed for several years due to threats of legal action (Johnson, 2000; Sulloway, 2000a; Townsend, 2000). As testified to by his chapter “Birth Order and Sibling Competition” in the 2007 Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology , the attacks have neither stripped Sulloway of scientific standing nor deterred him from reiterating his claims on behalf of birth order.…”

“…As testified to by his chapter “Birth Order and Sibling Competition” in the 2007 Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology , the attacks have neither stripped Sulloway of scientific standing nor deterred him from reiterating his claims on behalf of birth order. He has nuanced his thesis of laterborn rebelliousness somewhat, however, stating that birth‐order effects are strongest within families or among people living together; in other social contexts they can be mitigated or overwhelmed by factors outside the family (Sulloway, 2000a, pp. 195–196; 2000b; 2001, pp.…”

The Problem of Influence of Children’s Birth Order in the Family on Their Intellectual Abilities and Personality Traits

“…Также Ф. Салловэй провел повторный метаанализ работ, которые были включены в обзор С. Эрнст и Ж. Агнст (1983), и показал, что очерёдность рождения влияет на личность в несколько раз сильнее, чем на интеллект и на успехи в образовании. Очерёдность рождения связана с интеллектуальной гибкостью, отношению к новизне [43]. Для проверки своих представлений Ф. Салловэй провёл сравнение 6053 личностных черт сиблингов по шкалам опросника «Большая пятёрка» [10].…”

“…Метаанализ, включающий в себя различные исследования влияния порядка рождения на личностные черты, представленные в модели «Большая пятёрка» [43] Например, Р. Михальски с коллегами выявил негативное соотношение между статусом первого ребёнка и баллами по шкале Доброжелательность, что соответствует ранним результатам Ф. Салловэй. Но в отличие от исследования Ф. Салловэй было выявлено позитивное взаимоотношение между статусом первого ребёнка и баллами по шкале Открытость.…”

Science, Sulloway, and Birth Order: An Ordeal and An Assessment

“…This helps explain why there are two responses from Sulloway rather than one (Sulloway, 2000a(Sulloway, , 2000b. He was invited to write one response, a response to both Townsend and the commentators.…”