Ordinal position and peer popularity.

Miller, Norman; Maruyama, Geoffrey

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.2.123

Cited by 69 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, oldest children are given responsibility for younger children, which accustoms them early to assuming authority and may give them greater opportunity for self-esteem and self-confidence (Zajonc et al 1979). In contrast, later born children have been reported to be more sociable and popular with peers (Miller and Maruyama 1976). The explanation offered is that children born into families with older sibs must adapt by mastering better interpersonal skills in order to withstand sibling competition.…”

Section: Birth Order Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

Birth order, sibling investment, and fertility among Ju/’Hoansi (!Kung)

Draper

Hames

2000

Hum Nat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Birth order has been examined over a wide variety of dimensions in the context of modern populations. A consistent message has been that it is better to be born first. The analysis of birth order in this paper is different in several ways from other investigations into birth order effects. First, we examine the effect of birth order in an egalitarian, small-scale, kin-based society, which has not been done before. Second, we use a different outcome measure, fertility, rather than outcome measures of social, psychological, or economic success. We find, third, that being born late in an egalitarian, technologically simple society rather than being born early has a positive outcome on fertility, and fourth, that number of older siblings and sibling set size are even stronger predictors of fertility, especially for males.

show abstract

Section: Birth Order Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

Birth order, sibling investment, and fertility among Ju/’Hoansi (!Kung)

Draper

Hames

2000

Hum Nat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This literature provides examples of the only child's behavior problems and personality difficulties (Blake, 1974;Jiao, Ji, & Jing, 1986;Petzhold, 1988;Rosenberg & Falk, 1989;Rosenberg & Leino, 1987;Thompson, 1974;Westoff, 1978). These and other studies attested to the only child's lack of sociability (Claudy, 1984), greater than expected incidence of mental health problems (Belmont, 1977;Howe & Madgett, 1975;Makihara, Nagoya, & Nakajima, 1988), persistent egocentrism and uncooperativeness (Jiao, Ji, & Jing, 1986), negative social behaviors (Petzhold, 1988;Thompson, 1974), and lack of friends (Graham-Bermann & Gest, 1991;Miller & Maruyama, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

The Only Child: Is There Only One Kind of Only?

Rosenberg

Hyde

1993

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These stereotypes are supported by some evidence. Research suggests that only children are less social (Claudy 1984) and less able to make friends (Miller and Maruyama 1976), more likely to suffer mental distress (Belmont 1977;Howe and Madgett 1975), and more self-centered and less cooperative (Jiao, Ji, and Jing 1986;Thompson 1974). On other dimensions, especially those relating to socioeconomic status, singletons perform well (Blake 1981).…”

Section: Ideal and Intended Family Size In The United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intended and Ideal Family Size in the United States, 1970–2002

Hagewen

Morgan

2005

Population & Development Rev

185

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do contemporary fertility ideals, desires, and intentions relate to contemporary low fertility? At the empirical level the answer is straightforward: observed fertility is well below the levels of ideal family size and also usually well below respondents' desires and intentions. In fact, below-replacement fertility in many countries would disappear if respondents' fertility intentions were realized (Bongaarts 2001(Bongaarts , 2002Goldstein, Lutz, and Testa 2003).At the conceptual level, all behavioral models of contemporary low fertility feature choice: individuals choose to have children (Thomson and Brandreth 1995). Thus fertility intentions, if not ideals, hold the promise that actual fertility could mirror intentions over the long run, thus bringing observed fertility closer to replacement. Consistent with this view, Bongaarts (2002) argues that a substantial part of the discrepancy between aggregate fertility intentions and contemporary fertility levels can be accounted for by timing shifts, specifically the postponement of childbearing to later ages. Once this postponement abates, as it eventually must, 1 intentions and current behavior will be more similar. In addition, frustrated demand for children could encourage institutional adjustments that would allow childbearing to correspond to levels desired by women and couples, again raising fertility to levels that approximate intentions.Expressing an alternative view, Goldstein, Lutz, and Testa (2003) report that Germanspeaking areas of Europe now show levels of ideal and expected family size well below replacement levels (i.e., less than two children per woman), a pattern they suggest portends a permanent shift to sub-replacement fertility. They argue that the previous disjuncture between intentions and behavior in German-speaking counties, now evident in many other countries as well, represents "cultural lag." Specifically, women and couples act in accordance with contemporary antinatalist constraints and have few children, but continue for a period (a time lag) to express the prevailing cultural imperatives to be parents and to have at least two children. Younger cohorts, once they have lived much of their lives in a low-fertility setting, adopt the status quo as an expectation and thus express intentions (and ideals) that more closely correspond to contemporary behavior. Goldstein et al. (2003) hypothesize that fertility intentions and ideals in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere will soon decline further, creating greater symmetry between subreplacement fertility and subreplacement ideals and expectations. The suggestion that aggregate shifts in intentions can follow rather than precede behavioral shifts is not new (see Lee 1980;Westoff and Ryder 1977;Morgan 1981Morgan , 1982.Finally, Demeny (2003) argues that a wide gap between expressed preferences and behavior can persist indefinitely. Even if such preferences for a particular number of children are Direct all correspondence to S. Philip Morgan, Department of Sociology and Center for Demographic Studie...

show abstract

Ordinal position and peer popularity.

Cited by 69 publications

References 18 publications

Birth order, sibling investment, and fertility among Ju/’Hoansi (!Kung)

Birth order, sibling investment, and fertility among Ju/’Hoansi (!Kung)

The Only Child: Is There Only One Kind of Only?

Intended and Ideal Family Size in the United States, 1970–2002

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About