Parent-Child Quality Time: Does Birth Order Matter?

Abstract

a b s t r a c tUsing data from the American Time Use Survey, I find that a first-born child receives 20-30 more minutes of quality time each day with his or her parent than a second-born child of the same age from a similar family. The birth-order difference results from parents giving roughly equal time to each child at any point in time while the amount of parent-child quality time decreases as children get older. These results provide a plausible explanation for recent research showing a very significant effect of birth order on child outcomes.

Does the birth order affect the cognitive development of a child?

“…Child-specific inputs such as the amount and quality of parent-child interaction likely are not fully captured by the measures of resource availability (maternal labour supply, presence of spouse, family income) used here. Evidence from time budget studies supports the argument that first-borns experience more childparent interaction (Lindert, 1977;Price, 2008). Recent evidence from the American Time Use Survey suggests that the quality time with the parent received by the first-born child is on average 20-30 min more per day than for the second-born (Price, 2008).…”

“…the dilution of resources. Hypotheses involving resource dilution emphasize the scarcity of parental time (Zajonc and Markus, 1975;Zajonc, 1976Zajonc, , 2001Lindert, 1977;Price, 2008) and physical resources (Becker, 1965;Becker and Lewis, 1973;Leibovitz, 1977;Blake, 1981). Family size may also dilute the quality of parental inputs in child production.…”

“…Parental preference for a specific birth rank (Kessler, 1991;among others) or investment incentives that are related to birth order would also predict systematic birth order patterns. 3 If important resources cannot be borrowed or saved (such as parental time), the dilution of parental resources through childbearing implies that being the first-born is beneficial since the first child experiences no competition from other siblings for the longest time (Bayer, 1966;Zajonc, 1976;Birdsall, 1991;Price, 2008). By the same logic, being the last-born in the birth order may be beneficial as well, suggesting a U-shaped relationship between birth rank and achievement.…”

The formation and evolution of childhood skill acquisition: Evidence from India

“…For example, as suggested by Behrman and Taubman (1986), in a developing country setting where children serve old-age insurance purposes, parents may choose to invest more in lower birth order children because the financial returns to their investment are more likely to be available when they need it. Price (2008) provides evidence for the US that the effect of birth order on child outcomes works indeed through parental investment in the form of time spent with a child. Over the course of childhood, first-born children receive more parental input in form of 'quality' time spent with their parents than higher birth-order children.…”

Birth order and physical fitness in early adulthood: Evidence from Swedish military conscription data

“…Several factors indicate that being a later born child means occupying a disadvantaged position within the household. Previous research indicates that parents spend less time caring for later born children (Price, 2008), and in Sweden there is a negative relationship between birth order and time spent on parental leave (Sundstr€ om and Duvander, 2002). Recent research also shows that mothers are less likely to seek prenatal care for later pregnancies, and are also less likely to breast feed later born children (Buckles and Kolka, 2014).…”