Tomás Lejarraga, Daniel D. Schnitzlein, Sarah C. Dahmann, Ralph Hertwig
{"title":"Birth-order effects on risk taking are limited to the family environment","authors":"Tomás Lejarraga, Daniel D. Schnitzlein, Sarah C. Dahmann, Ralph Hertwig","doi":"10.1111/nyas.15085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Why is the empirical evidence for birth-order effects on human psychology so inconsistent? In contrast to the influential view that competitive dynamics among siblings permanently shape a person's personality, we find evidence that these effects are limited to the family environment. We tested this context-specific learning hypothesis in the domain of risk taking, using two large survey datasets from Germany (SOEP, <i>n</i> = 19,994) and the United States (NLSCYA, <i>n</i> = 29,627) to examine birth-order effects on risk-taking propensity across a wide age range. Specification-curve analyses of a sample of 49,621 observations showed that birth-order effects are prevalent in children aged 10–13 years, but that they decline with age and disappear by middle adulthood. The methodological approach shows the effect is robust. We thus replicate and extend previous work in which we showed no birth-order effects on adult risk taking. We conclude that family dynamics cause birth-order effects on risk taking but that these effects fade as siblings transition out of the home.</p>","PeriodicalId":8250,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.15085","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.15085","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Why is the empirical evidence for birth-order effects on human psychology so inconsistent? In contrast to the influential view that competitive dynamics among siblings permanently shape a person's personality, we find evidence that these effects are limited to the family environment. We tested this context-specific learning hypothesis in the domain of risk taking, using two large survey datasets from Germany (SOEP, n = 19,994) and the United States (NLSCYA, n = 29,627) to examine birth-order effects on risk-taking propensity across a wide age range. Specification-curve analyses of a sample of 49,621 observations showed that birth-order effects are prevalent in children aged 10–13 years, but that they decline with age and disappear by middle adulthood. The methodological approach shows the effect is robust. We thus replicate and extend previous work in which we showed no birth-order effects on adult risk taking. We conclude that family dynamics cause birth-order effects on risk taking but that these effects fade as siblings transition out of the home.
为什么出生顺序对人类心理影响的经验证据如此不一致?有影响力的观点认为,兄弟姐妹之间的竞争动态会永久地塑造一个人的性格,与此相反,我们发现有证据表明,这些影响仅限于家庭环境。我们使用来自德国(SOEP, n = 19,994)和美国(NLSCYA, n = 29,627)的两个大型调查数据集,在广泛的年龄范围内检验出生顺序对冒险倾向的影响,在风险承担领域测试了这一情境特定学习假设。对49,621个观察样本的规格曲线分析表明,出生顺序效应在10-13岁的儿童中普遍存在,但随着年龄的增长而下降,并在成年中期消失。方法方法表明,该效应是稳健的。因此,我们复制并扩展了之前的研究,在这些研究中,我们没有发现出生顺序对成人冒险的影响。我们得出的结论是,家庭动态会对风险承担产生出生顺序效应,但随着兄弟姐妹离开家庭,这些效应会逐渐消失。
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the New York Academy of Sciences, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences provides multidisciplinary perspectives on research of current scientific interest with far-reaching implications for the wider scientific community and society at large. Each special issue assembles the best thinking of key contributors to a field of investigation at a time when emerging developments offer the promise of new insight. Individually themed, Annals special issues stimulate new ways to think about science by providing a neutral forum for discourse—within and across many institutions and fields.