Younger siblings enjoy real advantages in life. They are born to parents who are generally wealthier and more experienced than when the firstborn arrived. Older siblings can serve as role models, mentors and productive rivals. The ranks of elite athletes are filled with many more younger siblings than older brothers and sisters.
“There are a lot of reasons why second-borns should do better,” said Joe Price, an economics professor at Utah’s Brigham Young University, whose own second-born son is ranked second in the state at his grade level after years competing with his older brother in chess. But being born first is a far better bet in life, the data shows. A landmark 2005 study found that younger siblings fare worse than firstborns on lifetime earnings, educational achievement, mental health and, for women, teen pregnancy. The later the birth order, the worse the stats get. The youngest sibling gets measurably less schooling than the firstborn, on average. Why birth order leaves an indelible mark on some people’s future has long eluded scientists. Now we have some answers, and they suggest what parents and policymakers can do about it. Price revealed one likely mechanism that disadvantages younger siblings in a 2008 peer-reviewed study: less quality time with parents. He found firstborn children received 20 to 30 more minutes each day compared to a second-born child of the same age, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The deficit amounted to about 3,000 fewer hours spent on reading, playing, talking or other activities with at least one parent for younger siblings. That’s roughly comparable to more than a year of schooling between the ages of four and 13. Still, that left at least half the downsides to being a younger sibling unexplained. A forthcoming peer-reviewed study in the American Economic Review points to a second major culprit: germs.
Following 1.2 million Danish children born since 1980 into adulthood through government records, the study found that the tiniest organisms have a profound impact on a child’s future. Exposure to respiratory viruses before a baby’s first birthday — when immune systems are immature and before most childhood vaccinations — consistently predicted declines in earnings, education and health decades later. The researchers estimate that half or more of the gap in life outcomes between older and younger siblings can be attributed to pathogens inadvertently brought home by older siblings. “The study is awesome,” said Price, who was not involved in the research. “I would say what they’re looking at probably is a bigger deal than what I was looking at.” While parents should try to equalize the time they spend with their youngest children, Price said, “this paper provides, I think, a compelling additional answer.” Luckily, much of the harm is preventable. Read my full column to find out why younger siblings have worse prospects than firstborns, and what families can do to protect their youngest children.
Has birth order shaped your life? What question should I answer in a future column? Write me at climatecoach@washpost.com. I read all your emails.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment