This study uses data from the young men's and women's cohorts of the National Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience to measure the independent effects of sibling number and placement on a number of educational, family, career, and social-psychological outcomes as of age 24 for nationally representative samples of American youth. In particular, the study compares separately for young men and women the effects of being an only child with being the older of two children as well as the general importance of coming from a smaller rather than a larger family. The authors conclude that, while confluence theory is frequently supported by the data for both sexes, the corollary tutoring hypothesis is generally only validated for young women. The authors conjecture that this sex discrepancy may reflect a greater likelihood that the tutoring role within the family may be substantially affectively based, thus making it an activity that is more likely to be associated with female intrafamily role behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, B. N. and M. T. Meidam1968“Economics, family structure, and college attendance.”Amer. J. of Sociology74: 230-239.
2.
Andrisani, P. J. and G. Nestel 1975 “Internal-external control and labor market experience,” in Herbert S. Parneset al., The Pre-Retirement Years, Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
3.
Belmont, L. and F. A. Marolla1973“Birth order, family size, and intelligence.”Science182: 1096-1101.
4.
Blake, J.1981“The only child in America: prejudice versus performance.”Population and Development Rev.7: 43-54.
5.
Blau, P. M. and O. D. Duncan 1967 The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley.
6.
Bose, C. E. 1973 Jobs and Gender: Sex and Occupational Prestige. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
7.
Bumpass, L. and R. Rindfuss 1978 Children's Experience of Marital Disruption. Discussion Paper 512-78. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
8.
Center for Human Resource Research 1982 National Longitudinal Surveys Handbook. Columbus: Ohio State University.
9.
Claudy, J. G. , W. S. Farrell, and C. W. Dayton 1979 The Consequences of Being an Only Child: An Analysis of Project Talent Data (Final Report). Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research in the Social Sciences.
10.
D'Amico, R. J. , R. J. Haurin, and F. L. Mott 1982 “The effects of mother's employment on various adolescent and early adult outcomes of young men and women,” in C. Hays and S. Kammerman (eds.) Children of Working Parents: Experiences and Outcomes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
Duncan, O. D. 1961 “A socioeconomic index for all occupations,” in A. J. Reiss, Jr., et al. (eds.) Occupations and Social Status. New York: Macmillan.
12.
Duncan, O. D. , R. Freedman, J. M. Coble, and D. P. Slesinger1965“Marital fertility and size of family of orientation.”Demography2: 508-515.
13.
Dyer, D. T.1949“Are only children different?”J. of Educ. Psychology36: 297-302.
14.
Falbo, T.1977“The only child: a review.”J. of Individual Psychology33: 47-61.
15.
Falbo, T.1978“Sibling tutoring and other explanations for intelligence discontinuities of only and last borns.”J. of Population1: 349-363.
16.
Guilford, R. B. and D. A. Worchester1930“A comparative study of the only and non-only child.”J. of Genetic Psychology36: 411-426.
17.
Johnson, N. E. and C. S. Stokes1976“Family size in successive generations: the effects of birth order, intergenerational change in lifestyle, and familial satisfaction.”Demography13: 175-187.
18.
Kohen, A. I. 1973 “Determinants of early labor market success among young men: race, ability, quantity and quality of schooling.”Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University. (unpublished)
19.
Leibowitz, A. S. 1972 “Women's allocation of time to market and nonmarket activities: differences by education.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.
20.
Maccoby, E. E. and C. N. Jacklin 1974 The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
21.
Mott, F. L. , and R. J. Haurin 1982 “Variations in the educational progress and career orientations of brothers and sisters,” in F. L. Mott (ed.) The Employment Revolution: Young American Women in the 1970s. Cambridge: MIT Press.
22.
Olneck, M. R. and D. B. Bills1979“Family configuration and achievement: effects of birth order and family size in a sample of brothers.”Social Psychology Q.42: 135-148.
23.
Rosen, B. C.1961“Family structure and achievement motivation.”Amer. Soc. Rev.28: 574-585.
24.
Rosenberg, M. 1965 Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
25.
Rotter, J. B.1966“Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.”Psych. Monographs 609.
26.
Sampson, E. E. and F. R. Hancock1967“An examination of the relationship between ordinal position, personality and conformity: an extension, replication and partial verification.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology5: 398-407.
27.
Scanzoni, J. H. 1975 Sex Roles, Life Styles and Childbearing. New York: Macmillan.
28.
Thompson, V. D.1974“Family size: implicit policies and assumed psychological outcomes.”J. of Social Issues30: 93-124.
29.
U.S. Bureau of the Census 1980 “Fertility of American women: June 1979,” in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 358. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30.
Zajonc, R. B.1976“Family configuration and intelligence.”Science192: 227-236.
31.
Zajonc, R. B. and G. B. Markus1975“Birth order and intellectual development.”Psych. Rev.82: 74-88.
