Is middle child syndrome a myth?

Today's guest blogger is Meghan Walls, PsyD, Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children.

When we think of the classic middle child – Jan Brady of The Brady Bunch comes to mind – the stereotype is of the overlooked offspring, stuck between the high-achieving older sibling and the pampered baby of the family. Sound like a setup for a lifetime of 'what about me'?   (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!)? Not as much as you think. In fact, there is no 'middle child syndrome'; as a clinical disorder it doesn't exist. There's a gap between a nonexistent diagnosis and general perceptions.  A Stanford study found that middle children are thought to be the most envious, least talkative, and least bold.

Is there any truth to these beliefs? It's difficult to truly measure the effects of birth order; that's likely because we can't control for all other variables that affect children. However, there are some interesting findings linked to birth order.  Family size seems more important in how children function than birth order. Think about it this way:  in a family of four children, there is a 25 percent chance of being first born, while in a family of two, your chance goes up to 50 precent. Resources are allocated differently as number of children increases; there may not be a typical "middle child."

Outcomes generally debunk the myth of 'middle child syndrome', and point to similar outcomes for mental health, intelligence (some studies show about a three-point IQ difference between first and last kids), and personality. Newer research suggests that birth order influences who people choose to be friends with or marry, opposites don't always attract and middle children associate more with other middle children. Middles may also be less likely to stray in relationships as adults and are somewhat more permissive parents than first and last borns according to research found in the book The Secret Powers of Middle Children.

Although birth order may have a looser connection to temperament than once thought, many people feel it helped shape their childhood. Middle child John, in his 40s, says his place in the family gave him the ability to stand on his own two feet.  "I think being a middle child made me self-sufficient. Because my older brother and younger sister got more attention, I was less dependent on my parents and learned to get things done on my own." He says it carried into adulthood because he was a natural leader.  "I would say we're all successful, but my parents and both of my siblings turn to me as the leader and organizer in the family."

Eldest Marika, in her 30s, says she's been a perfectionist since early childhood while her younger siblings are more easy-going. "My parents didn't pressure me, but I always hated to make a mistake. I don't think it was because I was the oldest. It's just who I am." When her younger brothers made mistakes, "it was 'Oh well, boys will be boys.'" Marika said she is more responsible but also more anxious than her siblings. "They are both relaxed and outgoing," she admitted. "I'm more uptight. It's been that way forever."

Research may not show as many distinct differences as most people assume exist, but birth order is a handy way to break things down, and many people feel instinctively that their place in the family helps define who they are. Birth order can also be an entertaining way to explain why you're the go-getter, the free spirit, or the class clown.  Need more proof that middle children aren't struggling too much? Fifty-two percent of our presidents were middle children – the great American dream itself!

Have a question for the Healthy Kids panel? Ask it here. Read more from the Healthy Kids blog »