Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science

June2019, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 55-63

ISSN: 2374-2380 (Print), 2374-2399 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development
DOI: 10.15640/jpbs.v7n1a7
URL: [Link]

An Investigation of the Connection between Parenting Styles, Birth Order, Personality, and
Sibling Relationships

Michele Van Volkom1, Danielle Dirmeitis2 & Samantha Cappitelli3

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to examine the potential effects of parenting styles and birth order on
personality and sibling relationships. Two hundred forty-seven participants completed a demographics
questionnaire as well as the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale (LSRS) to measure affect, behavior, and
cognitions associated with the sibling relationship in both childhood and adulthood. They also completed the
Big Five Inventory (BFI) as well as reported on which parenting style their mother and father engaged in
while they were growing up. Birth order had no significant effect on any of the aspects of the sibling
relationship, but did show differences in conscientiousness and neuroticism. Other significant results were
the finding that father’s parenting style impact all six areas assessed by the LSRS. Authoritative fathers led to
more positivity in assessing the relationship with the sibling the participants felt closest to in their lives.
Mother’s parenting style affected participants’ view of the sibling relationship similarly, but only for adult and
child cognitions. Implications of these findings will be discussed, including support for the notion that
authoritative parenting results in the most positive outcomes for offspring.

Keywords: sibling relationships, birth order, parenting styles, personality

1. Introduction
Although everyone has different individual family experiences, do people of the same birth order cohort have
innate similarities in their personalities and self-perceptions? Does birth order have an effect on sibling relationships
in emerging adulthood? To understand why people, specifically siblings, behave certain ways and take over certain
roles in the family, it is important to examine the topic of birth order. The first purpose of this paper is to examine the
idea that birth order has an effect on people’s personalities, relationships (especially with siblings), and life
experiences. It also aims to examine the potential effect of various other demographic factors, such as parental marital
status and gender, on personality and adult sibling relationships. A final topic to be discussed is the different types of
parenting styles one experiences while growing up and the impact that may have on personality and sibling
relationships among adults. Specifically, the main topics that will be discussed in this paper are the links between birth
order and personalities, sibling relationships, and the effects of parenting styleson siblingships.
1.1 The Link between Birth Order and Personality
The theory that there is a connection between a person’s birth order and his or her personality is often
studied. For example, Sziobiova (2008) focused on the Big Five while studying birth order. Many of her results were
significant, including the fact that second born children tend to display more creativity and originality than the other
birth orders.

1 Lecturer, Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
E-mail: mvanvolk@[Link]. 732-263-5479 (Phone); 732-263-5159 (Fax)
2 Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
3 Department of Psychology, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
56 Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Other researchers, such as Loona and Khan (2016), decided to take a more direct look at certain variables. In
this case, they focused on self-compassion levels and its relationship to procrastination, while also looking at the
effects of birth order. While they did not find a significant difference between first born and last born students on
their levels of procrastination, it was found that the lower a person’s self-kindness is, the more likely they are to
procrastinate.
Rather than using self-report measures to study birth order, other researchers have asked participants to rate
which personality traits they believe to be linked with each ordinal position (Herrera, Zajonc, Wieczorkowska, &
Cichomski, 2003). Middle born children were rated as being the most envious and the least bold by the other birth
orders. The middle bornparticipants conclusively rated themselves low on the bold scale as well (Herrera et al.,
2003).Nyman (1995) also took the route of looking at people’s perceptions of the different birth order positions. He
found that the first born birth position was rated as most favorable over all the other positions. First born children
were also rated as independent, intelligent, and responsible, however, they were also seen as spoiled. Black, Devereux,
and Salvanes (2011) conducted an exploratory study on the relationship between birth order and IQ levels. They
found that later born children tend to have lower IQs than earlier born children. It has also been discovered that last
born children rated their need for dependency significantly higher than the other birth orders (Ali & Aslam, 2011).
This shows that youngest children tend to be more dependent on those around them. On the other hand, some
researchers have found no link between birth order and personality (McGuirk & Pettijohn, 2008; Srivastava,
2011).While personality is a major focus when studying birth order, other areas, such as sibling relations, are also
examined considerably.
1.2 Birth Order and Sibling Relationships in Emerging Adulthood
The type of sibling relationship in emerging adulthood may be dependent on birth order. Most siblings stay in
contact with each other when entering adulthood because they are family and because they have found a support
system in each other (Myers, 2011).First born children tend to feel more emotionally close with their siblings than the
other birth orders (Van Volkom, Guerguis, & Kramer, 2017). Tucker, Barber, and Eccles (1997) examined the reasons
that siblings communicated; they hypothesized that different birth order positions would have different motives.
Second born children reported receiving more advice, support, and influence from their siblings caused them to speak
to their siblings significantly more than the other ordinal positons.
Other researchers decided to focus on one area to study. For example, Martin, Anderson, and Rocca (2005)
focused on the relationship between sibling relations and verbal aggression. They found that verbal aggression
between siblings resulted in a decrease in trust and communication satisfaction. There was a negative correlation
between verbal aggression and perceptions of sibling character, competence, and caring. Myers (2015) conducted a
study in which he examined participants’ relationship and communication styles. He found that siblings who have an
intimate relationship used affectionate communication more than the other types, saw it as more important, and
considered it more appropriate than the other communication styles.
1.3 The Effect of Birth Order on Perceptions
Another direction some research has taken is investigating people’s perceptions of themselves and the
different birth orders. After asking participants to rate the birth orders on personality traits, Herrera et al. (2003)
found that first borns were rated the most intelligent and responsible but the least emotional and creative. Last borns,
on the other hand were rated as high in creativity and emotionality but low in responsibility. First borns are also
considered to hold the highest occupational prestige (Herrera et al., 2003). Middle children tend to rate themselves as
more aggressive than the self-perceptions of the other ordinal positions (Van Volkom et al., 2017).A study done by
Stewart (2004) focused on the biases of clinicians when the birth order of their patients is known. It was found that
the clinicians attributed stereotypical characteristics to first, middle, and only children after reading a vignette where
only the child’s birth order position was switched. For example, the clinicians viewed the only child as the most likely
to experience problems even though all the vignettes were the same. This shows that biases do not stop in the
professional world; people will always have subconscious stereotypes for the birth orders.
1.4 The Importance of the Sibling Dyad and Birth Order
Previous research has focused on the sibling dyad when looking at birth order. For example, Rocca, Martin,
and Dunleavy (2010) focused on the types of relationships the different sibling dyads experience. They found that
sister-sister sibling dyads communicated for inclusion.
Michele Van Volkom, Danielle Dirmeitis & Samantha Cappitelli 57

They also found that first born children reported communicating more for control while the other birth order
positions reported communicating for pleasure, inclusion, and relaxation (Rocca et al., 2010). It has been found that
men who grew up with a sibling of the same sex are significantly more extraverted while women who grew up with a
sibling of the same sex are significantly more conscientious (Szobiova, 2008; Tucker et al., 1997). Instead of using
adults as the participants, Barnes and Austin (1995) used children. Female participants with a female sibling reported
that they exerted more warmth towards their sibling than females with a male sibling (Barnes & Austin, 1995). Sister-
sister sibling dyads experience more warmth, intimacy, and emotional support while brother-brother sibling dyads
experience more self-defeating humor (Welecka-Matyja, 2017).Women are also more likely to facetime their siblings
than men are (Van Volkom et al., 2017). This may be due to society’s double standards that women can show
emotions while men should not engage in outward emotional expression. Beyond birth order and personality traits, it
is important to examine parenting styles and how they also might impactpersonality as well as the relationship
between siblings, which is a main focus of the current study.
1.5 The Connection between Parenting Styles and Sibling Relationships
Although the original work was published decades ago, Baumrind (1971) is considered the pioneer of
parenting style studies. Parenting styles are defined as the strategies that are regularly used by parents as they raise
their children (Sruthy & Naachimuthu, 2017). The 4 main parenting styles result from a combination of how warm
and responsive a parent is while also examining the demands made on a growing child. Authoritative parenting styles
are seen as the goal, leading to the best outcomes, both in terms of psychological health and behavior, for offspring
(Piko & Balázs, 2012). This style involves making demands on the child, but also showing warmth in communication
with the child. While an authoritarian parent also makes demands on his/her child, they are low in warmth.
Permissive parents have the warmth component, but do not make demands on the child. Finally, the uninvolved
parent is a neglectful one, offering neither demands on, nor warmth toward, their child.
Looking at parenting styles is an underrepresented way to study family relations. Portner and Riggs (2016)
found that greater parental care is associated with more positive sibling relationships. A study on adolescents showed
that when compared with authoritarian or neglectful parenting, higher levels of closeness with a sibling was reported
when authoritative parenting was used (Milevsky, Schlechter, & Machlev, 2011).Studies with children have also
suggested that positive parenting is associated with more positively in the relationship between siblings (Brody,
Stoneman, & McCoy, 1992). Yu and Gamble (2008) further discussed how positive parenting, which involves
warmth, can improve the quality of sibling relationships as well.
Parental care has a greater impact on sibling relationships than is universally believed, especially if there is
conflict in the family. Knight et al. (2000) looked at parenting styles and connected versus separate knowing.
Permissive fathers were positively correlated to separate knowing while authoritative fathers were negatively correlated
to separate knowing. This link between parenting styles and the type of communication families have shows an
underlying facet to family relations; parenting styles have a direct link to the type of communication a parent has with
their children. When looking at birth order, first born children had significantly higher scores on separate knowing
than later borns (Knight et al., 2000).
1.6 The Present Study
The majority of previous research has focused on the relationship between birth order and personality traits,
mostly using self-report [Link] research has shown that the different birth order positions have varying traits
that are associated with them (e.g., Herrera et al., 2003).With that being said, there has been much variation between
the different studies; some birth orders are reported to have certain traits in one study and different traits in another.
Researchers have also focused on sibling relationships in emerging adulthood depending on birth [Link] have
looked into the reasons for communication and factors that may strengthen or weaken sibling relationships (e.g.,
Myers, 2015). Finally, there is some work on the effect of parenting on siblingships, but the samples have been
comprised of mostly children and adolescents (e.g., Brody et al., 1992). To build on what is already known, the
purpose of the present study was tofurther investigate the effects that parenting styles have on adult sibling
relationships, considering this topic is seldom examined. The researchers also set out to determine how parenting
styles, birth order, and personality are linked among an adult (college student) sample.
58 Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Finally, the researchers conducted exploratory analyses to uncover possible links between other demographic
factors (e.g., parental marital status, participant residential status) and their potential impact not only on personality,
but sibling relationships in adulthood, an area that has not really been studied to date.
[Link]
2.1 Participants
A total of 247 (45 men and 202 women) college students participated in the current study. Ages ranged from
18 to 30, with a mean age of 19.24 (SD = 1.41). The majority of participants were of European American ethnicity
(68.4%), in addition to 11.7% reporting multi-ethnic backgrounds, 10.5% reporting Hispanic American backgrounds,
4.9% reporting African American backgrounds, 4% reporting Asian American backgrounds, and .4% reporting
“other”. Among the participants, 167 had married parents, 59 had divorced parents, 9 had a widowed parent, and 12
had separated parents. One hundred and thirteen participants were the youngest child, 41 were the middle child, and
93 were the oldest child in their family. Participants reported between 1 and 9 total siblings, with the mean number of
siblings being 1.96. Eleven participants were a twin, 17 participants had stepsiblings, 54 participants had half siblings,
and 5 had adopted siblings. Residential status for participants was as follows: 62.3% lived in residence halls, 12.6%
lived off campus, and 25.1% lived at home and commuted to school. Reported parenting styles for mothers were:
224 authoritative, 4 authoritarian, 13 permissive, 3 uninvolved, and 3 did not have their mother as part of their lives.
Reported parenting styles for fathers were: 165 authoritative, 27 authoritarian, 30 permissive, 14 uninvolved, and 11
did not have their father as part of their lives. Participants were recruited via the Department of Psychology
participant pool and received credit toward their class research requirement.
2.2 Materials
Materials for this study included a demographic questionnaire, a questionnaire designed to assess sibling
relationships, and a personality questionnaire.
2.2.1Demographic questionnaire. This measure was designed for the purposes of the current study. It asked
participants to report their age, sex, ethnic background, parents’ marital status, birth order, total number of siblings,
and residential status. Participants were also asked if they were a twin and if they had any step, half, or adopted
siblings. The final items on the demographicquestionnaire asked participants to choose the option that best
represented their mother’s parenting style growing up as well as their father’s parenting style growing up. These
questions gave participants the option of “N/A”, or, in other words, the parent was not in their lives growing up.
2.2.2Lifespan sibling relationship scale (LSRS). This measure, created by Riggio (2000), contains 48 items and
includes six subscales (Adult Affect, Adult Behavior, Adult Cognition, Child Affect, Child Behavior, and Child
Cognition). It is designed to measure positivity, feelings, and beliefs about the sibling relationship in both childhood
and adulthood (i.e., currently). Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). A
sample Adult Affect question was “I admire my sibling”. A sample Adult Behavior question was “I presently spend a
lot of time with my sibling”. A sample Adult Cognition question was “My sibling is very important in my life”. A
sample Child Affect question was “I remember feeling very close to my sibling when we were children”. A sample
Child Behavior question was “My sibling and I often played together as children”. A sample Child Cognition question
was “My sibling and I had a lot in common as children”. All Cronbach’s alphas for the six subscales ranged from .84
to .91, with an alpha of .96 for the total LSRS (Riggio, 2000). If participants had more than one sibling, they were
instructed to answer the questions based on the sibling that has had the greatest impact on their lives.
2.2.3 Big five inventory (BFI). This 44-item measure, created by John and Srivastava (1999), measures the five
dimensions of personality (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness). Participants
responded to various characteristics related to the big five on a scale where 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly. A
sample extraversion item was “I see myself as someone who is talkative”. A sample agreeableness item was “I see
myself as someone who likes to cooperate with others”. A sample conscientiousness item was “I see myself as
someone who is a reliable worker”. A sample neuroticism item was “I see myself as someone who can be moody”. A
sample openness item was “I see myself as someone who has an active imagination”. All Cronbach’s alphas for the
five dimensions ranged from .79 to .88. There were 8 extraversion items, 9 agreeableness items, 9 conscientiousness
items, 8 neuroticism items, and 10 openness items.
Michele Van Volkom, Danielle Dirmeitis & Samantha Cappitelli 59

2.3 Design

The current study was a multi-group, non-experimental design. The main independent variables were
parenting style for mother and father with 5 levels (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, uninvolved, or not
applicable) as well as birth order of the participant with 3 levels (youngest, middle, or oldest). The main dependent
variables were personality scores and assessment of the sibling relationship.
2.4 Procedure
Participants signed up in advance for a time slot of 20 minutes. The online sign-up site indicated that participants
must have a least one sibling, and that those with step, half, and/or adopted siblings were welcome to participate.
Upon arriving at the lab at their designated time, a research assistant greeted the participants and read the informed
consent form to them while they read along on their own copy. Once they agreed to participate, the signed informed
consent forms were filed away. The blank informed consent was left with the participants since it contained essential
information, including the contact information for the principal investigator as well as the Institutional Review Board.
Participants completed a questionnaire packet which included the demographic questionnaire, LSRS, and the BFI.
Once the completed packet was collected and filed separately from the informed consent, participants were orally
debriefed and left the lab with a copy of the debriefing script.
3. Results
3.1 Personality
The relationship between mother’s parenting style and personality was examined via a one-way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA). The independent variable of mother’s parenting style had 5 levels (authoritative, authoritarian,
permissive, uninvolved, or not applicable) and the dependent variable was the big five factors of personality
(extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness). Mother’s parenting style had no
significant effect on extraversion, agreeableness, or conscientiousness. Mother’s parenting style was
significantlyrelated to neuroticism, F (4,242) = 2.83, p = .03. A Tukey’s HSD test indicated that those with
authoritarianmothers (M = 4.06, SD = .88) scored higher in neuroticism versus those with authoritativemothers (M =
3.17, SD = .76).Mother’s parenting style also had a significant effect on openness, F (4, 242) = 2.89, p = .02. Both
permissive (M = 3.75, SD = .74) and uninvolved parenting by mothers (M = 4.13, SD = .76) led to significantly higher
scores on openness versus authoritative parenting by mothers (M = 3.35, SD = .56). Similarly, the relationship
between father’s parenting style and personality was examined via an ANOVA. Father’s parenting style had no
significant effect on any of the big five personality factors.
The relationship between parents’ marital status (married, divorced, widowed, or separated) and the big five
factors of personality was examined. Marital status had no significant impact on agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, or openness scores. Marital status had a significant impact on extraversion, F (3, 243) = 2.70, p = .05.
Those with divorced parents (M = 3.51, SD = .80) scored significantly higher on extraversion versus those with
widowed (M = 2.88, SD = .90) or separated (M = 3.00, SD = .64) parents. Total number of siblings had no impact
on the big five factors. The only gender difference that emerged was related to neuroticism, t (245) = 4.30, p<.001.
Women (M = 3.31, SD = .73) scored significantly higher on neuroticism than men (M = 2.78, SD = .84).
The relationship between birth order (youngest, middle, or oldest) and the big five factors was examined.
Birth order had no significant effect on extraversion, agreeableness, or openness. Birth order did have a significant
effect on conscientiousness, F (2, 244) = 2.97, p = .05. A Tukey’s HSD test indicated that oldest children (M = 3.82,
SD = .65) scored significantly higher in conscientiousness versus youngest children (M = 3.61, SD = .63). Birth order
also significantly impacted neuroticism scores, F (2, 244) = 5.30, p = .01. A Tukey’s HSD test revealed that youngest
children (M = 3.37, SD = .76) scored significantly higher in neuroticism versus middle children (M = 2.94, SD = .78).
3.2 Sibling Relationships
The demographic factors of ethnicity or having stepsiblings, half siblings, or adopted siblings had no
significant relation to adult sibling relationship factors. Being a twin had a significant impact on both child behavior t
(245) = 2.78, p = .01 and child cognitions, t (245) = 2.15, p = .03.
60 Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Twins (M = 4.07, SD = .58) scored significantly higher in child behavior versus non-twins (M = 3.33, SD =
.87). Similarly, twins (M = 4.06, SD = .57) scored significantly higher in child cognitions versus non-twins (M = 3.45,
SD = .92).
As the total number of siblings increased, so did the mean for adult behavior, r (247) = .18, p = .01 and the
mean for adult cognitions, r (247) = .13, p = .04. The correlation between the total number of siblings and adult
affect was approaching significance, r (247) = .12, p = .06. The total number of siblings was not correlated with any
of the childhood sibling measures. In terms of residential status, the only significant effect was found with child
behavior, F (2, 244) = 5.12, p = .01. Those who lived at home and commuted to school (M = 3.64, SD = .86) scored
significantly higher than those who lived in residence halls (M = 3.30, SD = .83) or off campus (M = 3.10, SD = 1.00).
There was no significant difference between living in the residence halls and living off campus on the child behavior
measure.
Birth order had no significant effect on scores for any of the six subscales in the LSRS. In terms of gender,
the only difference found was related to the adult behavior subscale, t (245) = 1.95, p = .05. Women (M = 3.48, SD =
.97) scored higher on this measure versus men (M = 3.17, SD = .97). The demographic of parental marital status only
had an effect when it came to adult cognitions, F (3, 243) = 3.30, p = .02. Participants with married parents (M =
4.14, SD = .87) scored significantly higher versus those with divorced parents (M = 3.73, SD = .80).
ANOVAs revealed two significant findings when examining the effect of mother’s parenting style on sibling
relationships. Mother’s parenting style significantly impacted adult cognitions, F (4, 242) = 2.45, p = .05. Those with
authoritative mothers (M = 4.08, SD = .84) had higher positivity toward the adult sibling relationship in terms of
beliefs versus those with permissive mothers (M = 3.54, SD = 1.10). Mother’s parenting style also significantly
impacted child cognitions, F (4, 242) = 3.37, p = .01. Those with authoritative mothers (M = 3.54, SD = .88) had
higher positivity toward the childhood sibling relationship in terms of beliefs versus those who did not have their
mothers involved in their lives (M = 2.04, SD = 1.16).
Father’s parenting style impacted all six subscales of the LSRS. The impact of father’s parenting style on
adult affect was significant, F (4, 242) = 4.97, p< .01. A Tukey’s HSD test revealed that authoritative fathers (M =
4.33, SD = .60) led to higher adult affect scores compared to authoritarian fathers (M = 3.97, SD = .76). The effect
of father’s parenting style on adult behavior was significant, F (4, 242) = 3.76, p= .01. A Tukey’s HSD test again
showed that authoritative fathers (M = 3.58, SD = .90) led to higher adult behavior scores compared to authoritarian
fathers (M = 3.02, SD = 1.06). The impact of father’s parenting style on adult cognitions was also significant, F (4,
242) = 6.65, p< .001. A Tukey’s HSD test indicated that authoritative fathers (M = 4.22, SD = .78) led to higher adult
cognitions scores versus both permissive (M = 3.70, SD = .89) and authoritarian fathers (M = 3.60, SD = 1.06).
In terms of the childhood subscales, there was a significant effect of father’s parenting style on child affect, F
(4, 242) = 4.57, p< .01. A Tukey’s HSD test indicated that authoritative fathers (M = 3.70, SD = .84) led to higher
child affect scores versus permissive fathers (M = 3.12, SD = .85). There was also a significant effect of father’s
parenting style on child behavior, F (4, 242) = 3.09, p = .02. A Tukey’s HSD test showed that authoritative fathers (M
= 3.48, SD = .83) led to higher child behavior scores versus permissive fathers (M = 2.93, SD = .80). Finally, father’s
parenting style significantly impacted scores on child cognitions, F (4, 242) = 4.27, p< .01. Once again, a Tukey’s
HSD test showed that authoritative fathers (M = 3.64, SD = .84) led to higher child cognitions scores versus
permissive fathers (M = 3.08, SD = .89).
4. Discussion
The current study’s purpose was to delve into an under-researched area; how parenting style (authoritative,
authoritarian, permissive, uninvolved, or not applicable) might affect personality (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) as well as the affect, behavior, and cognitions involved in sibling
relationships. This research also examined the potential link between various demographic factors and how these
might impact personality and sibling relationships. These demographic factors included ethnicity, gender, parental
marital status, and the current residential status of the participant.
In terms of parenting style and personality, results showed that mothers who adopted an authoritarian style
had children with higher neuroticism scores versus mothers with an authoritative style. This supports the notion that
an authoritative parenting style leads to better outcomes (Piko & Balázs, 2012), since neuroticism can involve many
negative traits such as anxiety.
Michele Van Volkom, Danielle Dirmeitis & Samantha Cappitelli 61

Interestingly, openness scores were higher for those with permissive and uninvolved mothers versus
authoritative mothers. Father’s parenting style, however, did not impact any of the big five factors of personality.
Perhaps mothers are a stronger influence on the development of the main aspects of personality versus fathers.
Women were more neurotic than men, a finding that supports earlier work by Lynn and Martin (1997) which
found that women scored higher on this trait across 37 different countries. However, unlike Lynn and Martin’s
findings of men scoring higher on extraversion versus women in 30 of the 37 countries examined, there were no other
gender differences found in terms of personality traits in the current [Link] differences emerged among the big five
factors based on the total number of siblings a participant had. Of the big five factors, only extraversion was affected
by parental marital status. Participants whose parents have divorced were more extraverted than those with widowed
or separated parents. Perhaps the absence of a parent via divorce makes one more outgoing to fill the void, more so
that if the parents are separated or widowed.
Much research has examined birth order and personality (e.g., Sziobiova, 2008). In terms of the current
study, birth order only affected conscientiousness and neuroticism. It was found that oldest children were more
conscientiousness than youngest children, and youngest children were more neurotic than middle children. The
stereotype that the oldest child is the more mature and responsible one because of their position in the family could
possibly explain the conscientiousness finding. However, contrary to the notion of the “middle child syndrome” it
was found here that it was the youngest birth order position, not the middle, which led to higher scores on the
neuroticism factor.
In terms of the sibling relationship, while factors such as ethnicity did not impact participants’ views, being a
twin, not surprisingly, led to higher positivity on both the child behavior and child cognitions subscales. Growing up
as a twin may foster a closeness that cannot be matched in other sibling relationships. More surprisingly was the
finding that birth order had no impact on any of the six subscales of the LSRS. This contradicts previous research
(e.g., Rocca et al., 2010) that showed that birth order can impact siblingships. Additionally, those with married parents
believed there was more positively in the adult sibling relationships versus those with divorced parents. It seems as
though divorce impacts many aspects of life, even the cognitions one has about their siblings in adulthood.
Authoritative parenting emerged as a very positive factor for the sibling relationship. Specifically, mothers
who were authoritative were related to higher levels of positive adult sibling beliefs versus permissive mothers, and
authoritative mothers also led to this higher positivity for childhood sibling beliefs versus those who did not grow up
with their mother in their lives. Authoritative fathers impacted all six measures of the sibling relationship. First,
authoritative fathers led to higher adult affect and adult behavior scores versus authoritarian fathers. There were also
more positive beliefs for the adult sibling relationship when a father was authoritative versus authoritarian and
permissive. Regarding childhood, having an authoritative (versus permissive) father led to higher child affect,
behavior, and cognition scores.
Beyond the strengths of this study such as arespectable sample size, it should also be noted that it added to
the dearth of literature on how parenting styles can affect sibling relationships, especially in adulthood. Most of the
previous literature on parenting styles has focused on outcomes for children (e.g., Carlo, White, Streit, Knight, &
Zeiders, 2018), but this study focused on an adult sample. Questions for future research remain, such as why birth
order had very little effect on the main dependent variables. Perhaps birth order is no longer a main factor that
determines a person’s outcomes; in this case their sibling relationships. Future research would benefit from including
both siblings in a sibling dyad. Further research should also continue to examine the effects of parenting style on a
range of outcomes, including all types of relationships, from siblings to friends. Onenotion that is clear from the
current study is that authoritative parenting remains the overall goal, and that when it comes to sibling relationships,
fathers matter.

5. References

Ali, U., & Aslam, S. (2011). Ordinal position of birth and individual’s psychological needs on Edward’s personal
preference schedule. Pakistan Journal of Psychology, 1, 53-63.
62 Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Barnes, T. P., &Austin, A. M. B. (1995). The influence of parents and siblingson the development of a personal
premise system in middle childhood. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,156 (1), 1-9.
Baumrind (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 1-103.
Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., &Salvanes, K. G. (2011). Older and wiser? Birth order and IQ of young men. CESifo
Economic Studies, 57 (1), 103-120. doi: 10.1093/cesifo/ifq022
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1992). Associations of maternal and paternal direct and differential
behavior with sibling relationships: Contemporaneous and longitudinal analyses. Child Development, 63, 82-92.
Carlo, G., White, R. M. B., Streit, C., Knight, G. P., & Zeiders, K. H. (2018). Longitudinal relations among parenting
styles, prosocial behaviors, and academic outcomes in U.S. Mexican adolescents. Child Development, 89(2), 577-
592. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12761
Herrera, N. C., Zajonc, R. B., Wieczorkowska, G., & Cichomski, B. (2003). Beliefs about birth rank and their
reflection in reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1),142-150. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.142
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.
In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol 2., pp. 102-138). New
York: Guilford Press.
Knight, K. H., Elfenbein, M. H., Capozzi, L., Eason, H. A., Bernardo, M. F., &Ferus, K. S. (2000). Relationship of
connected and separate knowing to parental style and birth order. Sex Roles, 43 (3/4), 229-240.
Loona, M. I., &Khan, M. J. (2016). Self-compassion and procrastination among first born and last born university
students. Pakistan Journal of Psychology, 47(2), 45-59.
Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 nations. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 137(3), 369-373.
Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., &Rocca, K. A. (2005). Perceptions of the adult sibling [Link] American
Journal of Psychology, 7 (1), 107-116.
McGuirk, E. M., & Pettijohn, T. F. (2008). Birth order and romantic relationship styles and attitudes in college
students. North American Journal of Psychology, 10 (1), 37-52.
Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M. J., & Machlev, M. (2011). Effects of parenting style and involvement in sibling conflict
on adolescent sibling relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(8), 1130-1148. doi:
10.1177/0265407511406894
Myers, S. A. (2011). “I have to love her, even if sometimes I may not like her”: The reasons why adults maintain their
sibling relationships. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 51-62.
Myers, S. A. (2015). Using Gold’s typology of adult sibling relationships to explore siblingaffectionate communication.
North American Journal of Psychology, 17 (2), 301-310.
Nyman, L. (1995). The identification of birth order personality attributes. The Journal of Psychology, 129 (1), 1-6.
Pico, B. F., & Balázs, M. Á. (2012). Control or involvement? Relationship between authoritative parenting style and
adolescent depressive symptomatology. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 21, 149-155. doi:
10.1007/s00787-012-0246-0
Portner, L. C., & Riggs, S. A. (2016). Sibling relationships in emerging adulthood: Associations with parent-child
relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1755-1764. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0358-5
Riggio, H. R. (2000). Measuring attitudes toward adult sibling relationships: The lifespan sibling relationship scale.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 707-728.
Rocca, K. A., Martin, M. M., & Dunleavy, K. N. (2010). Siblings’ motives for talking to each [Link] Journal of
Psychology, 144(2), 205-219.
Srivastava, S. K. (2011). Study the effect of achievement motivation among birth orders. The Journalof Psychosocial
Research, 6 (2), 169-178.
Sruthy, R., & Naachimuthu, K. P. (2017). Family relationships and general well-being of adolescents and young
adults. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 8 (7) 674-679.
Stewart, A. E. (2004). Can knowledge of client birth order bias clinical judgement? Journal of Counseling and Development,
82 (2), 167-176.
Szobiova, E. (2008). Birth order, sibling constellation, creativity, and personality dimensions ofadolescents. Studia
Psychologica, 50 (4), 371-381.
Tucker, C. J., Barber, B. L., &Eccles, J. S. (1997). Advice about life plans and personalproblems in late adolescent
sibling relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(1), [Link]: 0047-2891/97/0200-0063$12.50/0
Michele Van Volkom, Danielle Dirmeitis & Samantha Cappitelli 63

Van Volkom, M., Guerguis, A. J., & Kramer, A. (2017). Sibling relationships, birth order, and personality among
emerging adults. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 5(2), 1-16. doi:10.15640/jpbs.v5n2a1
Welecka-Matyja, K. K. (2017). Relationship with siblings as a predictor of empathy and humorstyles in early
adulthood. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 3, [Link]: 10.12740/APP/76339
Yu, J. J., & Gamble, W. C. (2008). Pathways of influence: Marital relationships and their association with parenting
styles and sibling relationship quality. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 757-778. doi: 10.1007/s10826-008-
9188-z