Birth Order Effects on Personality and Achievement within.docx

Birth Order Effects on Personality and Achievement within
Families
Author(s): Delroy L. Paulhus, Paul D. Trapnell and David Chen
Source: Psychological Science, Vol. 10, No. 6 (Nov., 1999), pp.
482-488
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the
Association for Psychological Science
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40063474
Accessed: 27-05-2020 19:49 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sage Publications, Inc., Association for Psychological Science
are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Psychological
Science

This content downloaded from 198.246.186.26 on Wed, 27 May
2020 19:49:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BIRTH ORDER EFFECTS ON PERSONALITY AND
ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN FAMILIES
Delroy L. Paulhus,1 Paul D. Trapnell,2 and David Chen1
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Research Article
1 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, and2 Ohio State University at Mansfield
Abstract - We investigated birth order effects on personality
and
achievement in four studies (N = 1,022 families) including both
stu-
dent and adult samples. Control over a wide range of variables
was
effected by collecting within-family data: Participants
compared their
siblings (and themselves) on a variety of personality and
achievement
dimensions. Across four diverse data sets, first-borns were
nominated
as most achieving and most conscientious. Later-borns were
nominat-
ed as most rebellious, liberal, and agreeable. The same results
obtained whether or not birth order was made salient (to
activate
stereotypes) during the personality ratings. Overall, the results

sup-
port predictions from Sulloway's niche model of personality
develop-
ment, as well as Zajonc 's confluence model of intellectual
achievement.
The notion that birth order has an influence on personality fell
into
disrepute with the publication of Ernst and Angst (1983).
Although
they conceded small effects on intellectual achievement (e.g.,
Zajonc
& Markus, 1975), Ernst and Angst disputed any link between
birth
order and personality traits. Recently, however, a
reconsideration has
been provoked by the publication of Sulloway's (1996) book,
Born to
Rebel. In applying his new theoretical perspective, Sulloway
reaf-
firmed the view that adult personality differs systematically
across
birth order. According to Sulloway, the source of these
differences is
not, as traditionally argued, a differential parental treatment of
chil-
dren of different birth orders (e.g., Hilton, 1967). Instead,
Sulloway's
thesis was that birth order effects derive from a competition
among
siblings as they fight for a family niche.
First-borns (FBs), having the first choice of niche, attempt to
please

their parents in traditional fashion via success in school and
responsi-
ble behavior. But, as other siblings arrive, FBs must deal with
threats
to their natural priority in the sibling status hierarchy. The
resulting
adult character is conscientious and conservative. Later-borns
(LBs)
must resist the higher status of FBs, while seeking alternative
ways of
distinguishing themselves in the eyes of their parents.
Accordingly,
they develop an adult character marked by an empathic
interpersonal
style, a striving for uniqueness, and political views that are
both egal-
itarian and antiauthoritarian. In short, they are "born to rebel."
Sulloway's (1996) book resonated on a personal level with the
gen-
eral public while offering two forms of data to readers more
persuaded
by empirical evidence. One form was the systematic
documentation of
the social attitudes of historical figures as a function of their
birth order.
The second form of empirical support was a meta-analysis of
the large
number of studies on personality and birth order (see also
Sulloway,
1995, in press). To great advantage, Sulloway organized the
studies
within the influential Five-Factor Model of personality, or "Big
Five"

(Goldberg, 1990). Using this organizational system, Sulloway's
meta-
analysis of the apparently chaotic literature exposed the
predicted pat-
terns. In particular, FBs were more conscientious but less
agreeable and
open to experience than LBs. Sulloway (in press) has followed
up those
analyses with new data that are consistent with his predictions.
Recent studies from other quarters vary from supportive
(Davis,
1997; Salmon & Daly, 1998) to nonsupportive (Parker, 1998;
Phillips,
1998). Jefferson, Herbst, and McCrae (1998) found mixed
support:
The few significant birth order differences obtained in the
peer-rating
data fell in the direction predicted by Sulloway. Self-ratings
and
spouse ratings on the same individuals, however, showed none
of the
predicted effects.
All these studies used between-family designs; that is, the
individ-
uals being compared with respect to birth order came from
different
families. Among the known confounds of between-family birth
order
data are social class,1 parental personality, and sibship size.
Unfortu-
nately, a full range of appropriate controls is seldom available.
Within-

family data would provide a natural control procedure for all
between-family differences, including their largest contributor
-
genetics (Dunn & Plomin, 1990). Therefore, within-family
analyses
should be more powerful (Sulloway, in press), as well as more
valid
(Rodgers, 1988). We expected they would confirm the
following pre-
dictions: FBs would be perceived as more conscientious and
achieving,
and LBs would be perceived as more agreeable, liberal, and
rebellious.
Our prediction of superior FB achievement was also consistent
with
the well-known confluence model (e.g., Zajonc & Markus,
1975).
We collected four within-family data sets by asking
respondents to
compare themselves and their siblings on various personality
and
achievement dimensions. In Study 1 , undergraduates from the
Univer-
sity of California were asked to nominate the "rebel" and the
"achiev-
er" in their families. Study 2 applied the same methodology to
a
sample of undergraduates from the University of British
Columbia
while evaluating an alternative hypothesis. Study 3 extended
the crite-
rion variables to include the Big Five personality traits.
Finally, Study

4 replicated Study 3 in a large sample of Vancouver adults.
STUDY 1: PRELIMINARY DATA FROM UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA STUDENTS
Method
In fall 1996, a large, intact class (N = 164) was asked several
ques-
tions as part of a class demonstration. Participation was
voluntary.
First, the students were asked to write down the birth order of
the boys
and girls in their family, including themselves (e.g., B-G-G).
Then,
Address correspondence to Del Paulhus, Department of
Psychology,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4;
e-mail:
[email protected]
1. Moreover, controlling for socioeconomic status has the side
effect of
removing some ability variance. As a result, it is difficult to
demonstrate corre-
lations between ability-related variables (e.g., achievement,
conscientiousness)
and birth order. In short, between-family data entail an
intractable confound.
482 Copyright© 1999 American Psychological Society VOL.
10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999

2020 19:49:44 UTC
Delroy L. Paulhus, Paul D. Trapnell, and David Chen
Table 1. Proportion of families with first-borns nominated as
the achiever and later-borns nominated as the rebel
(American students)
First-born achievers Later-born rebels
Significance Effect size Significance Effect size
Sibship Observed- Difference Odds Observed- Difference Odds
size n expected (O - E) Phi ratio expected (O - E) Phi ratio
2 66 .65-.50 .15* .30 3.48 .61-.50 .11* .21 2.37
3 38 31-33 .04 .05 1.26 .71 -.67 .04 .07 1.35
4 29 .35-.25 .10 .13 1.89 .83-.75 .08 .10 1.83
5-8 15 Varies .10 .13 2.29 Varies .09 .11 2.97
Combined 148 .11** .19 2.28 .08* .14 2.00
Note. N = 164 families; the 16 one-child families are not
included in the table. The mean difference for sibship size 5-8
was
calculated by weighting the difference for each sibship size by
its frequency. Similarly, the combined values were weighted by
frequency. Fisher r-z transformations were applied before
combining phi's, and natural logs were applied before
combining odds
ratios. Significance tests were based on binomial

approximation.
*p < .05, one-tailed. **p < .01, one-tailed.
they were asked to "put a square around the sibling who is most
scholastically achieving, for example, gets the highest grades at
school." School grades were cited so that young siblings could
be rea-
sonably compared with siblings of college age or older. Next,
partici-
pants were asked to put a circle around the "rebel" in the
family. "Use
your own definition of the term rebel," they were told. It was
empha-
sized that the same person could be nominated for both
categories.
Finally, participants were asked to indicate their own birth
order.
Participants were not warned in advance that the topic of birth
order was to be addressed in the course. Nor was it covered in
the
course textbook. Sulloway's (1996) book was not yet available.
In
short, there was no reason to believe that they had been
influenced by
the recent birth order research.
Results and Discussion
The results are presented in Table 1, separately for each sibship
size but with sizes 5 to 8 pooled because of small frequencies.
The 16
sibships of size 1 (i.e., only-children) were not used.

Significance tests
Note from Table 1 that, for every sibship size, the observed
proba-
bility of an FB being nominated as the achiever was higher
than
expected by chance (i.e., the rate of FBs in that family size).
Similar-
ly, for every sibship size, the probability of an LB being
nominated as
the rebel was higher than expected by chance. Unfortunately,
binomi-
al tests reached significance only for sibship size 2; for other
sibship
sizes, the samples were too small to confirm the cell
differences. When
significance levels were combined (see Rosenthal & Rosnow,
1991, p.
504) across the four sibship sizes, however, the hypothesis was
con-
firmed for both FB achievers (combined z = 2.40, p < .01) and
LB
rebels (combined z = 1.87, p < .05).
Effect sizes
For each cell of Table 1, effect size was calculated by
constructing
a 2 x 2 table of proportions (birth order by outcome). The rows
of each
2x2 table corresponded to dichotomous birth order (FB vs. LB),
and
the columns to outcome (achiever vs. nonachiever or rebel vs.

non-
rebel). Calculation of the LB values required a correction for
number
of LBs in each sibship size. Consider, for example, the rate of
achiev-
ers in sibship size 3. The rate for FBs was .368 (rounded to .37
in Table
1), and therefore an LB was the achiever in .632 (1.00 - .368)
of the
families. Because there are 2 LBs in this sibship size, however,
the rate
of achievers among LBs was .316 (.632/2). The values for the
nonachiever column of the 2 x 2 table were the complements of
.316
and .368, namely, .684 and .632.
From such 2x2 tables, we computed our first effect-size index,
phi,
the product-moment correlation for two dichotomous variables
(see
Table I).2 This index is intuitively appealing because it
represents the
correlation between birth order and nomination as achiever (or
rebel).
Averaged over all birth orders, the mean phi was .19 between
birth order
(favoring FBs) and nomination as the achiever. Similarly, the
mean phi
was .14 between birth order (favoring LBs) and nomination as
the rebel.
Although intuitively appealing, phi coefficients are not ideal

for
combining across conditions (Fleiss, 1994). An alternative
effect
size - one that remains constant under changes in marginal
frequencies - is the odds ratio, also included in Table 1. The
combined
odds ratio for achievement can be interpreted as meaning that
the rel-
ative proportion of achievers to nonachievers is 2.28 times
higher
among FBs than among LBs. Similarly, the mean odds ratio for
rebels
(2.00) indicates that the proportion of rebels to nonrebels is
twice as
high in LBs as it is in FBs.
FBs in the class
Recall that we had also asked participants to indicate what their
own birth order was. The rate of FBs in our sample (.44) was
signifi-
cantly higher than the rate expected by chance (.34), %2(1, N =
164) =
7.0, p < .01 . The chance rate refers to the proportion of FBs
that would
be expected in our sample of participants had they been
randomly
selected from the families they reported on.
2. In this type of table, phi corresponds to the binomial effect-
size display
(see Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991, p. 281). The values may be
interpreted as the

differences in rates of nominations of FBs and LBs.
VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999 483
2020 19:49:44 UTC
Birth Order and Personality
Discussion
Overall, our results are consistent with previous evidence that
FBs
are more achieving and that LBs are more rebellious. One
might won-
der, though, whether the effects we found are limited to the
highly
selected student body at the University of California, Berkeley,
cam-
pus. Another potential limitation of this study was the
susceptibility to
contamination by stereotypes about birth order; that is, our
respon-
dents may have had preconceived notions about birth order and
per-
sonality that influenced their nominations of achievers and
rebels.
STUDY 2: SALIENCE STUDY WITH UNIVERSITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA STUDENTS

These potential limitations were addressed in Study 2 by
collecting
a data set that differed in several respects from the set in Study
1 . First,
the data were collected at a less selective university in another
coun-
try, namely, the University of British Columbia in Vancouver,
Canada.
Second, the salience of birth order during the personality
ratings was
manipulated. Although some participants were questioned
exactly as
in Study 1, others were asked to make their nominations by
initial
only, and only afterward were asked to specify the birth order
of the
nominees.
Method
Data were collected in four intact classes (total N = 395). As in
Study 1, participants were asked to nominate the "scholastic
achiever"
and the "rebel in the family." They were advised that the same
person
could be nominated for both. In two classes, birth order was
made
salient during nominations (high-salience condition); in two
other
classes, the topic of birth order was not made salient during
nomina-
tions (low-salience condition). To control for possible
differences in

morning and afternoon classes, we counterbalanced the salience
con-
ditions across time of day. As in Study 1, none of the classes
was
warned in advance that the topic of birth order would be
covered in the
course.
High-salience condition
As in Study 1, participants (n = 217) were asked to write down
the
birth order of the boys and girls in their family (e.g., B-G-G).
They
were then asked to indicate which of the children was the
scholastic
achiever and which was the rebel.
Low-salience condition
Participants (n = 178) were asked to write down the initials of
the
scholastic achiever and the rebel among the children in the
family.
Then they were asked to write down the birth order of each of
the
nominees and the total number of children. In this condition,
there was
no particular reason for participants to reflect on birth order
and its
effects while they were doing the nominations.

The proportions of nominees for each category were again
calcu-
lated within each family size. The two salience conditions were
com-
pared cell by cell using z tests for proportions. There were no
significant differences on either dependent variable between
the high-
and low-salience conditions (all zs < 1.40). The pooled results,
dis-
played in Table 2, closely resemble those from Study 1 . In
particular,
the effect sizes in Table 2 are remarkably similar to those in
Table 1.
In terms of phi coefficients, the mean effect size for FB versus
LB
achievers was .19 (identical to the value in Study 1). The
comparable
figure for LB versus FB rebels was .18 (compared with .14 in
Study
1). The odds ratios were also similar across the two studies.
This consistency suggests that the results of Study 1 were not
an
artifact of an idiosyncratic sample. The predicted pattern
emerged just
as clearly at the Canadian university as at the American
university.
Because the sample sizes were larger than those in Study 1,
however,
seven of eight cells reached significance (p < .07) on a
binomial test.
Combined across sibship size, the effects were significant for
both FB
achievers (p< .01) and LB rebels (p < .01). In terms of effect
sizes, the
two weakest associations appeared for sibship size 3 (phi

coefficients
of .10 and .07).
Table 2. Proportion of families with first-borns nominated as
the achiever and later-borns nominated as the rebel
(Canadian students)
First-born achievers Later-born rebels
Significance Effect size Significance Effect size
Sibship Observed- Difference Odds Observed- Difference Odds
size n expected (O - E) Phi ratio expected (O-E) Phi ratio
2 165 .63-.50 .13** .26 2.91 .64-.50 .14** .27 3.06
3 115 .40-.33 .07* .10 1.56 .71-.67 .05 .07 1.38
4 64 .39-.25 .14** .19 2.52 .88-.75 .13** .17 2.88
5-8 25 Varies .12* .15 2.49 Varies .12* .14 5.27
Combined 369 .11** .19 2.31 .11** .18 2.45
included in the table. The mean difference for sibship size 5-8
was
calculated by weighting the difference for each sibship size by
its frequency. Similarly, the combined values were weighted by
frequency. Fisher r-z transformations were applied before
combining phi's, and natural logs were applied before
combining odds
ratios. Significance tests were based on binomial
approximation.
*p < .07, one-tailed. **p < .01, one-tailed.
484 VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999
2020 19:49:44 UTC

STUDY 3: STUDENT TAKE-HOME PACKAGE
The two dependent variables studied up to this point -
rebelliousness and intellectual achievement - capture a rather
limited
range of human personality. Broad trait taxonomies typically
reveal
the five-dimensional personality space known as the Big Five,
or the
Five-Factor Model (see Goldberg, 1990; Trapnell & Wiggins,
1990).
Indeed, Sulloway (1995, in press) profited considerably from
orga-
nizing his findings in terms of the Big Five. He was able to
show that FBs
were higher on Conscientiousness and LBs were higher on
Openness to
Experience and Agreeableness. Accordingly, in Study 3, we
expanded
our range of questions to tap four of the Big Five traits.
Neuroticism was
omitted because it has the weakest effects (Sulloway, in press).
We asked participants to rank themselves and their siblings on
seven variables. The terms rebellious and scholastically

achieving were
included to correspond to the variables used in Studies 1 and 2.
Factor
1 of the Big Five (Extraversion) was represented by socially
confident,
one of its highest loading items (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990).
Factor 2
(Agreeableness) was represented by agreeable, and Factor 3
(Consci-
entiousness) by conscientious. Factor 5 (Openness to
Experience) was
represented by rebellious, creative, and liberal (see Trapnell,
1994).
Based on the literature cited, we predicted that FBs would be
rated
as more achieving and conscientious. We also predicted that
LBs
would be perceived as more liberal, rebellious, and agreeable.
Cre-
ativity (despite its association with Openness) and extraversion
have
shown weak or mixed results in the literature (Sulloway, 1996),
so we
made no predictions about those two variables.
Method
The data collection (N = 203) differed from the procedure in
Stud-
ies 1 and 2 in that (a) rather than answering questions in class,
students
took questionnaire packages home to complete and (b) rather
than

nominating one family member for each variable, students
ranked all
family members on each variable.
Results
The results are summarized in Table 3. Data for the 9 only-
children
are not included in the table. For simplicity and consistency
with ear-
lier tables, we retained our dichotomous scoring of all
dependent vari-
ables. On agreeableness, for example, we assigned a score of 1
to the
individual who was nominated as highest in the family; all
others were
assigned a score of 0.
The asterisks in the row showing mean differences in Table 3
indi-
cate that all hypotheses were supported. Moreover, the pattern
is con-
sistent across sibship sizes. That is, FBs were nominated as
most
conscientious as well as most achieving more frequently than
expect-
ed by chance. In contrast, LBs were more frequently nominated
as
most liberal, agreeable, and rebellious. The combined
significance lev-
els were significant for all predicted outcomes. Neither of the
variables
for which we made no predictions (creativity and
extraversion),. how-

ever, showed significance in either direction. Effect sizes, as
indexed
by phi coefficients, were highest for conscientious (.20) and
liberal
(.18).
Discussion
Two additional potential artifacts must be considered as
explana-
tions of the observed birth order differences in Studies 1
through 3.
The finding that LBs were more likely to be nominated as
rebels may
be an artifact of the age range of the raters. The youngest
siblings in
families of students 19 to 21 years old are likely to be teenage
or
younger. In other words, the LBs are likely to be of an age for
which
rebelliousness is commonplace. As teenagers grow out of this
period,
Table 3. Proportion of families consistent with each
hypothesis: Study 3
Favor first-borns Favor later-borns No prediction
Scholastic
Sibship size n achiever Conscientious Liberal Rebellious
Agreeable Extraverted Creative
2 107 .54 .65 .61 .56 .59 .52 .51
(.04) (.15)* (.11)* (.06) (.09) (.02) (.01)

3 61 .43 .34 .77 .74 .74 .34 .69
(.09) (.01) (.10)* (.07) (.07) (.01) (.02)
4 18 .39 .39 .78 .78 .78 .33 .67
(.14) (.14) (.03) (.03) (.03) (.08) (-.08)
5 4 .25 .25 1.00 .50 .50 .00 .50
(.05) (.05) (.20) (-.30) (-.30) (-.20) (-.30)
6 4 .25 .50 1.00 1.00 .75 .25 1.00
(.08) (.33) (.17) (.17) (-.08) (.08) (.17)
Mean difference
from chance (.07)* (.11)* (.10)* (.06)* (.07)* (.02) (.00)
Mean effect
size (phi) .11 .20 .18 .10 .13 .04 .01
included in the table. Differences from chance are shown in
parentheses. They were
calculated so that positive values indicate differences
consistent with the hypotheses. The column means were derived
after weighting the
entries by sample size. Some of the differences from chance
may appear faulty because the values in the table are rounded
off.
*p < .05, one-tailed.
VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999 485
2020 19:49:44 UTC

Birth Order and Personality
Table 4. Proportion of adult families consistent with each
hypothesis: Study 4
Achievement Big-Five-related traits
Favor first-borns Favor later-borns No prediction
Sibship size n Scholastic Financial Prestige Conscientious
Liberal Rebellious Agreeable Extraverted
2 55 .55 .55 .53 .60 .56 .60 .58 .55
(.05) (.05) (.03) (.10) (.06) (.10) (.08) (.05)
3 60 .38 .45 .40 .50 .88 .78 .77 .33
(.05) (.12)* (.07) (.17)* (.21) (.11)* (.10) (.00)
4 48 .25 .33 .29 .31 .83 .73 .83 .23
(.00) (.08) (.04) (.06) (.08) (-.02) (.08) (-.02)
5 33 .36 .27 .30 .24 .92 .94 .82 .21
(.16)* (.07) (.10) (.04) (.12) (.14)* (.02) (.01)
6 44 .39 .23 .32 .25 1.00 .93 .82 .11
(.22)* (.06) (.15)* (.08) (.17) (.10)* (-.02) (-.05)
Mean difference
from chance (.09)* (.08)* (.07)* (.10)* (.14)* (.09)* (.06)*
(.00)
Mean effect

size (phi) .12 .11 .10 .15 .24 .13 .10 .01
included in the table. Differences from chance are shown in
parentheses. They were calculated
so that positive values indicate differences consistent with the
hypotheses. Column means were derived after weighting the
entries by sample size.
*p < .05, one-tailed.
maturity-related birth order differences should wane (see
Harris,
1998). Although such a maturity artifact is plausible in student
data, it
would be an implausible explanation if similar differences
appeared in
adult data.
Similarly, the finding that FBs are more scholastically
achieving
than LBs may follow from the age range of our raters. The LBs
that
were rated, being teenagers or younger, may have had little
opportu-
nity to exhibit intellectual achievement - at least, they may not
have
had as much opportunity as the FBs. Measurements taken later
in life
might not show the FB advantage. Study 4 was designed to
over-
come these possible artifacts in the student samples of Studies
1
through 3.
STUDY 4: VANCOUVER ADULT TAKE-HOME

PACKAGE
Questionnaires were administered to a large sample of adults
who
were older than 40 years of age. These adults were asked to
provide
personality rankings of their own families of origin. Because of
the
age restriction, the possible artifacts attributable to student
samples
should have been eliminated. For one thing, all the rated
individuals
were well beyond the "rebellious" teenage years and were,
therefore,
more comparable. And by age 30, an individual's intellectual
achieve-
ment (as well as other forms of achievement) should be
evident. The
replication of our findings in this older generation would boost
our
confidence in the robustness of these birth order effects.
Method
A sample of 309 adults was solicited by asking university
students
to take home a questionnaire package to be completed by their
parents
or other adults over 40. A returned questionnaire was excluded
from
analysis if any of the participant's siblings were less than 30
years of
age. A total of 260 questionnaires was usable. Ages of siblings
ranged

from 30 to 61 (M = 44.2, SD = 9.9). Education ranged from 6
years to
20 years, with a median of 12 years.
The package of questionnaires was similar to that used in Study
3.
One change was the inclusion of three forms of achievement
(scholas-
tic, financial, prestige) instead of one. The term extraverted
was used
to represent Factor 1 (Extraversion), and the term reliable was
used to
represent Factor 3 (Conscientious). Finally, creative was
dropped. It
was made clear that respondents were to rate the siblings in
their fam-
ilies of origin, not their own children.
The results are summarized in Table 4. They appear remarkably
similar to the data obtained with college students. All three
forms of
achievement showed the predicted pattern, and the findings for
the
other variables replicated earlier studies. The combined
significance
levels for the seven predictions were all significant. Note from
Table 4
that the largest mean effect sizes were .15 for conscientious
(favoring
FBs) and .24 for liberal (favoring LBs).
GENERAL DISCUSSION

As a whole, the studies reported here confirm the birth order
dif-
ferences predicted by the family-niche model of personality
develop-
ment (Sulloway, 1996), as well as the confluence model of
intellectual
development (e.g., Zajonc & Markus, 1975).3 Given the mixed
support
from recent between-family studies, our success likely derives
from
3. Of course, our data are mute with respect to the dynamics of
these mod-
els, and are consistent with other theories (Rodgers, 1988).
486 VOL. 10, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 1999
2020 19:49:44 UTC
our use of the powerful within-family methodology. This
additional
power follows from the built-in control over a variety of
between-fam-
ily differences, namely, social class, family size, and,
especially,
genetics.

Big Five Personality Traits
The results for the personality traits largely followed the birth
order
pattern emerging from Sulloway's (1995) meta-analysis. The
weakest
effects were for Extraversion, one of the two weakest factors in
Sul-
loway's summary. Clear differences were found, however, in
Consci-
entiousness, Agreeableness, and two of our indicators of Factor
5
(Openness to Experience), namely, liberalism and rebellion.
Another
indicator of Openness, creativity, did not show significant
differences.
…
Version 10.0
BUS-390
Global Business
Course Syllabus
page of 1 17
Credit Hours

4.0
Duration
56 Days
Type
Credit Based
Course Code
BUS-390 v:10.
0
Global Business
Course Description
This course surveys the global business environment with an
emphasis on international markets and the global supply
chain that impact all organizations and consumers. Students
learn about basic international trade and currency issues
and strategies to enter global markets successfully. Students
focus on communication tools and negotiation tactics to
enhance their cultural competence and business acumen.
Pre-Requisites
None
Co-Requisites
None
BUS-390
Course MaterialsC

Managing Cultural Differences: Global Leadership
Description:
Abramson, N. R., & Moran, R. T. (2017). Managing cultural
differences global leadership for the 21st century
(10th ed). New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN-13:
9781138223684
(Available as print text only)
Introduction to Business Law
Description:
page of 2 17
1.
2.
3.
Beatty, J., Samuelson, S., & Sanchez Abril, P. (2019). (6th
ed.). Boston, MA:Introduction to business law
Cengage. ISBN-13:
9781337404341
(Available as print text only).
Topic 1: Historical Issues and GlobalizationT
Description

Objectives:
Explain how the effects of colonization contributed to the
origins of Globalization.
Analyze why the interdependence of global supply chains and
markets have increased.
Analyze the opportunities and challenges of globalization.
Study MaterialsS
Managing Cultural Differences
Description:
Read Chapter 1 and review Chapters 12-18 in Managing
Cultural Differences.
The Pros And Cons Of Globalization
Description:
Read "The Pros and Cons of Globalization" by Collins from
Forbes.
Globalization’s Backlash Is Here, at Just the Wrong Time
Description:
Read "Globalization’s Backlash Is Here, at Just the Wrong
Time" by Irwin from (2018).The New York Times
What Is a Global Manager?
Description:

Read "What Is a Global Manager?" by Bartlett and Ghoshal
from (2003).Harvard Business Review
TasksT
page of 3 17
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CLC: Impact of Colonization Presentation
Description:
This is a Collaborative Learning Community (CLC) assignment.
As a CLC group, select a region in the world to analyze
throughout this course. Next, in a PowerPoint
presentation (1520 slides), answer the following questions:
How was the impact of colonization within that region?
Which country in that region has the largest economy? What are
the characteristics of that
economy?
Each member of the group will select a country within this
region (you will use your selected

country in multiple assignments throughout the course). Using
the selected country, identify
two significant multinationals in that country that are present in
the market.
Citing research, explain why those multinationals go into those
countries. What challenges did
they face?
Use the CIA.gov website to utilize the categories available on
the CIA.gov website: Click on
World Factbook. Use the dropdown feature to find your selected
country. Select three
categories presented about that country (i.e., economy,
geography, people and society). Next,
provide explanations for the level of development in that
country. Why do they have the
economy they have based on those three categories?
The PowerPoint presentation should consist of 1520 slides not
including the title slide and slide for
APA citations. Images may be included in the presentation but
be sure to keep all image sizes low for
this presentation.
Refer to the resource, "Creating Effective PowerPoint
Presentations," located in the Student Success
Center, for additional guidance on completing this assignment
in the appropriate style.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assessment,
solid academic writing is expected,
and documentation of sources should be presented using APA
formatting guidelines, which can be
found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success
Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to

beginning the assignment to become
familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Refer to the LopesWrite Technical
for assistance.Support articles
Topic 1 DQ 1
Description:
Read the assigned articles on globalization. Explain the origins
of globalization. What have been two major strengths and
weaknesses of globalization on the country you selected?
Justify your claims.
Topic 1 DQ 2
Description:
Read the assigned articles and reflect upon the historical and
recent trends in globalization. What does the future hold for
global organizations? What are the major opportunities and
challenges that lie ahead?
Topic 2: International Political EconomyT
Description
https://support.gcu.edu/hc/en-us/sections/360001963394-
LopesWrite
LopesWrite
page of 4 17

1.
2.
Objectives:
Differentiate between the multilateral world organizations
Explain how most countries in the world participate in these
world organizations: WTO, IMF, World
Bank, BFIS, IDB.
Study MaterialsS
Description:
Read Chapter 4 in Managing Cultural Differences.
The World Bank
Description:
Access and view the World Bank website.
The World Trade Organization
Description:
Access and view The World Trade Organization website.
TasksT
Topic 2 DQ 1

Description:
What is the objective of the WTO? To what degree has it
achieved that objective? What has been the growth rate of
global trade since the WTO was created? How does the World
Bank compare with Chinese Development Bank?
Topic 2 DQ 2
Description:
Some groups of nations are forming blocks, like North America
or Europe. Are regional trade blocks good for global
trade or not? Support your argument.
Topic 3: Cultural Differences and Its Role on LeadershipT
Description
page of 5 17
1.
2.
3.
Objectives:
Analyze the characteristics and competencies of leaders in
different cultures.
Evaluate the challenges and opportunities associated with
leading in other cultures
Identify the cultural societal values that influence the
communication and behavior of those engaged

in international business.
Study MaterialsS
Description:
Read Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 7 in Managing Cultural Differences.
Global Leadership & Organizational Behavior Effectiveness
(GLOBE)
Description:
Access and read the “GLOBE CEO Study 2014” page on the
website.GLOBE
The Six Signature Traits of Inclusive Leadership
Description:
Read “The Six Signature Traits of Inclusive Leadership” by
Dillon & Bourke from (2016).Deloitte University Press
The Most Important Leadership Competencies, According to
Leaders Around the World
Description:
Read “The Most Important Leadership Competencies, According
to Leaders Around the World,” by Giles from Harvard
(2016).Business Review
Culture and Leader Effectiveness: The GLOBE Study

Description:
Read “Culture and Leader Effectiveness: The GLOBE Study” by
Hoppe, from (2007).Kevin Asbjörnson & Associates
In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in
Leadership from Project GLOBE
Description:
Read “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in
Leadership from Project GLOBE,” by Javidan et al., from
(2006).Academy of Management Perspectives
Hofstede Insights
Description:
Access and read the “Compare Countries” page on the Hofstede
Insights website.
page of 6 17
1.
2.
3.
TasksT
CLC: Cultural Differences Presentation
Description:

To better understand cultural differences and how these
differences influence global management,
as a group, create a PowerPoint presentation that addresses the
following:
Compare how the United States differs from another country of
your choice (within the region
you selected to analyze throughout the course) on Hofstede’s
six dimensions of culture.
Explain how your knowledge of these differences would
influence you as a global manager if
you were doing business in the selected country.
Explain the challenges and opportunities associated with
leading in your selected country.
this presentation.
Center.

Topic 3 DQ 1
Description:
Watch one of the video clips below. Post a brief reflection on
what your most significant takeaway was from the videos.
What did you find most surprising? What did you find most
alarming?
Watch “Reaching Across Cultures Without Losing Yourself” by
Molinsky
https://hbr.org/video/2363497345001/reaching-across-cultures-
without-losing-yourself
Watch “How Different Countries Expect Women to Show
Authority.”
https://hbr.org/video/4824895436001/how-different-countries-
expect-women-to-show-authority
Watch “How Different Countries Expect Women to Show
Authority.”
Watch “Rethinking Some Assumptions About Global Business.”

https://hbr.org/video/5392487464001/rethinking-some-
assumptions-about-global-business
Watch “How Cultures Across the World Approach Leadership.”
https://hbr.org/video/5476393165001/how-cultures-across-the-
world-approach-leadership
LopesWrite
LopesWrite
https://hbr.org/video/2363497345001/reaching-across-cultures-
without-losing-yourself
https://hbr.org/video/5392487464001/rethinking-some-
assumptions-about-global-business
https://hbr.org/video/5476393165001/how-cultures-across-the-
world-approach-leadership
page of 7 17
1.
2.
3.
Topic 3 DQ 2
Description:

Read the article titled "The Six Signature traits of Inclusive
Leadership". Note how each of the traits and subcomponents
is defined, and how the thoughts and actions of leaders with the
trait is discussed. Which one of these traits is a
(personal) strength and which is a weakness? What can you do
to reinforce the strength? What can you do to overcome
the weakness? Using your selected country, integrate with the
characteristics of leadership in that country.
Topic 4: Communications and NegotiationsT
Description
Objectives:
Analyze how cultural differences affect cross cultural
communication.
Recommend ways to apply verbal and nonverbal communication
techniques to foster effective
crosscultural communication
Apply crosscultural awareness in a business negotiation context.
Study MaterialsS
Description:
Read Chapters 2 and 11 and then review Chapter 4 in Managing
Getting to Yes Across Cultures
Description:

Access and view the “Getting to Yes Across Cultures” video.
Key Concepts: Underlying Structures of Culture
Description:
Read “Key Concepts: Underlying Structures of Culture” by Hall
& Hall from California State University Northridge.
How Can Cultural Differences Affect Business
Communication?
Description:
Read “How Can Cultural Differences Affect Business
Communication?” by Brown, from (2018).Chron
Understand High and Low Context Cultures
Description:
page of 8 17
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Access and view the “Understand High and Low Context
Cultures” video on the website.inLearning
Cross Cultural Communication
Description:
Access and view the “Cross Cultural Communication” video on
the website.TED
Hall’s Cultural Factors
Description:
Access and view “Hall’s Cultural Factors” page on the
Changing Minds website.
TasksT
CLC: Communication and Negotiation Presentation
Description:
For this group project, you will prepare for a negotiation:
First, as a group, select another country from the region you
selected in the Topic 1 assignment.
Next, you will assess the country by addressing the following in
your PowerPoint presentation:
Present the culture of the country, the goals of the negotiation,
and strategies you will use to

negotiate.
Describe the major differences of the communication
approaches used within the country and
the communication approaches within the United States:
Using the selected country, analyze the role of cultural
differences and its effect on cross
cultural communication in this country in comparison to the
United States.
Examine the role of verbal and nonverbal communication in
crosscultural communication in
the country you selected and how it differs from the United
States.
Explain how an American would apply the knowledge of verbal
and nonverbal communication
to foster effective crosscultural communication within the
selected country.
Lastly, summarize how cultural differences affect crosscultural
communications.
this presentation.
Center.

LopesWrite
LopesWrite
page of 9 17
1.
2.
3.
4.
Topic 4 DQ 1
Description:
What are the similarities and differences between how people
communicate in your culture versus communication in the
country you selected? Discuss how you will avoid the major
challenges you may encounter when communicating with
people from that culture.
Topic 4 DQ 2
Description:

Watch the Let's Break a Deal video. Analyze the role that
culture played in this video. What went wrong and why? What
should Michael and Norio have done differently? Be sure to
discuss both verbal and nonverbal cues.
Topic 5: Rule of Law and EthicsT
Description
Objectives:
Describe common legal issues companies encounter when
conducting international business.
Recommend legal compliances approaches used by companies
conducting international business.
Identify the major legal issues for global business and an
approach for company's legal compliance
Identify the key ethics issues which international companies
must address with an approach to such
ethics and social responsibility.
Study MaterialsS
Introduction to Business Law
Description:
Read Chapters 2 and 3 in Introduction to Business Law.
TasksT
Rule of Law and Ethics Worksheet
Description:

Access and complete the “Rule of Law and Ethics” Worksheet.
solid academic writing is expected, and documentation
of sources should be presented using APA formatting
guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located
in
the Student Success Center.
page of 10 17
1.
2.
This assignment uses a scoring guide. Please review the scoring
guide prior to beginning the assignment to become
Refer to the forLopesWrite Technical Support articles
assistance.
Topic 5 DQ 1
Description:
The Internet and greater access to information it can provide are
forcing politicians to change their methods of
governing. How might the Internet change totalitarian political
systems, such as North Korea? What might the Web's
future expansion mean for nations with theocratic systems, such
as Iran? How might technology change the way that
democracies function?

Topic 5 DQ 2
Description:
Ethics Challenge: You are the president of a firm that publishes
textbooks for medical students in more than 30
languages. On a recent trip to a university in a developing
country (with a GDP per capita of under $1,000 per year), you
discover that students are using bound photocopies of your best-
selling medical textbook. Speaking with several
students, they inform you that if they were required to pay for
the actual books, they could not afford medical school.
Witnessing the clear copyright violation firsthand, how do you
react? What possible courses of action might you take? If
additional information would be helpful to you, what would it
be?
Topic 6: Trade and Macro EconomicsT
Description
Objectives:
Differentiate the perspective of free trade views.
Analyze the benefits and consequences of free trade agreements.
Study MaterialsS
Description:
Review Chapters 6 and 11 and read Chapter 16 in Managing

Why, After 200 Years, Can’t Economists Sell Free Trade?
Description:
Access and view “Why, After 200 Years, Can’t Economists Sell
Free Trade?” by Blinder from Peterson Institute of
(2017).International Economics
Trade at What Price?
Description:
LopesWrite
page of 11 17
Read “Trade at What Price?” from (2016).The Economist
NAFTA’s Economic Impact
Description:
Read “NAFTA’s Economic Impact” by McBride and Sergie
from 2017).Council on Foreign Relations (
Trade Talks
Description:
Access and listen to “Trade Talks” by Keynes and Brown
podcasts page on the Peterson Institute for International
website.Economics
Addressing Currency Manipulation Through Trade Agreements

Description:
Read “Addressing Currency Manipulation Through Trade
Agreements” by Bergsten from Peterson Institute for
(2014).International Economics
Currency Manipulation and Its Toll on the US Economy
Description:
Access and view the “Currency Manipulation and Its Toll on the
US Economy” video by Gagnon from Peterson Institute
(2017).for International Economics
Semi-Annual Report on International Economic and Exchange
Rate Policies
Description:
Access and read the “Semi-Annual Report on International
Economic and Exchange Rate Policies” page on the U.S.
Department of Treasury website.
TasksT
Topic 6 DQ 1
Description:
Explain why the economist’s view of free trade is different from
the public’s? How might these different perspectives be
reconciled?
Topic 6 DQ 2

Description:
page of 12 17
1.
2.
3.
What were the main reasons for the United States, Canada, and
Mexico to sign on to the original NAFTA? After more
than 20 years, has NAFTA delivered the benefits expected?
How might NAFTA be improved to the benefit of all three
member countries?
Topic 7: Business Organization and Entry StrategiesT
Description
Objectives:
Determine the appropriate international organizational structure
for a company to use in a particular
industry.
Identify appropriate strategies for entering foreign markets.
Recommend strategies for a company to use when entering a
foreign market.
Study MaterialsS
Description:

Review Chapter 11 in Managing Cultural Differences.
TasksT
Business Organization and Entry Strategies Worksheet
Description:
Access and complete the “Business Organization and Entry
Strategies Worksheet.”
in
assistance.
Topic 7 DQ 1
Description:
Name a professional service related business, (i.e., legal
services, web site development, sports agent) which of the
organizational structures discussed do you think best fits for an
international expansion. What characteristics of the
structure chosen support your choice? Consider and discuss

some of the risks associated with your choice?
LopesWrite
page of 13 17
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
Topic 7 DQ 2
Description:
Related to a product offering that would be considered a
commodity, identify three (3) key variables that would impact
your choice of entry strategies. Using specific examples, how
might these variables impact your analysis?
Topic 8: Entrepreneurship, Technology, and Looking ForwardT
Description
Objectives:

Describe how the hype cycle works.
Determine the location of emerging technologies on the hype
cycle.
Explain the impact of the convergence of multiple technologies
through Moore's Law, the Hype
Cycle and the 6 D's of Disruption.
Determine the existing or emerging local technology in a
particular country.
Study MaterialsS
Singularity University Hub
Description:
Access and view the Singularity University Hub website.
TasksT
CLC: FINAL Group Presentation
Description:
As a group, prepare a presentation where each member presents
on the country they selected, using the prompts below.
Assign sections of the presentation to members in the group.
For each assigned section, address the following in your
presentation. Students are to include presenter notes for each
section. Cite scholarly sources to support your claims:
Historical Issues and Globalization
Using your selected country, identify two significant
multinationals in that country that are present in the
market.

Explain why those multinationals go into those countries. What
challenges did they face?
Touch on International Political Economy
Briefly explain how your selected country has been affected by
global trade blocks.
page of 14 17
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1.

2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
Explain how your selected country participates in these world
organizations: WTO, IMF, World Bank, BFIS,
IDB
Cultural differences, leadership differences
Compare how the United States differs from the selected
country on Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture.
Explain how your knowledge of these differences would
influence you as a global manager if you were doing
business in the selected country.
Explain the challenges and opportunities associated with
leading in your selected country.
Communication and Negotiations
Using your selected country, analyze the role of cultural
differences and its effect on cross cultural
communication in this country.
Examine the role of verbal and nonverbal communication in
cross-cultural communication in the country you
selected.
Explain how you would apply the knowledge of verbal and
nonverbal communication to foster effective
cross-cultural communication.

Rule of Law and Ethics
Using the country you selected, present the influence of
colonization on that country and explain how that
influence has affected its current legal system.
Explain the current legal system. Is there a correlation between
the current rule of law and the propensity of
entrepreneurship?
Explain how that legal system relates to the mode of entry
(property rights) and how that legal system affects
your entry into that country (as a company) and how you would
conduct business in that country.
Recommend legal compliances approaches would you use for
your selected country.
Trade and Macro Economics
Explain why an international business should be concerned
about exchange rates. Explain if a strong currency
necessarily good for your selected country’s economy.
Why/why not?
Entry Strategies
Select an existing business in the United States. Take this same
business into another market of the country you
selected. Propose an appropriate entry strategy based on your
market selection and how you might rethink your
existing structure.
What are the pros and cons of your proposed strategy?
Looking Forward
Briefly explain how the hype cycle works.
Determine an existing or emerging local technology in your

selected country and describe its global impact.
Determine the location of that emerging technology on the hype
cycle. Defend your reasoning.
The PowerPoint presentation should consist of 15-20 slides not
including the title slide and slide for APA citations.
Images may be included in the presentation but be sure to keep
all image sizes low for this presentation.
Presentations," located in the Student Success Center, for
additional guidance on completing this assignment in the
appropriate style.
in
assistance.
Benchmark - Executive Summary
Description:
After the presentation about your selected country, provide an
(350-500 word) executive summary.

Define the problem: who is affected? Where are they? What are
the costs that an individual suffering from the
problem bears?
What technologies are emerging that could be used to solve the
problem? What are the costs associated with it?
What cost level would be needed to solve the problem?
LopesWrite
page of 15 17
3.
4.
How would you recommend they enter the market? what
infrastructure do they need in country to offer your
solution? (i.e., ports, electricity, Internet, language, rule of law)
Why? How would the solution be communicated
to potential customers?
Explain the impact of the convergence of multiple technologies
through Moore's Law, the Hype Cycle and the 6
D's of Disruption.
in
beginning the assignment to become familiar with the
expectations for successful completion.

Refer to the articles forLopesWrite Technical Support
assistance.
This assignment assesses Competencies 3.2, 3.12 and 5.6:
Analyze the economic, legal, and cultural factors that affect
organizations in the global business environment.
Topic 8 DQ 1
Description:
Describe 3 emerging global technologies and explain where
each one is on the hype cycle. Defend your explanation.
Topic 8 DQ 2
Description:
Research a company that failed because they did not adapt.
What technology disrupted them and how long did it take?
Think Kodak or Blockbuster: Describe how a particular
company or industry was eliminated by a new technology. For
example, how did the digital camera destroy the film market?
What was the impact of the convergence of these
technologies through Moore's Law, the Hype Cycle and the 6
D's of Disruption?
Grade Scale
Final Grade Column
Letter Grade GPA Value Minimum (%) Maximum (%)
A 4.0 93.0 100.0

A- 3.7 90.0 92.99
B+ 3.3 87.0 89.99
B 3.0 83.0 86.99
B- 2.7 80.0 82.99
C+ 2.3 77.0 79.99
C 2.0 70.0 76.99
D 1.0 60.0 69.99
…
PSY 216 Research Gap Worksheet
This worksheet will help you complete task the Module Four
Research Gap Worksheet: Identifying a Research Gap
assignment.
In order to complete this worksheet, you will need to review the
five studies in your chosen track (three of which were provided
and two of which were your choice).
This worksheet is filled out to provide an example for you to
follow. Use this sheet as a template by deleting the highlighted
portions and replacing them with your own content.
Gap Identification
Based upon your review of the articles in your chosen track,
identify a gap in the personality psychology research presented
in the course that is unexplored or underdeveloped. For

example, is there an unexplored aspect of personality
psychology you believe could be further explored?
Many studies have looked at the effects of the Big Five
personality traits on parenting. Researchers have studied how
parental traits, as well as child traits, affect parenting
behaviors. However, there has not been a lot of attention given
to the relationship between Big Five traits and their relationship
to attachment, and specifically if parents who develop a secure
attachment to their children possess certain Big Five traits.
Research Question
Develop a basic research question addressing the identified gap.
In other words, create a question that further investigates your
identified gap and that you could answer through research.
Are parents who are higher on the Big Five traits of introversion
and conscientiousness more likely to develop secure
attachments with their children?

Birth Order Effects on Personality and Achievement within.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Birth Order Effects on Personality and Achievement within.docx

Similar to Birth Order Effects on Personality and Achievement within.docx (20)

More from adkinspaige22

More from adkinspaige22 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Birth Order Effects on Personality and Achievement within.docx