Are First-Born Children Different from Their Younger Siblings?
By Carl Halling
@CarlHalling (3617)
United Kingdom
March 8, 2009 10:58pm CST
For all those who are, or who have first-born children, are they different? It's said they are pioneers and individualists, perhaps even loners; but also more conservative? Are they less indulged than middle and younger kids, or is that just a cliche? Are they less socialised than their siblings? I'm an older child; a first-born myself. I've always been an individualist, never conforming to the crowd. Any other thoughts from or about first-borns?
3 people like this
5 responses
@lilaclady (28206)
• Australia
9 Mar 09
I think it can be the case, I know the first child tends to get spoilt a lot, I guess being the first, lots of photos are taken and maybe when the second one comes along the first one gains a lot of confidence..I am a second child and I always used to wonder why there was a lot of baby photos of my sister and there was only two of me and my sister was the confident one and smarter I guess..not sure if it is the same with everyone.
@CarlHalling (3617)
• United Kingdom
9 Mar 09
Well: I have read that first-borns tend to be high-achievers, whereby later-borns tend to be more easy-going; people-persons, something like that anyway.
@mansha (6298)
• India
9 Mar 09
Yes definately, I find them not spoiled but sobered and mature then the younger ones. They start taking responsibilities early in life, help arouind the house more and are more afeted by the environment of the home then there younger brothers or sisters. I have two kids and my first born was much easier to raise then the more naughty younger one and is still a very mature child even though I spoled him rotten as a kid. Younger one is more competitive for attention and pampered a lot even by her older sibling.
@CarlHalling (3617)
• United Kingdom
4 Jul 09
It may be that there is a gravity and solemnity to older children, because they are the first, and are pioneers. They may take life more seriously: because less protected from life than the younger ones.
1 person likes this
@kbourgerie (8780)
• United States
10 Mar 09
I don't know if its because I am the oldest of 4 sisters and a brother or not, but yes, I have always been more of an individual than the others. I prefer to be alone and don't socialize with them as much as they socialize with one another or other members of my family. I have always been the one that tends to not be a part of my family's inner workings. I hold tight to the belief that just because they are family doesn't mean they have to know the in's and out's of a cats rearend or that I even have to like them. And sadly, for the most part I don't like most of them. Horrible thing to say maybe, but truth is just what it is.
@CarlHalling (3617)
• United Kingdom
4 Jul 09
I am very close to my family; but I'm also an individualist; and I enjoy my own company. But I'm an urbanite (or suburbanite) who's always lived around people...
@CarlHalling (3617)
• United Kingdom
4 Jul 09
As a (first-born) child I was very emotionally dependant - more than my younger brother - but also much more mischievous.
@hustonphotography (569)
• United States
5 Apr 09
I think the 1st born try to be more responsible and they try to be caretakers for the other, They are protective of others. They come off as mature. They are more independant. This is how I was. I always tried to fix everything in my house.
@CarlHalling (3617)
• United Kingdom
4 Jul 09
When I was a (first-born) kid, I was known by a neighbour as the Professor, I was that articulate!
