Anonymous wrote:Dalton Conley, a sociology professor at Princeton, has a book on this called The Pecking Order. He was doing research on inequality, and found a lot of inequality within families. He found a number of conclusions.
1) Kids are worse off the more children the parents have, even controlling for religious beliefs about family size
2) Middle kids do have it worse, as they never experience life as an only, so they never have a period when all of their parents' resources are focused on them.
3) Many families have a favorite child, and the kids generally agree on who it is.
4) The inequality is worse in poorer families, as they have fewer resources to begin with. They may focus resources on the kid who has the best chance of making it, or if one kid is the favorite, the baseline for the other kids is lower.
5) There is a lot of idiosyncrasy. He mentions both of the processes that previous posters have mentioned: younger kids who have better lifestyles, as their parents are more successful later in life, or parents who have a professional setback or health crisis, so the younger ones end up having fewer advantages in childhood.
This tracks (I’m from a family of four kids). The idiosyncrasy in my family is that the eldest is actually the black sheep (or prodigal son, depending on how you look at it). The favorite is the second child and first daughter (we all agree except my sister who feels so entitled to the extra attention and support that it has never occurred to her that it could be any other way). And the youngest, though not the favorite, definitely got more material support due to family finances.
I’m the 3rd and a classic middle child but I am sometimes grateful for this because it made me more independent and afforded me more if one kind of freedom (to choose my life, since no one seemed to care what I did). I actually think my sister, the favorite, got kind of messed up by how enmeshed she is by my parents and I would not have wanted that for myself.