Birth order and preschool children's cooperative abilities: A within‐family analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence for a laterborn sibling advantage in some social skills, although this has not been investigated in children's early capacities for cooperation. Using a within-family design, this study compared firstborn and laterborn (i.e., middle and youngest) siblings on their cooperative abilities when they were aged around 3 years. Further, the study investigated whether the association between children's birth order and cooperative abilities was dependent on the prosocial behaviour of other siblings in the home. The sample included 288 ethnically and sociodemographically diverse children clustered within 144 families. Cooperation was directly assessed using a problem-solving paradigm requiring two simultaneous and complementary actions of the child and adult tester to achieve a joint goal. Parents reported on the prosocial behaviour of up to four siblings in the home. Results of a multilevel analysis indicated that youngest children were more advanced in their cooperative abilities, compared to firstborn children, irrespective of their siblings' prosociality. Middle children, in contrast, were only advantaged over firstborn children if their siblings showed high levels of prosociality. The analysis accounted for a number of potential family-wide confounds, providing evidence that this is a child-specific effect related to birth order. Findings are discussed from a social constructivist perspective with an emphasis on the sibling relationship as a context for cooperative interactions that facilitate sociocognitive development. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? There are individual differences in children's early capacities for cooperation. Children's early cooperation has not been considered in relation to birth order and/or sibling interaction quality. What does this study add? Youngest children are advantaged in their cooperation as compared to firstborn children. Middle children are also advantaged, but only if their siblings are prosocial. The use of a developmentally sensitive within-family design reduces confounds common to birth order studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".