SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 1

The Relationship Between Sibling Position and Leadership Abilities

By:
Christopher J. Morgan

Senior Honors Thesis

Department of Human Development & Family Studies
School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

20 April 2022

Approved:
Type text here
___________________________
Dr. Dana Riger, Thesis Advisor

___________________________
Dr. Yuliana Rodriguez, Reader

__________________________
Dr. Kathryn Leech, Reader
 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 2

Abstract

Sibling position is a core tenant of Bowen family system theory, proposing that the presence

and/or type of sibling present in a household results in measurable differences in an individual's

development and family functioning. Scholarship that explores the relationship between sibling

position and leadership qualities are scant; however, the limited literature indicates that

first-born siblings are better leaders than later-born siblings. The current study analyzed the data

of 746 survey participants to explore the relationship between sibling positions and leadership

qualities as described by two unique leadership inventories, an author-developed inventory

describing Bowenian leadership traits and the Community Leadership Development Measure

(CLDM). Key results indicated first-borns exhibit higher leadership characteristics on both

inventories than later-borns but not only children. Furthermore, first-borns were found to have

higher leadership averages with close-in-age younger siblings, while youngest siblings had

higher leadership averages with no close-in-age older siblings. In models that included covariate

variables, participant’s sexuality was a significant covariate in one while another model indicated

a significant negative correlation between age and the Bowenian leadership inventory.

Suggestions for future research, particularly among middle siblings and only children, are made.
 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 3

Dedication

To Julie — my partner through all things in life. You inspired the roots of this project,

supported it as it grew, nurtured it patiently whenever it stalled, and loved me (and it)

unwaveringly. My gratitude and love for you is unending. I cannot say it enough: thank you.
 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 4

Acknowledgements

There are more thank yous that I owe than could conceivably be given in a space such as

this. First and foremost, though, I wish to acknowledge my mentor, Dr. Dana Riger. She has

served as an invaluable resource and shown immense patience with an undergraduate mentee

who frequently looked like a deer caught in headlights. Perhaps, I am most grateful for her

anxiety-calming encouragement and ability to see a resolution even when I doubted it myself.

Her contributions to this project could not be overstated, and her influence permeates throughout.

Thank you so much, Dr. Riger. In a similar vein, I want to thank Dr. Yuliana Rodriguez for her

guidance and constant communication. It was her flexibility that allowed this project to be seen

through to completion.

I would like to thank my parents — particularly my mother, for she spent more time than

was ever necessary listening to all my ideas. She indulged countless hypotheticals and always

was prepared with analytical advice. Their love and support allowed me to reach a place where

studying families outside our own was joy-filled. Thank you also to Rev. Dr. Lisa Hebacker who

gave me my first book about Bowen and who encouraged me to pursue its application fervently.

You planted the seed that grew into this project 5 years ago.

Finally, I hold a great debt of gratitude to the friends and family who listened to weekly

updates, eased evolving anxieties, and celebrated every little success along the way. It was these

confidantes I most never wanted to let down. Thank you to Julie, Reed & Lillie, Lauren, Rachel,

Emily, Allison, and Waverly.

 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 5

Table of Contents

Introduction 7
Bowen’s Family Systems Theory 8
Bowen & Leadership 9
Current Study 10
Theoretical Framework 11
Literature Review 13
Bowen and Toman’s Theories on Sibling Position 14
Limitations in Toman 15
Born to Rebel 15
Sibling Position and Big Five Personality Traits 17
Sibling Position and Leadership 19
Limitations in the Literature 20
Methods 21
Recruitment 22
Procedures 22
Data Safety 24
Measures 24
Analysis 25
Results 26
Analyses for Power and Validity 26
Participants 26
Analysis of Variance Between Sibling Positions 27
CLDM Fixed-Variable-Only ANOVA 28
Bowenian Leadership Fixed-Variable-Only ANOVA 28
CLDM Fixed-Variable with Covariates Model 28
Bowenian Leadership Fixed-Variable with Covariates 29
Analysis for Correlation within Sibling Positions 29
Regression Models of Oldest Siblings 30
Regression Models of Youngest Siblings 30
Analysis of Middle Siblings 31
Discussion 32
Limitations & Recommendations for Future Research 34
References 38
Appendix A 44
 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 6

Appendix B 46
Appendix C 50
Appendix D 52
Appendix E 55
 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 7

The Relationship Between Sibling Position and Leadership Abilities

According to the 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the

U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 57 million children live with at least one sibling. That figure makes

up 78.8 percent of all children in the United States (and does not take into account older teens

who were raised with their siblings who recently left home for work or college) (2021). The

presence or absence of siblings can be very impactful. Siblings can be lifelong friends and

supports while simultaneously play important social and developmental roles in childhood;

however, they can also create stress or divide parental attention (McHale et al., 2012;

Montgomery et al., 2018).

An individual can function as an older sibling, a younger sibling, a middle sibling, a twin,

or an only child. Within these categories, Murray Bowen, who developed family systems theory,

theorized that middle siblings fill multiple roles (and share aspects of both older and younger

siblings) while a twin will gravitate to either the older or younger position with their twin

(Gilbert, 2004).

Research on the influence of one’s sibling position has historically focused on

correlations with divorce, largely by psychologist Walter Toman. Toman found that couples with

the same sibling position divorced at higher rates than couples with different sibling positions

(1992). Frank Sulloway, a psychologist who studies personality, reinvigorated research on this

topic in 1996 with his book Born to Rebel, which delved into younger siblings’ propensity to

rebel. This was followed up by research exploring the relationship between sibling position and

the Big Five personality traits, showing that older siblings tended to be more conscientious while

younger siblings tended to be more open to experience and agreeable. Lots of research has also

focused on the relationship between birth order (from a purely biological basis) and academic
 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 8

performance, with the vast majority finding that older siblings, specifically oldest siblings, tend

to perform better on measures of educational attainment than younger siblings (De Hann, 2010;

Kim, 2020).

Bowen’s Family Systems Theory

There are some predictable patterns and behaviors that siblings in different positions

grow into. The term sibling position refers to the order that someone was raised in their sibling

cohort and is an important consideration in Murray Bowen’s family systems theory (Kerr &

Bowen, 1988). Sibling position was not included in Bowen’s initial conceptualization of family

systems theory, however, he felt like something was missing in his conception of family. Bowen

found what was missing in the work of Walter Toman, and adapted Toman’s work on sibling

positions as one of the foundational concepts in Bowen theory. This was a significant addition

because it recognized that a family of origin is often made up of more than just an individual and

their parents; there are roles, expectations, and responsibilities placed on each different sibling

position in a sibship (cohort of siblings) that contribute to individual and family functioning

(Gilbert, 2004).

Bowen applied his theories to his own practice in family therapy; he saw the family as a

single emotional unit (instead of each member as a stable emotional unit) and emphasized the

complex interactions within that unit in a systems way of thinking. The family’s

interdependence, or fusion, manifests as high emotional reactivity and rigid postures. In

Bowen’s clinic, he attempted to increase family members’ differentiation, or development of

“self”, in order to interrupt dysfunctional family processes and dependency. Bowen theory does

not insist that family members be independent of one other; in fact, individuals with high levels

of differentiation recognize their dependence on other members in the system but can more
 SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 9

easily choose to respond with reason with logic instead of emotions, even in times of stress.

Bowen theorized that most of an individual’s level of differentiation is determined by the

family’s level of differentiation, but there is some variance among family members and levels

can be increased or decreased through various mechanisms (Kerr, 2017).

Bowen & Leadership

This study will focus on siblings’ leadership qualities because there is scant literature on

the relationship between one’s sibling position and leadership. Leadership, specifically, has been

loosely studied but not enough to draw any strong conclusions about which sibling position has

higher ability (Black et al., 2018; Custódio & Siegel, 2020; Grinberg, 2015; Oskarsson et al.,

2021; Tricarichi & Jalajas, 2019). Preliminary evidence shows that the oldest sibling has stronger

leadership capabilities than younger siblings; however, this is measured in one study by

“non-cognitive abilities” and the other by the percentage of each sibling position who are

“managers” or “top managers” at work (Black et al.; Grinberg).

Greater exploration about the relationship between sibling position and leadership is

important to fill this gap in the literature. Furthermore, leadership ability would be an important

consideration to understand a person in the context of Bowen theory if significant effects are

found. If leadership abilities can be (partially) predicted, it could inform the emotional

processing patterns someone takes on later in life. For example, if one sibling position gravitates

towards leadership roles, siblings may play an important role in affecting the types of roles and

relationships one enacts. In fact, Dr. Roberta Gilbert translates Bowen theory’s sibling positions

into role portraits. Many of these role portraits include predictions about how each sibling

position approaches leadership; for example, older siblings were described as “easily assuming

responsibility” and as a “caretaker and order-giver” while younger siblings were described as
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 10

“not a natural leader” (2004). Attempting to validate these theories about siblings' leadership

tendencies is another area for future research.

Current Study

This study attempted to primarily explore the relationship between one’s sibling position

and their leadership abilities. Leadership ability in this study is defined by the Community

Leadership Development Measure (CLDM; Rohs & Langone, 1997), and by the leadership

portraits of Bowen theory laid out in Gilbert (2004), of which the author has created a novel

inventory. The aim was to identify any significant differences between sibling positions and

leadership abilities. Where significant differences are found, further analyses were conducted to

understand if age gap between siblings is a significant moderating variable between sibling

position and leadership ability or if there are moderating variables that affect the leadership

abilities of middle siblings, such as specific sibship rank, family size, or the rank of their closest

sibling. Study participants included adults who voluntarily participated, regardless of their

sibling status or position. The study also attempted to understand how middle children fill

multiple positions (and which they might fill more strongly) or how sibling age differences are a

factor in sibling position research on leadership.

Ultimately, the study will attempt to explore how each sibling position is related to

different leadership abilities. Informed by the previous literature, it was hypothesized that the

oldest sibling position will have stronger correlations to leadership abilities than all other

positions. There are two further hypotheses that this study attempted to address. First, that

only-children and middle children would fall between those who are exclusively an older or

younger sibling in measures of leadership abilities, and, secondly, that middle children would

function more similarly to the role of the sibling they are closest to (e.g. the second sibling in a
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 11

sibship of a three would function more like an older sibling than a younger sibling if they are

closer with their own older sibling than their younger sibling) because that closeness could cause

them to develop comparatively.

This study first examined previous literature related to research on sibling position done

by Toman, Bowen, and Sulloway. It explains the use of the positions’ role portraits described by

Gilbert and the Community Leadership Development Measure as measurement tools for

leadership as well as the survey questions used to collect an individual’s sibling position. Data

collection, analyses, discussions, and conclusions drawn, along with implications and ideas for

future research complete this study.

Theoretical Framework

Bowen family systems theory (also referred to as Bowen theory or family systems

theory) is the theoretical framework behind sibling position and is based on the idea that the

entire family functions as a single emotional unit in a system. Bowen theory is described in terms

of emotional reactivity and reciprocal processes with healthy family systems being characterized

by less emotional reactivity and a better ability to interrupt the reciprocal processes during times

of anxiety. There are eight concepts of Bowen theory: triangles, differentiation of self, nuclear

family emotional processes, family projection process, multigenerational transmission process,

emotional cutoff, sibling position, and societal emotional process. (Kerr, 2017)

Triangles are used to describe three people in a relationship, the smallest stable unit. A

dyad cannot handle much anxiety before a third person is involved; therefore, everything in

Bowen theory is described in terms of triangles. Triangles tend to have two people linked more

closely, though, leaving one person on the outside looking in. The outside person may work to

get closer to one of the other two and during periods of anxiety between the two close members,
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 12

one may move closer to the outsider creating a new dynamic. During periods are high anxiety,

the outside position may even be the desirable position in order to have distance from the

anxiety. Differentiation, or the development of “self”, is one of the most important factors in the

stability of a triangle. Triangles with highly developed senses of self can weather anxiety while

undifferentiated triangles can be quite volatile. A volatile emotional unit usually plays out in one

of four unhealthy emotional processes: conflict, over/under-functioning, anxious focus on a

child, or emotional distancing. These can eventually lead to cutoff, which can look both like

physical cutoff but also emotional cutoff by avoiding topics that raise anxiety levels. While these

relationships may look “better”, they have, in fact, just ignored the still-present problems. (Kerr,

2017).

Family projection process describes how parents pass along emotional problems to their

children. It is a three-step process: first, the parent anxiously focuses on a child fearing that

something is “wrong: with them. Second, the parent interprets the child’s behavior as a

confirmation of their fears, and they, third, act to “fix” the problem. Constantly needing to “fix”

one child leaves the child dependent (i.e. less differentiated). Other children in the household

who aren’t being anxiously focused on, despite receiving less attention and energy, have a better

grounding in reality and mature into a more differentiated adult. Regardless of intentions, some

siblings in a sibship usually develop a higher level of differentiation while other siblings develop

a lower level. As siblings who have differentiated at different levels have children of their own,

the differences become more and more apparent through generational lines (the more

differentiated child of the more differentiated child… vs the less differentiated child of the less

differentiated child…). These generational differences can have huge impacts on the stability of

the family’s emotional unit. (Kerr, 2017)

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 13

The final concept of Bowen theory points out the parallels between families and society,

arguing that many of the same processes (triangles, emotional processes, multigenerational

transmission, etc.) can be applied to explain how a community ranging from a neighborhood to

the whole world copes with challenges and anxieties (Kerr, 2017).

Bowen theory suggests that older siblings may “Assume responsibility easily,” or

“Nurture and care for a group,” or as a “Caretaker, order-giver” while younger siblings “Follow”

or “Do not assume leadership naturally” (Gilbert, 2004). He also suggests that only children may

be “Self-confident, rising to great heights” (Gilbert). Of course, these are all generalizations by

Bowen; he even recognizes that many biologically younger siblings may function and fill the role

of an older sibling, but if these role portraits are supported, there would be implications across

any field that applies Bowen family systems theory in practice to consider sibling position as not

just a concept added as an afterthought by Bowen but as an important aspect of people’s full-self.

Literature Review

The review of literature explores the origins of sibling position in family systems theory

used by Bowen, examines Sulloway’s work on sibling positioning and its evolutionary basis, and

highlights the literature on correlations between sibling position and the Big Five personality

traits. Finally, the review will situate this study in previous literature on sibling position and

leadership and discuss the gaps in the present literature.

Bowen and Toman’s Theories on Sibling Position

Sibling position was not a foundational principle that Bowen relied on in his

conceptualization of family systems theory; in fact, it has its roots in Dr. Walter Toman’s work

on divorce. Toman theorized that since one’s family-of-origin is the first context to learn from,

roles and patterns developed during childhood would sustain throughout a person’s life (Toman,
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 14

1992). Of course, a newborn is not born knowing they are an older and/or younger sibling, but by

the time they have the capacity to understand their position, the other members of the family

have already adapted into their own new positions. Even if an individual were to rebel against

the typology of their position, the rigidity of the family system would encourage them back into

place, solidifying the patterns and ideas they hold about relationships for the rest of their life.

Toman also found that entering into a fulfilling marriage, the new relationship will likely be

affected by both partner’s expectations and notions developed early in life in their sibling

position.

Toman theorized that couples with complimentary sibling positions would produce

happier, longer-lasting relationships, while couples with conflicting sibling positions would end

more frequently in divorce (Toman, 1992). Complementary sibling positions would be an older

sibling marrying a younger sibling, while a non-complementary sibling position marriage would

be two oldest or two youngest siblings marrying. His research found that couples whose sibling

positions are complementary or were divorced significantly less than couples with

non-complementary sibling positions across a host of experiments (p = <0.001, <0.001, & <0.05)

(Toman). Furthermore, of couples who did divorce, the marriages of former couples with

complimentary sibling positions lasted four years longer than non-complementary couples.

Moreover, of children whose parents had never married, significantly more of the parent-sets had

at least one only sibling than not (p = <0.001); Toman theorized only children were less

successful in marriage because they had not grown up living with peers in their family-of-origin.

Limitations in Toman One significant limitation of Toman’s work that is also present in

Bowen family systems theory is the great heteronormative and cis-normative expectations.

Toman believed same-sex relationships were “shallow and eccentric” and divided sibling
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 15

position not just by rank but by sex as well (1992). A complementary marriage could not just be

between an oldest and youngest sibling, it needed to be between an oldest son and a youngest

daughter or an oldest daughter and a youngest son. Seeing as same-sex relationships have been

reported as more satisfying for both parties than different-sex relationships and that for many

people gender is not expressed in a binary, this part of Toman’s proposed sibling position has

been focused on less in future research (Garcia & Umberson, 2019).

Born to Rebel

One of the leading researchers on sibling position after Bowen integrated it into his

theory was Dr. Frank J. Sulloway. Most of his research was on rebellion and parts of the Big Five

personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and

neuroticism. He found that younger siblings were more open to new experiences and were more

rebellious (Sulloway, 1996). In fact, he found that younger siblings are 18 times as likely to

support a radical political revolution, such as the French Revolution or evolution. Alternatively,

he found that older siblings were more assertive, self-confident, and conservative; older siblings

were disproportionately found to win Nobel prizes or serve as world leaders, for example

(Sulloway). One interesting way that this plays out is in the United States Supreme Court;

Democratic presidents nominate mostly younger siblings to serve on the court to lead change

while Republican presidents nominate justices who are the oldest sibling who hold the status quo

(Sulloway).

Sulloway theorized that many of these differences in sibling position stem from Darwin’s

theory of evolution (Sulloway, 1996). Siblings are constantly competing amongst one another for

the attention and validation from their parents, so each additional sibling has a “cost” of a

proportion of the parent’s attention. Older siblings are more likely to identify with authority
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 16

because they are often put into positions of power in the sibship. They use their size and

experience advantage on younger siblings to defend those positions of power, trying to minimize

the “cost” of having siblings by dominating and outperforming them (Sulloway). This leaves

younger siblings without as much power, though, encouraging them to challenge the status quo

and try new things. In other words, their openness to experience comes from a need to find a

unique niche (Sulloway).

One interesting note of difference between Toman’s findings on sibling position and

Sulloway’s is their theory for who would make a complementary marriage. Toman believed that

opposite sibling positions worked best in a romantic relationship; however, Sulloway felt that

relationships were best when the two individuals were of the same sibling position (Sulloway,

1996; Toman, 1992). This is because he believed that a clash between authority-aligned older

siblings and rebellious younger siblings would occur in a relationship. He supported this with

multiple historical examples, including, the English King Henry VIII got along significantly

better with wives that were also first-borns and didn’t question his authority or members of the

same political party typically marrying in same-party members (Sulloway).

Sibling Position and Big Five Personality Traits

Sulloway was not the only researcher to study the Big Five personality traits. In fact, a

wealth of research has been conducted since his publication in order to support or reject his

findings. Supporting Sulloway’s hypothesis, most of the studies that examined openness to

experience found that younger siblings were more open than their oldest siblings (Healy & Ellis,

2007; Jefferson et al., 1998; Paulhus et al., 1999; Rohde et al., 2003; Salmon & Daly, 1998;

Zweigenhaft, 2002; Zweigenhaft & von Ammon, 2000). More specifically, some studies have

shown support that younger siblings are more liberal and rebellious, like Sulloway’s findings, but
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 17

also more likely to use marijuana or engage in civil disobedience (Paulhus et al., Rohde et al.,

Zweigenhaft, Zweigenhaft & von Ammon). Younger siblings were also found to be more

agreeable than their older counterparts in past literature (Jefferson et al., Marini & Kurtz, 2001;

Michalski & Shackelford, 2002; Paulhus et al., Saroglou & Fiasse). Specifically, younger

siblings were found to be more altruistic and tender-minded in a number of studies (Jefferson et

al., Saroglou & Fiasse). Altruism would seem to align with younger siblings’ desire to change

the world when political systems fail, and tender-mindedness could play a role alongside their

underdog mentality originating from their sibling relationships.

Contrarily, evidence supports older siblings to be more conscientious than younger

siblings (Black et al., 2018; Damian & Roberts, 2015; Paulhus et al., 1999). As with openness to

experience (Beer & Horn, 2001; Bleske-Rechek et al., 2015; Dunkel et al., 2009; Jefferson et al.,

1998; Marini & Kurtz, 2011) and agreeableness (Beer & Horn, Bleske-Rechek & Kelley, Roher

et al., 2015) there have also been studies that suggest no correlation between sibling position and

conscientiousness (Bleske-Rechek et al., Dunkel et al., Jefferson et al., Marini & Kurtz,

Michalski & Shackelford, 2002; Rohrer et al.); however, when significant findings have been

found, they almost all suggest that older siblings are more conscientious than younger siblings

(Black et al., Damian & Roberts, Paulhus et al.). Furthermore, most of the literature that found

no significance examined all five personality traits and found no significance between any of the

five traits and sibling position, even the traits that Sulloway submitted significant evidence for

(Bleske-Rechek et al., Dunkel et al., Jefferson et al., Marini & Kurtz, Michalski & Shackelford,

Rohrer et al.).

The final two personality traits, extraversion and neuroticism, do not show a consensus

across the literature for a link with sibling position. Most of the literature shows no significance
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 18

at all between sibling position and extraversion (Beer & Horn, 2001; Bleske-Rechek et al., 2015;

Dunkel et al., 2009; Jefferson et al., 1998; Marini & Kurtz, 2011; Paulhus et al., 1999; Rohrer et

al., 2015) or neuroticism; however, the few articles that did find significant results suggested

both older and younger siblings could be stronger on metrics of the two traits (Black et al. 2018;

Damian & Roberts, 2015; Dixon et al., 2008; Jefferson et al.). In fact, one study found

significance in both directions depending on which metric of extraversion that was used (Beck et

al., 2006). This indicates that even if more research was done into these traits, no significant

patterns would emerge.

One further metric that sibling position has been studied with that relates to Sulloway’s

research is closeness to family. Multiple studies have found that middle siblings are the least

connected to their family and their parents (Rohde et al., 2003; Salmon & Daly, 1998). One study

also found the oldest sibling to be the most connected to their family, which is in line with

Sulloway’s predictions about older siblings aligning themselves with power structures and

authority figures (Rohde et al.).

Sibling Position and Leadership

Fewer studies have focused on the concept of leadership as its correlation with sibling

position, and the few that have mostly examined leadership as an achievement or position instead

of as a skill. Most studies that have examined the correlation between sibling position and

leadership do so through a lens of economic or political leadership positions (Black et al., 2018;

Custódio & Siegel, 2020; Grinberg, 2015; Oskarsson et al., 2021). Oldest siblings are more

likely to run for political candidacy, be a top candidate, and be elected to office, supporting

Sulloway’s historical evidence (Oskarsson et al., 2021). These effects were seen between

higher-order birth ranks, too.

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 19

Oldest siblings are also more likely to be CEOs and in jobs requiring leadership skills

(Black et al., 2018; Custódio & Siegel, 2020). In a population of CEOs where 30 percent of the

sample was expected to be an oldest sibling (taking into account the diverse sibship sizes), 45

percent of CEOs were actually the oldest (Custódio & Siegel). Not only was this found in family

firms where 60 percent of CEOs were oldest siblings (33 percent expected), but this trend was

also seen in non-family firms where oldest siblings were CEOs 12 percentage points more often

than expected. Interestingly, this final figure is driven more by non-founder CEOs than

firm-founding CEOs, indicating that it is not a gap in entrepreneurial or creative skill but rather

that older children have better experience with leadership once a company is ready to move

beyond their founding CEO (Custódio & Siegel). Even at a less intense scale, oldest children are

2.51 percentage points more likely to be managers across all levels of industry, with this number

jumping to 5.6 percentage points in low-income families. However, the authors argued that

resource dilution in large families, rather than sibling position, was a better explanation for these

differences (Grinberg, 2015). Another study found older siblings to be 28 percent more likely to

be top managers (Black et al.).

One study that found that older siblings were more likely to be CEOs than younger

siblings also measured some “non-cognitive abilities” that would be important to understanding

leadership as a skill rather than a title or position one can earn (Black et al., 2018). Non-cognitive

abilities included emotional stability, persistence, social outgoingness, the willingness to assume

responsibility, and the ability to take initiative. Oldest siblings scored 0.20 standard deviations

higher than younger siblings on measures of non-cognitive abilities; controlling for cognitive

abilities did not have a significant effect on narrowing that gap either (Black et al.).
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 20

However, a single study with a small sample size has found no statistically significant

difference between birth order and leadership styles using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. In fact, in further analyses, they even found younger borns to be identified as the

leaders of newly formed groups nearly twice as often (Tricarichi & Jalajas, 2019). This is a

significant study because it runs contrary to the rest of the literature.

Limitations in the Literature

For being both an important part of Toman’s and Sulloway’s theories on sibling position,

leadership has been sparsely studied. Toman described older siblings with words such as

“leader,” “responsible,” “protective,” and “caring,” while not using any comparable words for

younger siblings (Toman, 1992). When it is studied, leadership is mostly measured through

external positions (elected positions, industry executives, etc.) (Black et al., 2018; Custódio &

Siegel, 2020; Grinberg, 2015; Oskarsson et al., 2021); however, being elected, appointed, or

hired does not make someone good at leadership. Similarly, being a strong leader in politics or

business does not make someone a strong leader overall or in their personal life. Leadership is a

skill and one that is incredibly multifaceted. Non-cognitive abilities was a good start to

measuring leadership as a skill, but continuing to measure leadership more abstractly is

important to generalizing leadership to a skill that someone might excel in. Furthermore, there

are descriptions of Bowen’s interpretation of sibling positions and leadership characteristics

described by Dr. Roberta Gilbert that have not been specifically studied (2004). Because they are

included in Bowen theory, they are used in the sibling position framework used in applied family

systems work, yet no empirical studies have been done to verify the role portraits’ accuracy.

A final piece of the literature that has not been studied is the effect that different family

structures have on leadership (or almost any other trait). Most of the past literature only accepted
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 21

responses from participants if they had biological siblings they were raised with. This discounts

the experiences of many people who have step-siblings, half-siblings, adopted siblings, etc. This

is particularly significant as the number of blended families rises. Moreover, most of the

literature has disqualified participants if they are twins. Most of the literature has also focused on

“birth order” (which explains the disqualification of non-biological and twin siblings), so only

children are also left out. However, an only child is still an important sibling position described

by Bowen and one that millions of people fill in the United States. Studying only participants

with siblings who are non-twin biological siblings is not fairly generalizable to the entire U.S and

is a final important gap in the literature.

Methods

In this section, the participants, procedures, measures, and analyses are described to

provide information about how this study was conducted.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited using non-probability, convenience sampling via classes at the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), through courses connected to researchers,

and other courses connected to family studies and psychology. Some professors who assisted in

recruitment offered extra credit as incentive for participation. Recruitment also took place

through social media, such as Instagram and Facebook. Participants had the option to enter a

drawing for a $25 Visa gift card at the end of the survey by entering their email address as a

participation incentive. Any adult (18 and older) with the ability to comprehend English was

eligible to participate in this study. Exclusion criteria included being a minor (17 or under) and

being unable to read or comprehend English. Participants were asked to report their age,

race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation; however, responses were not required. As
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 22

recruitment proceeded, no upper limits on sample size were imposed; however, a power analysis

was conducted and determined 280 was the minimum sample size needed to detect an effect in

data. More individuals participating made for more accurate mean values and reduced the risk of

a Type II statistical error.

Procedures

The survey was accessed via a link and QR code and presented to participants

electronically through Qualtrics and could be completed on a phone, tablet, or personal

computer. When participants opened the survey, they were first directed to an informed consent

page, which they could give before continuing on to the rest of the survey. Participants who did

not consent were exited from the survey. Participants who gave informed consent were directed

to the rest of the survey. During pilot testing, the survey took an average of about 3 minutes to

complete, and participants were told the survey would take an average of 5-10 minutes before

they agreed to begin.

In the second section of the survey, participants were presented with an inventory about

leadership in a Bowenian context (attached as Figure A1). There were twelve leadership items,

and participants responded to them utilizing a four-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly

disagree” to “strongly agree”. This measure was created for use in this survey in order to

measure leadership as described specifically in Bowen theory’s sibling role portraits.

Author-created measurements may inflate effect sizes, even in studies with multiple measures.

The third section of the survey included a leadership inventory: The Community

Leadership Development Measure (CLDM; attached as Figure A2; 1997). Responses were

recorded utilizing another nine-item, five-point Likert scale, ranging from “Very poor” to “Very

good”. The CLDM was chosen because the questions the inventory included reflected values
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 23

important to this study. There are a number of ways to measure leadership; previous literature

has measured it through occupational statistics primarily, so this study sought to focus on internal

processes that contribute to leadership. The CLDM aligned with this focus closely.

In the final section, participants were directed to demographic information, which was

gathered last to reduce priming. Participants started by answering questions about their age,

race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation before answering questions about their family

structure. No question was a forced response, so participants could choose to leave any question

they are uncomfortable answering blank. “Prefer not to respond” was also an option given for

every demographic question. Questions that aimed to understand the participant’s family

structure included selecting the number of siblings they have (younger and older), listing the

number of years younger/older their sibling(s) are, indicating the sibling they feel closest with,

and self-describing their perceived sibling position.

Data Safety. After completing the survey, participants had the option to share their email

address to be entered into the drawing for one of two $25 Visa gift cards. At the end of the

survey, they were thanked for their time and provided information for mental health resources

(e.g. NAMI) should they feel distressed having processed the survey content. They could also

opt to enter their email if they were interested in being sent a copy of the study results after the

study’s conclusion; viewing the study’s results may have offered benefits to participants. After

data was collected, it was imported into SPSS; email addresses were separated from completed

response data to keep responses anonymous. Responses and emails were both protected in

password-protected files. An online name picking generator selected the email addresses of

participants who were the winners of the gift card drawing. They were contacted using their

email address to send them their prize.

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 24

Measures

The independent variable in this study was the participant’s sibling position (oldest,

youngest, middle, or only); position was determined through the list of siblings they indicated.

Among middle siblings, tests were conducted to assess the significance between leadership and

the sibling position of the sibling the participant was closest with. The dependent variables were

measures of leadership, both in a Bowenian context and through the CLDM. Age, race/ethnicity,

gender, sexual orientation, and sibship size (determined using the number of siblings the

participant lists) were examined in the model as potential moderating variables. A final important

potential moderating variable that was indirectly measured is the age gap between the participant

and their sibling(s) when applicable.

Leadership measures were formatted using Likert scales; the means of each item as well

as a composite score that is calculated using the overall mean for each inventory were calculated.

A high score on any single item indicated higher leadership abilities in that area while a high

score on the composite score indicated higher overall leadership abilities (this was an important

distinction because leadership is so multifaceted and sibling positions could have had strengths

in different subscores of leadership). Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the Bowenian traits to

measure their reliability and that they are measuring the same construct. The accepted reliability

measure will be minimally 0.6 to show internal consistency as this is the standard acceptable

minimum.

Analysis

Power analyses were completed in G*Power in order to determine the minimum sample

size needed to see significant effects from data. One suggested a sample size for a one-way,

omnibus ANOVA between sibling position and leadership measures and a second suggested a
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 25

sample size for an ANCOVA that included both main effects and interactions with other

variables. The power analyses were not able to take into account measurement error, though.

Using SPSS, ANOVAs and post hocs (as needed) were run to determine if there were

statistically significant differences between the sibling positions on the overall means of both

inventories. If there were statistically significant differences between any of the sibling positions,

then further ANOVAs were conducted within that sibling position using the age gap between the

participants and their nearest sibling to determine if the differences are driven by siblings closer

or further apart in age (e.g. if older siblings score significantly higher on the overall CLDM

inventory, ANOVAs would be conducted to see if that result is driven more by either slightly

older or much older siblings). Significant results would have indicated that sibling positions have

higher or lower leadership abilities while insignificant results would have indicated that

leadership ability is not affected by a person’s sibling position.

Results

Analysis was done in three parts. Firstly, power analyses were conducted before data

collection began, and immediately after data collection ended, and a correlation test between the

preexisting inventory and the Bowenian inventory that was created for this study was conducted.

The second part centered around tests for variance between different sibling positions on

measures of leadership. Finally, the third part of analysis consisted of correlation tests between

sibling position groups and information about their siblings.

Analyses for Power and Validity

A correlation test was conducted between the established CLDM and the newly created

Bowenian leadership inventory. This was done to ensure that the two inventories were measuring

the same construct without measuring the exact same thing (which would create redundancy).
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 26

The correlation test returned a significant result (p = <0.001) with a correlation of 0.588. A 58.8

percent correlation indicates that the Bowenian inventory is a successful measure of leadership

without too closely overlapping with the CLDM. With that indication, analysis of sibling

positions resulting from these inventories could begin.

Participants

For the ANOVAs that will serve as the base for the later analysis, the power analysis to

determine the target sample size the study would aim for indicated that this survey would need

280 participants when the power is set to 0.95 and the estimated effect size to be 0.25 for 4

groups (oldest sibling, youngest sibling, middle sibling, and only child).

After data collection ended, there were 746 responses. The vast majority of the sample

were college-aged students because it served as an accessible sample-of-convenience. More than

half of respondents were 22 or younger (55.09 percent) while only 6.43 percent were “retirement

age” (65+; see Figure B1). The sample was also heavily skewed toward people who identified as

women; 83.93 percent of participants identified as women while 13.10 percent identified as a

man (the remaining 2.97 percent either preferred not to respond, self-described, or identified as

another gender; see Figure B2). Over 80 percent of participants were white; however, the second

most-prevalent race/ethnicity selected was Asian (8.58 percent) which was surprising (see Figure

B3). The final demographic measured was sexuality, which indicated that most participants

identified as heterosexual (78.02 percent) with a largre swath of the remaining participants

identifying as bisexual (10.20 percent) or homosexual (4.55; see Figure B4).

Participants were studied within their sibling position (oldest, youngest, middle, or only).

The mix of sibling positions was relatively well balanced: of the participants, 42.20 percent were

oldest siblings, 31.97 percent were youngest, 18.11 were middle, and 7.72 percent were only
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 27

children (see Figure C1). Participants were raised with an average of 1.93 younger siblings (SD

= 1.05) with the closest in age being an average of 5.45 years younger (SD = 2.67; see figure

C2). There were slightly more older siblings (M = 2.36; SD = 1.47) whose gap in age was

slightly larger (M = 6.51, SD = 6.11; see figure C3).

Analysis of Variance Between Sibling Positions

Two Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) and two univariate linear models were conducted

between the four different sibling positions (Older sibling, younger sibling, middle sibling, and

only child) on the results from the leadership inventories. One ANOVA was run per inventory

that included just sibling position as the fixed variable while a univariate linear model that

included additional covariates, such as age, race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and sibship size was

conducted afterward.

CLDM Fixed-Variable-Only ANOVA The result of the ANOVA that compared sibling

positions on measures of leadership using the CLDM without other covariates was statistically

significant (p = <0.001; see Table D1). This indicates the leadership ability of at least one sibling

position was different from another. A Tukey HSD test was subsequently conducted to determine

where position(s) differed The post-hoc analysis indicated there was a statistical difference

between oldest siblings and youngest siblings (p = <0.001) and oldest siblings and middle

siblings (p = 0.016; see Table D2). This test indicates that first-borns rate higher on leadership

ability than all later-borns (but not necessarily only children) using the Community Leadership

Development Measure.

Bowenian Leadership Fixed-Variable-Only ANOVA The result of the ANOVA that

compared sibling positions on measures of Bowenian leadership without other covariates was

also statistically significant (p = <0.001; see Table D1). This indicates that the leadership ability
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 28

of at least one sibling position was different from another. Another Tukey HSD test was

conducted to determine where differences existed. The Tukey HSD once again found statistically

significant differences between oldest siblings and youngest siblings (p = <0.001) and oldest

siblings and middle siblings (p = 0.034; see Table D2).

CLDM Fixed-Variable with Covariates Model This univariate linear model repeated

the first ANOVA; however, it also added in covariates, such as age, race/ethnicity, gender,

sexuality, and sibship size to determine if the significant results front the first ANOVA were

driven by sibling position or by one of these covariates. The results of this model were also

statistically significant (p = <0.001; see Table D3). Two variables specifically returned

significant results: sexuality (p = 0.002) and sibling position (p = <0.001), which indicates that

both sexuality and sibling position drove the results seen in the previous ANOVA (participants

who identified as a sexuality other than heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual scored lower on

the CLDM (M = 3.61), and while the other three categories were all grouped much closer

together, heterosexual participants scored marginally lower than bisexual or homosexual

particpants (M = 3.78, 3.81, 3.83 respectively). Race/ethnicity was nearly significant but,

technically, was not quite (p = 0.053). This model supports the differences between sibling

positions seen in the ANOVA conducted using the CLDM.

Bowenian Leadership Fixed-Variable with Covariates Model This univariate model

also took into account age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and sibship size as covariates to

determine what variables (sibling position or otherwise) were correlated with the significant

results in the second ANOVA conducted above. Unsurprisingly, this model also returned

statistically significant results (p = <0.001) and was correlated with age (p = <0.001) and sibling

position (p = <0.001; see Table D4). Surprisingly, age was negatively correlated to the mean
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 29

value of participants from the Bowenian inventory. Race/ethnicity and sexuality were both nearly

significant but neither reached the necessary threshold (0.060 and 0.065 respectively). This

indicates that the differences seen in the previous ANOVA about Bowenian leadership were

specifically correlated with participants’ age and sibling position, supporting the study’s

hypothesis.

Analysis for Correlation within Sibling Positions

In this section of the analysis, correlation tests were run within individual sibling groups

that returned a significant relationship in either of the previous ANOVAs (i.e. oldest sibling,

youngest sibling, and middle sibling) between aspects of their sibling makeup, such as the

sibship size or the age of their closest sibling in age, and the leadership inventories. Because

previous analyses indicate that oldest siblings are better leaders than their younger counterparts

through both of the leadership measures, it would be important to know if that difference is

correlated with the general oldest sibling or by specific kinds of oldest siblings (e.g. oldest

siblings with lots of younger siblings or oldest siblings with siblings only many years younger

than them, etc.).

Regression Models of Oldest Siblings Results were filtered by sibling type, and simple

linear regression models were applied to oldest siblings on measures of both leadership

inventories. The leadership inventories were modeled against the number of younger siblings

they had and the number of years younger their closest-in-age sibling was. There was no

statistically significant interaction using the CLDM inventory (p = 0.467; adjusted r2 = -0.002).

Even after examining each of the two sibling variables as partial correlation, neither was

remotely significant (number of siblings, p = 0.270; age of closest sibling, p = 0.523).

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 30

After running the regression model against results from the Bowenian inventory, the

correlation was not statistically significant (p = 0.095; adjusted r2 = 0.010); however, the number

of years younger the closest-in-age siblings were was nearly significant when considered on as a

partial correlation (p = 0.072; b = -0.017; see Figure E1) (number of younger siblings was not

significant either, p = 0.182). This indicates that, largely, the sibship makeup does not affect how

well oldest siblings lead, except, perhaps, that an oldest sibling whose closest-in-age sibling is

just slightly younger is a better leader in a Bowenian context than an oldest sibling whose

closest-in-age sibling is much younger.

Regression Models of Youngest Siblings Results were filtered by sibling type, and

simple linear regression models were applied to youngest siblings on measures of both

leadership inventories. The inventories were modeled against the number of older siblings the

participants listed and the number of years older their closest-in-age sibling was. When modeled

against the CLDM, the partial correlations were statistically insignificant (number of older

sibling, p = 0.110; age of closest sibling, p = 0.205); however, in the regression that models both

of them together, the correlation is still not significant but is nearly significant (p = 0.079;

adjusted r2 = 0.016).

After running the regression model against results from the Bowenian inventory, the

correlation was statistically significant (p = 0.047; adjusted r2 = 0.021). When the sibship

makeup variables were compared individually, the significant effect was found to be largely

driven by the partial correlation of the age gap of their closest sibling (p = 0.014) and not the

partial correlation of the number of older siblings they had (p = 0.879; see Figure E2). This

indicates that sibship makeup does affect how well a younger sibling leads, specifically the

number of years older their next oldest sibling is to them in a Bowenian context. Younger
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 31

siblings with much older sibling(s) had a higher Bowenian leadership score than younger

siblings with just slightly older sibling(s).

Analysis of Middle Siblings Results were filtered to middle siblings. Two ANOVAs

were conducted using the leadership inventories as the dependent measures for both while using

the ratio of older siblings to younger siblings and the sibling they feel closest to (an older sibling,

a younger sibling, or a twin) as the factors for analysis. No significant findings were found for

either measures using the CLDM (p = 0.934 and adjusted r2 = -0.023; p = 0.875 and p = 0.808

when just looking at the partial correlation sof the sibling ratio and closest feeling sibling

respectively) or the Bowenian inventory (p = 0.866 and adjusted r2 = -0.020; p = 0.667 and p =

0.764 when just looking at the partial correlation of sibling ratio and closest feeling sibling

respectively). This indicates that the leadership scores for middle siblings are, at least, not

different depending on if they have more older vs younger siblings or if they are closer to an

older or a younger sibling.

Discussion

The findings from this study supported the original hypothesis that leadership

characteristics differed significantly between sibling positions. This was indicated by significant

findings using both leadership inventories. In both instances, first-borns scored statistically

higher on leadership characteristics than middle-borns and last-borns. This supports previous

literature that first-borns are the best leaders (Black et al., 2018; Custódio & Siegel, 2020;

Oskarsson et al., 2021). This could be explained by the additional responsibilities placed on

first-borns and their frequent parentification, the developmentally inappropriate expectation for a

child to function as a parent when ingrained in a highly stressed family system (McMahon &

Luthar, 2010).
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 32

While the difference between middle-born and last-born siblings was not statistically

significant, the difference in significance between the two sibling positions and their oldest

sibling counterparts indicates that last-borns have the fewest leadership characteristics. This ran

contrary to the findings about the youngest siblings of Tricarichi & Jalajas (2019), which

indicated that younger siblings are identified as leadership more often than middle-born siblings

(and first-borns). Perhaps rates of parentification decrease with birth order due to age (which

would mean that youngest siblings experience the least amount of parentification); however,

literature on rates of parentification by sibling position focus on comparisons between the

parentification of first borns against later-borns without specifically examining the differences

within later-born sibling positions (McMahon & Luthar, 2010). This could be an important area

for future research to investigate.

Only children’s leadership characteristics were not particularly different from other

sibling positions in this survey. The data mean for each of the inventories was closest to the mean

of oldest siblings, but the sample consisted of fewer only children than any other position.

Perhaps with a greater sample of only children, statistically significant differences would have

appeared that aligned only children with first-borns with higher leadership scores than middle- or

last-borns. Bowen would suggest that this is because only children structure a lot of their

relationships around older peers/adults and have a great deal of self-confidence (Gilbert, 2004).

No previous literature had ever included only children as a sibling position studied in this

context.

The secondary purpose of this study was to examine what sibship characteristics might be

correlated with differences within each sibling position, such as sibship size or the age of their

closest-in-age sibling. Grinberg (2015) argued that first-born’s advantage in leadership was due
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 33

to resource dilution in families with large sibships; however, this study did not support this

theory because sibship size had no statistically significant impact on leadership scores of

first-born siblings. However, the results of these analyses indicate that oldest siblings with much

younger siblings may have weaker leadership characteristics, but the significance level was not

quite below 0.05; this is an area for further exploration.

Amongst youngest siblings, leadership characteristics showed statistically significant

correlation to a model with both the number of older siblings they had and the number of years

older their closest-in-age sibling was; however, this result was driven almost exclusively by the

age difference of their closest sibling (which again disputes the findings of Grinberg (2015) that

indicated that differences in leadership were due to sibship size). This indicates that youngest

siblings with much older siblings have stronger leadership characteristics. These two findings

would complement each other: older siblings are better leaders with a younger sibling close in

age to lead while the youngest siblings are better leaders when they only have older sibling(s)

that aren’t close in age. This finding was consistent in families regardless of the number of

siblings in a sibship.

Sibship characteristics did not affect middle siblings in any statistically significant

manner. No previous literature has examined middle siblings specifically for factors that affect

their leadership characteristics.

The overall findings of this study supported a lot of Bowen’s conceptualization of sibling

position and leadership in family systems theory. For example, Bowen theorized that older

siblings “Assume responsibility easily, nurtures and cares for a group,” and serve as a “caretaker,

order-giver” (Gilbert, 2005). First-borns having statistically higher means than their later-born

siblings supports these claims. These are significant findings within the field of family systems
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 34

because it gives greater context for the way individuals operate. It indicates who, generally

speaking, might be more likely to step up as a leader in a family system when one is needed.

This has implications within family life education, marriage and family therapy, and in any field

that considers sibling relationships.

Limitations & Recommendations for Future Research

This study was largely successful in testing its hypothesis, but a few research limitations

are important to address. The inventories used could use some further validation. The Bowenian

inventory was author-created, which has been known to inflate effect sizes. Additionally, there is

not external validity from this inventory since it was author-created. Moreover, the Community

Leadership Development Measure is not an often used leadership inventory. It was selected

because it measured specific leadership skills the author found important to understand.

Literature on sibling position and leadership has historically focused on occupational

measurements (i.e. who are the CEOs or managers in industry), but the CLDM measured internal

traits that would contribute to leadership ability. This is valuable because it is not measuring

external results but rather internal characteristics that may (or may not) lead to tangible, external

results. That said, because few other studies have used it, there is not high external validity in

this inventory either. Future studies might use a more common leadership inventory with higher

levels of external validity.

This survey also disproportionately surveyed young adults because they were an easy

sample of convenience. More than half of respondents were between 18 and 25 with very few

respondents of retirement age. This affects the generalizability of this study; the findings above

about sibling position may hold true across all generations (especially since some data was

collected from every every living generation), but an argument could be made that results from
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 35

young adults are too large a proportion of participants to be generalizable to the public at-large.

This survey did not ask about participant’s level of education, but since many college students

were surveyed, understanding whether these findings were generalizable to people with any

educational background remains unknown. Future research should increase generalizability by

further studying populations not dominated by young adults enrolled in college.

Another issue affecting generalizability is the cultural application of Bowen family

system theory. There is some evidence that Bowenian concepts like family fusion and family

differentiation are valued and expressed differently across cultures (Rothbaum et al., 2004). For

example, the concept of family enmeshment was considered dysfunctional and indicative of

lower levels of differentiation. However, in Japan, there is less focus on differentiation as being

valuable for development (Rothbaum et al.). Therefore, this study’s implications may be more

applicable in the context of Western cultures that tend to value individualism over collectivism.

Further research could study the differences in siblings’ affect on leadership (in a way other than

Bowenian) in more collectivist cultures.

Minors were excluded from this study, thus no projections can be made about when these

patterns in sibling position leadership characteristics might begin to appear. They may be present

from a very young age, emerge in adolescence, or appear only after some separation from their

sibling as an adult. Further research might explore when these differences in leadership appear in

sibling positions to better understand how quickly siblings affect one another’s leadership.

More research needs to be conducted on middle siblings and only children about

leadership. Only children, in particular, are often a forgotten sibling position (and also serve as

an interesting control group). Understanding how the lack of a sibling may affect leadership is

arguably as important as understanding how the type of sibling does. Furthermore, when studied,
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 36

middle siblings are studied almost exclusively for their relationship to oldest or youngest

siblings. It would be important, going forward, for future studies to explore some of the

mechanisms that explain why middle siblings lead in the way they do (such as the correlation the

leadership of oldest and youngest siblings have with the age of their closest sibling).

This study could have improved its analysis of sibship characteristics for middle siblings

by changing from a ratio of oldest siblings to youngest siblings to the difference between the

two. Because the ratio was not linear (if a participant had more older siblings, their ratio could be

any number between 1 and infinity, but if they had more younger siblings, their ratio could only

be between 0 and 1.), this was not an effective analytical tool. The difference between the

number of older and younger siblings would give a much fairer linear correlation. Analysis using

a ratio was initially chosen because it would not be affected by sibship size (sibships of 4 and of

10 could both have a 2:1 ratio), so future research should attempt to analyze middle sibling’s

specific place in the birth order in a way that doesn’t discount having more older or younger

siblings while still controlling for sibship size.

Finally, this study did not deeply explore how these findings might look different in a

variety of family structures. Participants were allowed to self-select any sibling they felt counted,

regardless of the “type.” Future research should focus on how leadership characteristics might be

affected by the varying effects of step-siblings, half-siblings, adoptive siblings, biological

siblings one wasn’t raised with, or even extremely close friends that might be considered “part of

the family.” Interesting findings about the effect of these siblings might be found to be different

depending on how when they came into a participant’s life or how many years they lived

together. Each of these types of sibling could provide greater insight into the overall effect that

sibling position has on leadership characteristics.

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 37

There are a few implications for the results of this survey. Anybody who does extensive

work within the human development field would benefit from integrating the results of this

finding. For example, school counselors might use the information to influence the kind of

careers they are suggesting to students. Teachers might consider this when choosing leaders

within groups. Family therapists could better integrate information about the leadership potential

of siblings positions within Bowen theory into their care for families. Parents who want to better

understand their children and the way they interact inside and outside the family unit would

benefit from understanding the general leadership findings of each sibling position.
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 38

References

Beck, E., Burnet, K. L., & Vosper, J. (2006) Birth-order effects on facets of extraversion.

Personality and Individual Differences, 40(5), 953-959.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.012

Beer, J. M. & Horn, M. H. (2001). The Influence of Rearing Order on Personality Development

Within Two Adoption Cohorts. Journal of Personality, 68(4), 789-819.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00116

Black, S. E., Grönqvist, E., & Öckert, B. (2018). Born to Lead? The Effect of Birth Order on

Non-Cognitive Abilities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(2), 274-286.

https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00690

Bleske-Rechek, A. & Kelley, J. A. (2015). Birth order and personality: A within-family test

using independent self-reports from both firstborn and laterborn siblings. Personality and

Individual Differences, 56, 15-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.011

Bureau, U. S. C. (2021, October 8). One in six children live with a half sibling under 18.

Census.gov. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/01/more-children-live-with-half-siblings-tha

n-previously-thought.html.

Custódio, C., & Siegel, S. (2020). Are chief executive officers more likely to be first-borns?

PLoS One, 15(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234987

Damian, R. I. & Roberts B. W. (2015). The associations of birth order with personality and

intelligence in a representative sample of U.S. high school students. Journal of Research

in Personality, 58, 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.005

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 39

De Haan, M. (2010). Birth order, family size and educational attainment. Economics of

Education Review, 29(4), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.012

Dixon, M. M., Reyes, C. J., Leppert, M. F., & Pappas L. M. (2008). Personality and birth order in

large families. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 119-128.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.015

Dunkel, C. S., Harbke, C. R., & Papini, D. R. (2009). Direct and Indirect Effects of Birth Order

on Personality and Identity: Support for the Null Hypothesis. The Journal for Genetic

Psychology, 170(2), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.170.2.159-175

Freese, J., Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (1999) Rebel without a cause or effect: Birth order and

social attitudes. American Sociological Review, 64(2), 207-231.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2657528

Garcia, M. A. & Umberson, D. (2019). Marital strain and psychological distress in same-sex and

different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(5), 1253-1268.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12582

Gilbert, R. M. (2004). The eight concepts of Bowen theory. Leading Systems Press.

Grinberg, A. (2015) The effect of birth order on occupational choice. Atlantic Economic Journal,

43(4), 463-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-015-9474-2

Healy, M. D. & Ellis B. J. (2007). Birth order, conscientiousness, and openness to experience:

Tests of the family-niche model of personality using a within-family methodology.

Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 55-59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.003
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 40

Jefferson, T., Herbst J. H., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Associations between Birth Order and

Personality Traits: Evidence from Self-Reports and Observer Ratings. Journal of

Research in Personality, 32(4), 498-509. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233

Kerr, M. (2017). One family’s story: A primer on Bowen theory (R. Sagar, Ed.). Georgetown

Family Center, Inc.

Kerr, M. E. & Bowen M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory.

Norton.

Marini, V. A. & Kurtz J. E. (2011). Birth order differences in normal personality traits:

Perspectives from within and outside the family. Personality and Individual Differences,

51(8), 910-914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.019

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling Relationships and

Influences in Childhood and Adolescence. Journal of marriage and the family, 74(5),

913–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x

McMahon, T. J. & Luthar, S. S. (2010). Defining characteristics and potential consequences of

caretaking burden on children living in urban poverty. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, (77)2, 267-281.

https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1037/0002-9432.77.2.267.

Michalski, R. L. & Shackelford, T. K. (2002). An attempted replication of the relationships

between birth order and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(2), 182-188.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2350

Montgomery, S., Bergh, C., Udumyan, R., Eriksson, M., Fall, K., & Hiyoshi, A. (2018). Sex of

older siblings and stress resilience. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 9(4), 447-455.

https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v9i4.486
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 41

Oskarsson, S., Dawes, C. T., Lindgren, K., & Öhrvall, R. (2021). Big brother sees you, but does

he rule you? The relationship between birth order and political candidacy. The Journal of

Politics, 83(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/711055

Paulhus, D. L., Trapnell, P. D., & Chen, D. (1999). Birth Order Effects on Personality and

Achievement Within Families. Psychological Science, 10(6), 482–488.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00193

Pollet, T. V., Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., & Buunk, A. P. (2010) Birth order and the dominance

aspect of extraversion: Are firstborns more extraverted, in the sense of being dominant,

than laterborns? Journal of Research in Personality, 44(6), 742-745.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.10.002

Rohde, P. A., Atzwanger, K., Butovskaya, M., Lampert, A., Mysterud, I., Sanchez-Andres, A., &

Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Perceived parental favoritism, closeness to kin, and the rebel of

the family: The effects of birth order and sex. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(4),

261-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00033-3

Rohrer, J. M. Egloff, S. C. & Schmukle (2015). Examining the effects of birth order on

personality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 112(46), 14224–14229. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26466431

Rohrer, J. M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2017). Probing Birth-Order Effects on Narrow

Traits Using Specification-Curve Analysis. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1821–1832.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617723726

Rohs, F. R. & Langone C. A. (1997). Increased accuracy in measuring leadership impacts.

Journal of Leadership Studies 4(1), 150-158.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179199700400113
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 42

Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K., Ujiie, T., & Uchida, N. (2004) Family systems theory, attachment

theory, and culture. Family Process 41(3), 328-350.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41305.x

Salmon, C. A. (1999). On the impact of sex and birth order on contact with kin. Human Nature,

10, 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-999-1014-9

Salmon, C. A. & Daly M. (1998). Birth order and familial sentiment: Middleborns are different.

Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(5), 299-312.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00022-1

Saroglou, V. & Fiasse, L. (2003). Birth order, personality, and religion: A study among young

adults from a three-sibling family. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(1), 19-29.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00137-X

Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Toman, W. (1992). Family Constellation: Its Effects on Personality and Social Behavior. New

York: Springer Pub. Co.

Tricarichi, C., & Jalajas, D. S. (2019). The Effect of Birth Order on Personality and Leadership.

Journal of Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 102-107.

https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effect-birth-order-on-personality-leadership

/docview/2211265992/se-2?accountid=14244

Kim, Y. J. (2020). Born to be more educated? Birth order and schooling. Review of Economics of

the Household, 18, 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-019-09462-1

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 43

Zweigenhaft, R. L. (2002). Birth order effects and rebelliousness: Political activism and

involvement with marijuana. Political Psychology, 23(2), 219-233.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00279

Zweigenhaft, R. L. & von Ammon, J. (2000). Birth order and civil disobedience: A test of

sulloway's “born to rebel” hypothesis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(5),

624-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600502
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 44

Appendix A

Leadership Inventories

Figure A1: Bowenian Leadership Inventory

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 45

Figure A2: Community Leadership Development Measure

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 46

Appendix B

Demographic Visualizations

Figure B1: Distribution of Participant Age

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 47

Figure B2: Distribution of Participant Gender

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 48

Figure B3: Distribution of Participant Race/Ethnicity

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 49

Figure B4: Distribution of Participant Sexuality

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 50

Appendix C

Sibling Distributions

Figure C1: Distribution of Participant Sibling Position

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 51

Figure C2: Distribution of the Number of Participant’s Younger Siblings

Figure C3: Distribution of Participant’s Older Siblings

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 52

Appendix D

Visualizations of Variance

Table D1: Analysis of Variance between Sibling Positions on Bowenian Leadership (Q15 Mean)

and the CLDM (Q11 Mean)

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 53

Table D2: Tukey HSD Test between Sibling Positions on Bowenian Leadership (Q15) and the

CLDM (Q11)
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 54

Table D3: Analysis of Covariate Variance between Sibling Positions on the CLDM (Q11 Mean)

Table D4: Analysis of Covariate Variance between Sibling Positions on Bowenian Leadership

(Q15 Mean)
SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 55

Appendix E

Significant Partial Regression Plots within Sibling Positions

Figure E1: Partial Regression Plot of Oldest Siblings of Years Between Closest-in-Age Sibling

(Q15) and Bowenian Leadership (Q15 Mean)

SIBLING POSITION AND LEADERSHIP ABILITIES 56

Figure E2: Partial Regression Plot of Youngest Siblings of Years Between Closest-in-Age

Sibling (Q8) and Bowenian Leadership (Q15 Mean)