WHO146;S THE SMART SIBLING?

For decades, scientists have been squabbling over birth order like siblings fighting over a toy. Some of them say being a first-, middle- or lastborn has significant effects on intelligence. Others say that8217;s nonsense. The spat goes back at least as far as Alfred Adler, a Freud-era psychologist who argued that firstborns had an edge. Other psychologists found his theory easy to believe8212;middle and youngest kids already had a bad rap, thanks to everything from primogeniture laws to the Prodigal Son.

But even though the scientists were turning up birth-order patterns easily, they couldn8217;t pin down a cause. Perhaps, one theory went, the mother8217;s body was somehow attacking the later offspring in utero. Maternal antibody levels do increase with each successive pregnancy. But there8217;s no evidence that this leads to differences in intelligence, and the new study in Science, based on records from nearly a quarter of a million young Norwegian men, strikes down the antibody hypothesis. It looks at kids who are the eldest by accident8212;those whose older siblings die in infancy8212;as well as those who are true firstborns. Both groups rack up the same high scores on IQ tests. Whatever is lowering the latterborns8217; scores, it isn8217;t prenatal biology, since being raised as the firstborn, not actually being the firstborn, is what counts.

The obvious culprits on the nurture side are parents. But it8217;s hard to think that favoritism toward firstborns exists in modern society. In surveys, they generally say they give their children equal attention. Kids concur, reporting that they feel they8217;re treated fairly.

Maybe, then, the problem with latterborns isn8217;t nature or nurture 8212; maybe there simply isn8217;t a problem. Not all the research shows a difference in intelligence. A pivotal 2000 study by Joe Rodgers, now a professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma, found no link between birth order and smarts. And an earlier study of American families found that the youngest kids, not the oldest, did best in school. From that work, says psychologist Judith Rich Harris, a prominent critic of birth-order patterns, it8217;s clear that 8220;the impression that the firstborn is more often the academic achiever is false.8221;

Meanwhile, many of the studies showing a birth-order pattern in IQ have a big, fat, methodological flaw. The Norwegian study is an example, says Cleveland: 8220;It8217;s comparing Bill, the first child in one family, to Bob, the second child in another family.8221; That would be fine if all families were identical, but of course they aren8217;t. The study controls for variables such as parental education and family size. But Rodgers, the Oklahoma professor, notes that there are 8220;hundreds8221; of other factors in play, and because it8217;s so hard to discount all of them, he8217;s 8220;not sure whether the patterns in the Science article are real.8221;

No one is more sensitive to that criticism than the Norwegian scientists. In fact, they already have an answer ready in the form of a second paper. Soon to be published in the journal Intelligence, it8217;s similar to the Science study except for one big thing: instead of comparing Bill to Bob, it compares Bill to his younger brothers Barry and Barney. The same birth-order pattern shows up: the firstborns, on average, score about two points higher than their secondborn brothers, and hapless thirdborns do even worse. 8220;The purpose of the two papers was exactly the same,8221; says Petter Kristensen of Norway8217;s National Institute of Occupational Health, who led both new studies. 8220;But this second one is much more comprehensive, and in a sense it8217;s better than the Science paper.8221; The data are there 8212; within families, birth order really does seem linked to brain power. Even the critics have to soften their positions a little. The Intelligence study 8220;must be taken very seriously,8221; says Rodgers.
-MARY CARMICHAEL Newsweek