“Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!” Breaking the perpetually perky mood of 1970s TV family The Brady Bunch, middle sister Jan erupted in jealous outbursts about the attention that went to her pretty, accomplished, apparently perfect older sister, Marcia.
But the assumption that middle-born children are bitter or unambitious is knocked off its pillar in psychologist Catherine Salmon and journalist Katrin Schumann's new book, The Secret Power of Middle Children.
About 40 per cent of U.S. families have kids born between the eldest and the “baby” (although the authors note that family blending, deaths and disabilities, among other factors, can shift birth-order status in the course of a childhood). So the authors were surprised to find there had not been much prior research on the subject.
In the book, Dr. Salmon and Ms. Schumann dig into the evidence from evolutionary psychology, sociology and communications and find that many middle children emerge from childhood equipped with sharp skills in negotiation, compromise and empathy.
Like Bill Gates, Madonna, the Dalai Lama and other middle-born heavyweights, middle children can prosper by overcoming any childhood feelings of neglect and playing to their strengths.
Dr. Salmon suggests some strategies for middle children that would have Marcia Brady yelling, “Jan, Jan, Jan!”
Middle children often get a bad rap. How are they stereotyped by society and the media?
If you look at the way they tend to be portrayed in television shows, like The Brady Brunch with Jan – she clearly has issues being the middle sister, and is a little bit resentful of her older sister and younger sister – that's certainly an image the media often has presented.
There have been a couple of studies done where they actually ask people to describe what a first-born, middle-born and last-born are like. Middle-borns are the only [position in] birth order that nobody described as spoiled. And they're the only birth order that tends to get described as neglected or overlooked.
How accurate are these images?
There are some studies that do suggest that middle-borns certainly are – neglected may not the ideal word to use – but, in some ways, overlooked. There's this idea that middle-borns are bitter and negative about their experiences.
But they tend not to be particularly negative people. They're actually less likely to seek therapy than other birth orders. People who work in counselling psychology report them as showing up less frequently. And so they seem to, in fact, be very well-adjusted.
How does this compare to stereotypes about other places in birth order?
There's also a perception that the last-born child is the most open to experience and the most rebellious and adventurous. [But] there are certainly some studies that indicate that, in fact, middle children may be even more rebellious and also more open to experience.
When children are born into a family, they all have to find their own role or their own niche. The first-born comes in and can pick whatever niche they want, and typically they pick the niche that tends to result in them following the sort of family line, being recipient to family expectations and following along with that – being the more “responsible” one is how some people would articulate it, but, really, it's more falling in line with the parental expectations and desires. And so that position is taken.
So then when the next child comes along, they need to find a new role. And being open to experience or being willing to take risks facilitates taking the chances that will allow you to find the niche that you need to find or the role you need to find in life
Still, you do mention that, as children, middle-borns often have lower self-esteem than their siblings.
