The Journal of Genetic Psychology Research and Theory on Human Development
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Birth Order and Field Dependence-Independence: A Failure to Replicate Gordon E. Finley & Joseph Solla To cite this article: Gordon E. Finley & Joseph Solla (1975) Birth Order and Field DependenceIndependence: A Failure to Replicate, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126:2, 305-306, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1975.10532346 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1975.10532346
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [University of Birmingham]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 22:08
REPLICATIONS AND REFINEMENTS Under this heading appear summaries of studies which, in 500 words or less, provide useful data substantiating, not substantiating, or refining what we think we know; additional details concerning the results can be obtained b y communicating directly with the investigator or, when indicated, b y requesting supplementary material from Microfiche Publications. The Journal o f Genetic Psychology, 1975, 128, 305-306.
BIRTH ORDER AND FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE: A FAILURE TO REPLICATE*’ Department of Psychology, Florida International University
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 22:08 05 November 2015
GORDON E. FINLEY AND
JOSEPH
SOLLA
In a study with adult subjects, Stewart2 found that oldest siblings were more field dependent than youngest siblings, as measured by the Embedded Figures Test. In another study with adults, Simon and Wilde* found no differences in field dependence-independence between firstborns and later borns as measured by the Cf-1 Hidden Figures Test. The present study was undertaken to clarify this discrepancy. It was premised on the assumption that birth order effects are early experience effects and that if such early experience effects exist, they are most likely to be found closest to the time that the effectsoccur. Following this reasoning, if birth order effects are not found in children, it is unlikely that a “sleeper effect” will manifest itself in adults. The present investigation with children thus ought to clarify the discrepancy observed in the two previous adult studies. The Children’s Embedded Figures Test4 was individually administered to 116 Caucasian, middle-class boys and girls in the second grade by a male experimenter. The numbers of children in each birth order and sex cell were as follows: firstborn, 17 boys and 15 girls; middle born, 16 boys and 16 girls; and last born, 23 boys and 29 girls.
* Received in the Editorial m c e , Provincetown, Massachusetts, on April 5, 1974. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 1 The authors are indebted to the School Board of Miami, Florida, and to the principals, staff, and students of Blue Lakes and Kenwood Elementary schools for their kind cooperation. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at the address shown at the end of this article. 2 Stewart, R. H. Birth order and dependency. J . Personal. 6. Soc. Psychol., 1967, 6, 192-194. 3 Simon, W. E., & Wilde, V. Ordinal position of birth, field dependency and Forer’s measure of gullibility, Percept. 6. Motor Skills, 1971, 33, 677-678. 305
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 22:08 05 November 2015
306
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
Mean scores for the present sample were in almost perfect accord with the published norms for this age group.4 A two-way analysis of variance for unweighted cell means yielded no significant effect for birth order ( F = .24, df = 2/110, n s . ) . Indeed, inspection of the data indicated that not only were the cell means highly similar (firstborn boys = 12.12, girls = 11.40; middle born boys ~ 1 2 . 5 6girls , = 9.50;and last born boys = 11.78, girls = 10.66), but the great individual variability in the scores within each cell was not at all accounted for by birth order. As is commonly found, boys were nearsignificantly more field independent than girls ( F = 3 . 3 5 , d j = l / l l O , p < . lo). In conclusion, Stewart’s finding that adult oldest siblings were more field dependent than youngest siblings was not replicated, and Simon and Wilde’s finding of no differences between firstborns and last borns was substantiated. The present results, in conjunction with those of Simon and Wilde, thus suggest that a child’s early experience in a particular birth order position is not likely to be related to the development of field dependence-independence in any simple and unambiguous fashion.
Department of Psychology Florida International University Miami, Florida 33199 4 Witkin, H. A,, Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E. R., & Karp, S. A. A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consult. Psychol. Press, 1971.
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Birth Order and Field Dependence-Independence: A Failure to Replicate Gordon E. Finley & Joseph Solla To cite this article: Gordon E. Finley & Joseph Solla (1975) Birth Order and Field DependenceIndependence: A Failure to Replicate, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126:2, 305-306, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1975.10532346 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1975.10532346
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [University of Birmingham]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 22:08
REPLICATIONS AND REFINEMENTS Under this heading appear summaries of studies which, in 500 words or less, provide useful data substantiating, not substantiating, or refining what we think we know; additional details concerning the results can be obtained b y communicating directly with the investigator or, when indicated, b y requesting supplementary material from Microfiche Publications. The Journal o f Genetic Psychology, 1975, 128, 305-306.
BIRTH ORDER AND FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE: A FAILURE TO REPLICATE*’ Department of Psychology, Florida International University
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 22:08 05 November 2015
GORDON E. FINLEY AND
JOSEPH
SOLLA
In a study with adult subjects, Stewart2 found that oldest siblings were more field dependent than youngest siblings, as measured by the Embedded Figures Test. In another study with adults, Simon and Wilde* found no differences in field dependence-independence between firstborns and later borns as measured by the Cf-1 Hidden Figures Test. The present study was undertaken to clarify this discrepancy. It was premised on the assumption that birth order effects are early experience effects and that if such early experience effects exist, they are most likely to be found closest to the time that the effectsoccur. Following this reasoning, if birth order effects are not found in children, it is unlikely that a “sleeper effect” will manifest itself in adults. The present investigation with children thus ought to clarify the discrepancy observed in the two previous adult studies. The Children’s Embedded Figures Test4 was individually administered to 116 Caucasian, middle-class boys and girls in the second grade by a male experimenter. The numbers of children in each birth order and sex cell were as follows: firstborn, 17 boys and 15 girls; middle born, 16 boys and 16 girls; and last born, 23 boys and 29 girls.
* Received in the Editorial m c e , Provincetown, Massachusetts, on April 5, 1974. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 1 The authors are indebted to the School Board of Miami, Florida, and to the principals, staff, and students of Blue Lakes and Kenwood Elementary schools for their kind cooperation. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at the address shown at the end of this article. 2 Stewart, R. H. Birth order and dependency. J . Personal. 6. Soc. Psychol., 1967, 6, 192-194. 3 Simon, W. E., & Wilde, V. Ordinal position of birth, field dependency and Forer’s measure of gullibility, Percept. 6. Motor Skills, 1971, 33, 677-678. 305
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 22:08 05 November 2015
306
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
Mean scores for the present sample were in almost perfect accord with the published norms for this age group.4 A two-way analysis of variance for unweighted cell means yielded no significant effect for birth order ( F = .24, df = 2/110, n s . ) . Indeed, inspection of the data indicated that not only were the cell means highly similar (firstborn boys = 12.12, girls = 11.40; middle born boys ~ 1 2 . 5 6girls , = 9.50;and last born boys = 11.78, girls = 10.66), but the great individual variability in the scores within each cell was not at all accounted for by birth order. As is commonly found, boys were nearsignificantly more field independent than girls ( F = 3 . 3 5 , d j = l / l l O , p < . lo). In conclusion, Stewart’s finding that adult oldest siblings were more field dependent than youngest siblings was not replicated, and Simon and Wilde’s finding of no differences between firstborns and last borns was substantiated. The present results, in conjunction with those of Simon and Wilde, thus suggest that a child’s early experience in a particular birth order position is not likely to be related to the development of field dependence-independence in any simple and unambiguous fashion.
Department of Psychology Florida International University Miami, Florida 33199 4 Witkin, H. A,, Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E. R., & Karp, S. A. A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consult. Psychol. Press, 1971.
