The relationship of psychological birth order to irrational relationship beliefs
Main Article Content
Psychological birth order is examined as a predictor of irrational relationship beliefs among Turkish people (N = 423) using a Turkish version (Kalkan, 2005) of the White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory (Campbell, White, & Stewart, 1991) and the Relationship Belief Inventory (Kalkan, 2006). Results of Pearson correlation analysis indicate that positions of psychologically first, middle, and youngest child were significantly related to irrational relationship beliefs. The correlation between psychologically only child scores and irrational relationship beliefs was nonsignificant.
The family environment into which a child is born is different for each birth and each child has an essentially different position in the family (Dreikurs, 1999). Birth order is the location in a family and refers to four basic positions – oldest, middle, youngest and only. Each position has tasks and adult traits, lifestyle, and other dynamics reflect how these tasks are carried out in childhood (Campbell, White, & Stewart, 1991; Shulman & Mosak, 1977). The characteristics of the four basic positions are as follows: The firstborn child is depicted as powerful and influential (Campbell et al., 1991). Firstborn children adhere to rules and respect authority. They may become leaders as responsible children. They seem to have higher academic achievement (Phillips & Phillips, 1994) and cognitive abilities than later-born siblings have (Zajonc, 2001; Zajonc & Mullally, 1997). These children are the center of attention but they are described as the “dethroned” children because they feel dethroned when the second child is born (Gfroerer, Gfroerer, Curlette, White, & Kern, 2003). The middle child may feel squeezed between the firstborn and younger siblings. Middle children may be seen as being in a race with the first child in order to overtake the privileged position of the oldest. They may be viewed as peacemakers or arbitrators to help others achieve justice (Ashby, LoCicero, & Kenny, 2003; Gfroerer et al., 2003; Stewart, 2004). The youngest child, like the firstborn, has a special position in the family. Lastborns are seen as babied, pampered, or spoiled. They are perceived as charming and sociable (Stewart & Campbell, 1998; Sullivan & Schwebel, 1996). Only children are protected and scrutinized by parents. These children are always the center of attention, like the firstborns, and they are under pressure from their parents (Stewart & Campbell; Gfroerer et al.).
Adler (2005) emphasized that it is not the actual chronological birth order, but the child’s interpretation of his or her perceived position in the family which is the most important factor. This perceived position is the psychological birth order. Psychological birth order is generally defined as the way a person perceives and interprets his or her position in the family constellation. The psychological birth order may or may not be the person’s chronological place in the ordinal birth order of the family (Campbell et al., 1991). Although a child is the firstborn in his/her family, he/she may have the attitudes and characteristics of a middle child. Therefore, in order to comprehend fully the position of this child we have to assess his/her perceived place in the family, that is, the psychological birth order (Pilkington, White, & Matheny, 1997). Manaster (1977) summarized this construct as follows:
The assumption is that particular birth order positions have in common presses or demands which influence the child’s view of his or her position in the family and life, and increase the likelihood of the child developing attitudes and styles of behavior in correspondence with his or her perceived position (p. 4).
Lohman, Lohman, and Christensen (1985) found that the psychological position and actual position are not always the same. Campbell et al. (1991) emphasized that actual and psychological positions are related, albeit imperfectly. The psychological position of the person, rather than the actual position, is the important factor in personality development (Campbell et al.). Psychological birth order is a family dynamic that plays a significant role in the development of a child’s lifestyle. Each child works to develop his or her own special place within the sibling group in order to be viewed as significant in the eyes of the parents and the child’s siblings (Gfroerer et al., 2003).
Most of the studies dealing with birth order have involved the use of actual birth order instead of psychological birth order in understanding the lifestyle and personality processes of the individual (White, Campbell, Stewart, Davies, & Pilkington, 1997). Actual birth order is related to personality traits, behavioral variables, interests, and attitudes (Harris & Morrow, 1992; Lohman et al., 1985; Nyman, 2001; Perlin & Grater, 1984). However, White, Campbell, and Stewart (1995) found that there was a stronger relationship between psychological birth order and lifestyle than between actual birth order and lifestyle. Besides lifestyle characteristics, for each child the birth order position may create different behaviors, strategies and thought patterns in his or her family (Sullivan & Schwebel, 1996).
Most of these studies have indicated that actual birth order is associated with thoughts and beliefs (Gates, Lineberger, Crockett, & Hubbard, 1988; Lester, Eleftheriou, & Peterson, 1992). These studies focused primarily on an examination of actual birth order and general thinking styles and beliefs. However, there is limited information available on psychological birth order and irrational relationship beliefs. Irrational relationship beliefs are defined as highly unrealistic beliefs of individuals about themselves, about the nature of relationships, and about their partners in relationships (Ellis, 1993, 2003; Sharp & Ganong, 2000). Sullivan and Schwebel (1995) emphasized that cognitions such as irrational beliefs can be primary factors in causing, or at least maintaining, maladaptive behaviors and psychological disorders in individuals. Irrational beliefs may lead to self-defeating behavior that may lead to poorer adjustment in romantic relationships (Greene, 2006). Many studies have indicated that irrational relationship beliefs are related to marital maladjustment and marital distress (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988; Cann, Mangum, & Wells, 2001; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981; Haferkamp, 1994; Huber & Milstein, 1985; Möller & Zyl, 1991).
The studies referred to below investigated the relationship of birth order to irrational beliefs or psychological health. In each study actual birth order was utilized instead of psychological birth order.
Gates and colleagues (1988) conducted a study about birth order and how it relates to depression, anxiety, and self-concept. They found statistically significant differences between first- and lastborns in psychological health. Their results suggested that firstborns scored higher on self-esteem than lastborns, and experienced less depression and less anxiety. Lester and colleagues (1992) investigated the relationship between actual birth order and irrational thinking. They found that firstborn males and lastborn females had less irrational thinking than lastborn males and firstborn females did. Sullivan and Schwebel (1996) investigated the relationship between actual birth order and irrational beliefs using the Relationship Belief Inventory developed by Eidelson and Epstein (1982). They found that firstborns had significantly more irrational relationship beliefs than lastborns.
Briefly, these studies indicate that there may be relationships between actual birth order and irrational beliefs or psychological health. However, irrational relationship beliefs and psychological birth order relations are not explained in a clear way. Furthermore, irrational relationship beliefs are affected by cultural and social patterns, and the birth order patterns vary in traditional societies (Keller & Zach, 2002). Hamamcı (2005) emphasized that these kinds of studies are necessary in traditional countries such as Turkey, which has a different family structure, religion, culture and economic background from those of Western countries. In Turkey, parenting of girls tends to be more authoritative than parenting of boys. Parents emphasize that boys should be aggressive, successful, and competitive – whereas girls are expected to be submissive and sensitive. Therefore, the present study aimed to contribute to the birth order literature by providing an understanding of how the Turkish cultural context shapes family dynamics. Within this framework, the first aim of this study was to determine the relationship between psychological birth order and irrational relationship beliefs. It was anticipated that psychological birth order would be associated with irrational relationship beliefs. The other aim of this study was to examine how far irrational relationship beliefs are affected by psychological birth order. It was hypothesized that an individual’s psychological birth order would prove to be an important independent variable, influencing the dependent variable of irrational relationship beliefs.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 221 university students and 202 academic and managerial staff from Ondokuz Mayıs University in Turkey. There were 198 (46.8%) women and 225 (53.2%) men (total = 423), all of whom were married or had been dating an opposite sex partner for at least 1 year. The mean age of all of the participants was 27.9 years (SD = 9.1), with a range from 17 to 57 years of age. The mean age of the women was 27.4 (SD = 8.9); for the men, the mean age was 28.4 (SD = 9.2). The women participants’ mean relationship period was 5.0 years (SD = 5.9) and the mean relationship period for the men was 5.5 years (SD = 6.3). Among the sample 45.6% were married and 54.4% were dating: 43.4% of the women said that they were married, and 56.6% said that they were in an ongoing dating relationship; 47.6% of the men were married and 52.4% stated that they were dating. In general, the participants were highly educated, 48% (44.9% for women; 51.1% for men) having some university or college education and 52% (55.1% for women; 48.9% for men) were still continuing a university program.
The participants were randomly selected from Ondokuz Mayıs University. The questionnaires were distributed to academicians and managerial staff in their workplaces. Students completed the questionnaires in class. It took approximately 20 minutes to complete the questionnaires.
Instruments
The instruments used in this study are described below. The psychometric characteristics reported for the instruments derive from previously published research (Kalkan, 2005, 2006).
White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory (PBOI) This instrument was developed by Campbell et al. (1991) and adapted for the Turkish population by Kalkan (2005). The adapted form was utilized for the present study. The PBOI consists of four factors representing the oldest, middle, youngest, and only psychological birth order categories. The construct validity of the PBOI was investigated through factor analysis. In the analysis of that investigation, it was observed that four factors accounted for 49.85% of the total variance for women, and for 50.27% of the total variance for men. The test-retest reliabilities for the instrument for a 4-week test-retest interval for 52 individuals were as follows: First child, r = .89 (for women), r = .77 (for men); middle child, r = .84 (for women), r = .79 (for men), youngest child, r = 78 (for women), r = .88 (for men); and only child, r = .83 (for women), r = .89 (for men). The internal consistency reliabilities were .79 (first), .86 (middle), .82 (youngest), and .74 (only) for women, and .65 (first), .75 (middle), .68 (youngest), and .82 (only) for men (Kalkan, 2005).
Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI) The RBI was developed by Kalkan (2006) to measure dysfunctional relationship beliefs. It consists of two subscales – helplessness and unlovability – with a total of 20 items. The first subscale, helplessness, has 11 items. The second subscale, unlovability, has 9 items. RBI scores range from 20-100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of irrational relationship beliefs. The Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was .87 for the total scale, .78 for the first subscale and .80 for the second subscale. Test- retest coefficient at a three week interval was .74 (total scale), .69 (helplessness) and .71 (unlovability). Convergent validity was examined by assessing the correlation between the scores of the RBI and the scores of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS; Şahin & Şahin, 1992) and Irrational Belief Scale (IBS; Türküm, 2003). The correlation between the RBI and DAS was .30; and the correlation between the RBI and IBS which measures general irrational belief was .24. The construct validity of the RBI was investigated through factor analysis. In the analysis of that investigation, two factors were observed, accounting for 38.37% of the total variance (Kalkan, 2006).
Participant demographics Participants provided demographic information including age, sex, number of siblings, birth order position, marital status, relationship duration and educational level.
Data Analysis
Pearson correlation coefficients and stepwise regression analysis were applied by using the SPSS program and p < 0.05 was accepted as a reference point to be statistically significant.
Results
The data were initially analyzed by computing Pearson correlation coefficients. The results of this analysis indicated that the RBI total scores were significantly correlated with PBOI First scale (r = -.51, p < .01), PBOI Middle scale (r = .55, p < .01) and PBOI Youngest scale (r = .24, p < .01). The RBI Helplessness scale was positively correlated with the PBOI Middle (r = .55, p < .01) and PBOI Youngest (r = .22, p < .01) scales. The Helplessness subscale was negatively correlated with the PBOI First (r = -.54, p < .01) scale. The RBI Unlovability scale was positively correlated with the PBOI Middle (r = .44, p < .01) and PBOI Youngest (r = .21, p < .01) scales. The Unlovability subscale was negatively correlated with the PBOI First (r = -.38, p < .01) scale. The RBI Total (r = -.02, p > .05), RBI Helplessness (r = -.01, p > .05) and RBI Unlovability (r = -.02, p > .03) scores were not significantly correlated with the PBOI Only scale.
Table 1. Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Psychological Birth Order Scores Predicting Relationship Beliefs
* p < .05 ** p < .001
Stepwise multiple regression was applied to examine the amount of variance in total relationship beliefs which could be accounted for by the psychological birth order. The results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that 36% of the variance in total relationship beliefs was accounted for by scores on middle, first, and only child scales. For helplessness, the scales for middle, first and only child accounted for 37% of total variance. Middle, only, and first child scores were related significantly to unlovability, accounting for 22% of the variance. Psychologically youngest child scores were not related significantly to irrational relationship beliefs. Table 1 gives the results of this analysis.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was twofold. First, the relationship between irrational relationship beliefs and psychological birth order was examined. The results of Pearson correlation analysis clearly indicate that the positions of psycho- logically first, middle and youngest child were significantly related to irrational relationship beliefs. The correlations between psychologically only child scores and irrational relationship beliefs were not significant.
The results revealed that as the scores for the psychologically first child increased, the irrational relationship beliefs decreased. This result was supported by the findings related to actual birth order and irrational beliefs (Gates et al., 1988; Lester et al., 1992). The firstborn child has been depicted as a leader, who perceives himself as powerful, influential and important. Individuals who see themselves as leaders having a powerful role in interpersonal interactions have high self-esteem and low irrational beliefs (Campbell et al., 1991; Falbo, 1981; Schwab & Lundgren, 1978). Therefore, this finding in our study adds to the evidence of the association between the psychologically first child and a low level of irrational relationship beliefs.
The results indicated that the psychologically middle child scores were positively related to irrational relationship beliefs. The feelings of being less important than their siblings and having low self-esteem might be related to increased helplessness and unlovability beliefs in romantic relationships. The middleborn children are depicted as squeezed between the firstborn and younger siblings and as being in a race with the first child. The middleborns, when they become adults, may feel anxious about losing their partner’s love, thus they may have irrational thoughts and beliefs such as unlovability. In addition, it may be that middleborn children perceive their self-worth in terms of interpersonal acceptance and evaluation. This result supports previous findings related to the introverted, insecure and confused profile of the middleborns (Nyman, 2001; Tharbe & Harun, 2000).
The results demonstrated that the psychologically youngest child scores were positively related to irrational relationship beliefs. This indicated that increased feelings of helplessness and weakness or wanting to gain significance by pleasing others (White et al., 1997) might be related to increased helplessness and unlovability beliefs in romantic relationships. This result was consistent with previous research findings in which youngest children were seen as dependent, immature, submissive, and irresponsible (Nyman, 2001; Perlin & Grater, 1984). In the analysis no statistically significant relationship was found between the scores of the psychologically only child and irrational relationship beliefs. It was hypothesized that psychologically only children would exhibit low irrational relationship beliefs. The results revealed that while the scores of psychologically only child increased, irrational relationship beliefs decreased, but this finding was not significant. In literature, it has been found that independence, sociableness, responsibility, and thoughtfulness are the positive qualities associated with the only child position (Nyman, 2001).
Finally, the role of psychological birth order in irrational relationship beliefs was examined. The results of the stepwise regression analysis revealed psychological birth order as a predictor of irrational relationship beliefs. The psychological birth order positions were particularly effective in accounting for variation in total relationship beliefs, unlovability and helplessness. The results revealed that the psychological birth order scales, except for the youngest child, were all very influential. These results provided support for the concept that a person’s position in the family might play a central role in the development of their romantic relationship beliefs.
The therapist seeks to understand the psychological positions in the family. Knowledge of psychological birth order may provide useful information about the client. Therapists or counselors may develop hypotheses concerning the patient’s or client’s lifestyle (Gfroerer et al., 2003; Pilkington et al., 1997). If, in fact, psychological birth order is predictive of relationship beliefs, then clinician or counselor can use these findings to help to understand irrational beliefs about romantic relationships. The findings of this study suggest that counselors or therapists may take into consideration the effects of psychological birth order on the irrational relationship beliefs of clients. On the other hand, by looking at the results of this study alone, a counselor or therapist could not determine the effects on irrational relationship beliefs. Further investigations are needed to replicate these results. Moreover, in this study the relation between psychological birth order and irrational relationship beliefs was examined by self-report measures. This method gave limited information about individuals. In future studies, different methods such as interview or observation should be used.
This study has some limitations. First, the present study was conducted in Turkey which is a traditional country. Turkey has a different family structure, religion, cultural and economic background (Hamamcı, 2005), relationship style (Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2003), parental styles and parental bonding (Kapçı & Küçüker, 2006) from those of most Western countries. The Turkish culture encourages men to be authoritative at home, while married women have been expected to be submissive and silent. Firstborn boys are treated more leniently than other children in Turkish families. The study of cultural practices has shown that birth order characteristics vary in traditional societies (Keller & Zach, 2002). Thus, generalizations should be made with caution. More studies are needed to determine whether or not the results of the present study vary according to culture.
Second, the study sample was relatively well-educated. This homogeneity of subjects limits the generalizability of the results to other populations. Therefore, future studies should be conducted with subjects who are not as highly educated. Third, the results of this study need to be replicated with much larger samples, in order to test these initial outcomes. If other studies produce similar findings, then implications could be pursued to provide guides for therapists, counselors, parents, and the individuals themselves.
Another weakness of this study was that the actual birth order was not measured. Future researchers may explore the relationship between actual birth order and psychological birth order. The establishment of the relationship between psychological position and actual position in future research will make an important contribution to birth order studies.
However, this study has shown the usefulness of psychological birth order positions. Despite its limitations, the study provides information related to the variables that influence relationship beliefs.
Adler, A. (2005). Bireysel Psikoloji [The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology] (A. Kılıçlıoğlu, Trans.). Istanbul: Say Yayınları. (Original work published 1922).
Ashby, J. S., LoCicero, K. A., & Kenny, M. C. (2003). The relationship of multidimensional perfectionism to psychological birth order. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(1), 43-51.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1988). Individual difference variables in close relationships: A contextual model of marriage as an integrative framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 713-721.
Campbell, L., White, J., & Stewart, A. (1991). The relationship of psychological birth order to actual birth order. Individual Psychology, 47, 380-391.
Cann, A., Mangum, J. L., & Wells, M. (2001). Distress in response to relationship infidelity: The roles of gender and attitudes about relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 38(3), 185-190.
Dreikurs, R. (1999). An introduction to individual psychology. Florence, KY: Routledge.
Eidelson, R. J., & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and relationship maladjustment: Development of a measure of dsyfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715-720.
Ellis, A. (1993). The rational emotive therapy approach to marriage and family therapy. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 1, 292-307.
Ellis, A. (2003). The nature of disturbed marital interaction. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive- Behavior Therapy, 21, 147-153.
Epstein, N., & Eidelson, R. J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical couples: Their relationship to expectations, goals, and satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 9(4), 13-22.
Falbo, T. (1981). Relationships between birth category, achievement, and interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 121-131.
Gates, L., Lineberger, M. R., Crockett, J., & Hubbard, J. (1988). Birth order and its relationship to depression, anxiety, and self-concept test scores in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149, 29-34.
Gfroerer, K. P., Gfroerer, C. A., Curlette, W. L., White, J., & Kern, R. M. (2003). Psychological birth order and the BASIS-A inventory. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(1), 31-41.
Greene, K. H. (2006). Awareness of parental infidelity on college students’ reported commitment in romantic relationships. The Florida State University, Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved July, 20, 2007, from http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11092006-172036/unrestricted/khg_ dissertation.pdf
Haferkamp, C. J. (1994). The role of dysfunctional relationship beliefs and self-monitoring in marital conflict. Current Psychology, 13(3), 248-262.
Hamamcı, Z. (2005). Dysfunctional relationship beliefs in marital satisfaction and adjustment. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 33(4), 313-328.
Harris, K. A., & Morrow, K. B. (1992). Differential effects of birth order and gender on perceptions of responsibility and dominance. Individual Psychology, 48(1), 109-118.
Huber, C. H., & Milstein, B. (1985). Cognitive restructuring and a collaborative set in couples’ work. American Journal of Family Therapy, 13(2), 17-27.
Kalkan, M. (2005). White-Campbell psikolojik doğum sırası envanterinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği [The reliability and validity of the White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory]. Psychiatry Psychology Psychopharmacology, 13(3), 169-174.
Kalkan, M. (2006). İlişkilerde inanç envanterinin (İİE) geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The development of the Relationship Belief Inventory (RBI): Studies of validity and reliability]. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 3(25), 45-49.
Kapçı, E. G., & Küçüker, S. (2006). Ana babaya bağlanma ölçeği: Türk üniversite öğrencilerinde psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi [The parental bonding instrument: Evaluation of psychometric properties with Turkish university students]. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 17(2), 286-295.
Keller, H., & Zach, U. (2002). Gender and birth order as determinants of parental behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(2), 177-184.
Lester, D., Eleftheriou, L., & Peterson, C. A. (1992). Birth order and psychological health: A sex difference. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(3), 379-380.
Lohman, J. F., Lohman, T. G., & Christensen, O. (1985). Psychological position and perceived sibling differences. Individual Psychology, 41(3), 313-327.
Manaster, G. J. (1977). Birth order: An overview. Journal of Individual Psychology, 33(1), 3-8.
Möller, A. T., & Zyl, P. D. V. (1991). Relationship beliefs, interpersonal perception, and marital adjustment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 28-33.
Nyman, L. (2001). The identification of birth order personality attributes. Journal of Psychology, 129(1), 51-59.
Perlin, M., & Grater, H. (1984). The relationship between birth order and reported interpersonal behavior. Individual Psychology, 40(1), 22-28.
Phillips, A. S., & Phillips, C. R. (1994). Birth order and achievement attributions. Individual Psychology, 50(1), 119-124.
Pilkington, L. R., White, J., & Matheny, K. B. (1997). Perceived coping resources and psychological birth order in school-aged children. Individual Psychology, 53(1), 42-57.
Şahin, N. H., & Şahin, N. (1992). How dysfunctional are the dysfunctional attitudes in another culture? British Journal of Medical Psychology, 6, 17-26.
Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2003). How do romantic relationship satisfaction, gender stereotypes, and gender relate to future time orientation in romantic relationships? Journal of Psychology, 137(3), 294- 303.
Schwab, M. R., & Lundgren, D. C. (1978). Birth order, perceived appraisals by significant others, and self-esteem. Psychological Reports, 43, 443-454.
Sharp, E. A., & Ganong, L. H. (2000). Raising awareness about marital expectations: Are unrealistic beliefs changed by integrative teaching? Family Relations, 49, 71-76.
Shulman, B. H., & Mosak, H. H. (1977). Birth order and ordinal position: Two Adlerian views. Journal of Individual Psychology, 33, 114-121.
Stewart, A. E. (2004). Can knowledge of client birth order bias clinical judgment? Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(2), 167-176.
Stewart, A. E., & Campbell, L. F. (1998). Validity and reliability of the White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory. Journal of Individual Psychology, 54(1), 42-60.
Sullivan, B. F., & Schwebel, A. (1995). The relationships, beliefs, and expectations of satisfaction in marital relationships. Journal of Family Therapy, 3, 298-306.
Sullivan, B. F., & Schwebel, A. I. (1996). Birth-order position, gender, and irrational relationship beliefs. Individual Psychology, 52, 55-64.
Tharbe, I. H. A., & Harun, L. M. (2000, July 15). Birth order positions and personality traits. Paper presented at the Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia National Conference in Education, Malaysia.
Türküm, A. S. (2003). Akılcı olmayan inanç ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve kısaltma çalışmaları [The development of the Irrational Belief Scale and studies of minimizing the number of items]. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2(19), 41-47.
White, J., Campbell, L., & Stewart, A. (1995). Associations of scores on the White-Campbell Psychological Birth Order Inventory and the Kern Lifestyle Scale. Psychological Reports, 77, 1187-1196.
White, J., Campbell, L., Stewart, A., Davies, M., & Pilkington, L. (1997). The relationship of psychological birth order to career interests. Individual Psychology, 53, 89-104.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). The family dynamics of intellectual development. American Psychologist, 56, 490-496.
Zajonc, R. B., & Mullally, P. R. (1997). Birth order: Reconciling conflicting effects. American Psychologist, 52, 685-699.
Table 1. Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Psychological Birth Order Scores Predicting Relationship Beliefs
* p < .05 ** p < .001
Filiz Bilge
Psychological Counseling
Beytepe Campus
Hacettepe University
Ankara
Turkey
Hatice Odaci
Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance
Fatih Faculty of Education
Karadeniz Technical University
Akç
aabat
TR61000
Trabzon
Melek Kalkan, Eğitim Fakültesi, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Kurupelit, TR 55139 Samsun, Turkey. Phone: +90 (362) 3121919 Ext: 5377; Fax: +90 (362) 4576078; Email: [email protected]