Click here to view a powerpoint on “The Pecking Order”

Introduction

 

          First friends, first enemies, the first social role within a group an individual enters is given to them upon birth. Although there will be many roles to come birth order gives an individual their earliest sense of identity. It changes how people look at them, how they look at themselves and the expectations that are to follow.

          If birth order can affect an individual’s outlooks and beliefs in childhood can it not also affect their values and behavioral intentions in adulthood? No matter the age an individual will always be their parents’ child. While birth order has been studied in terms of its correlation to career and education choices, little research has been done on its relationship to sexual encounters outside of sexual orientation. This study will attempt to find parallels between birth order and sexual promiscuity in adulthood. The data and variables will be examined using the theory of reasoned action by Fishbein and Ajzen (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

 

Theory of Reasoned Action 

            Developed by Fishbein and Ajzen the theory of reasoned action is “a model of the psychological processes that mediate observed relations between attitudes and behavior” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Simply defined the theory of reasoned action follows that an individual’s attitudes and subjective norms influence their intentions; these intentions then influence or cause behaviors.  This study will investigate which promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms lead to promiscuous intentions and/or promiscuous behaviors (see research questions). It should be noted that attitudes refer to behavioral attitudes, not those about targets.

          A model follows below:

(Attitudes) + (Subjective Norms) → (Intentions) = (Behaviors)*

*Attitudes and subjective norms lead to intentions which create behaviors.

(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

 

Birth Order

          Adler first introduced birth order as an indicator of life style in the early 1930s. The four categories of birth order are eldest, middle, youngest, and only (Sollod, Wilson & Monte, 2009). The role of birth order is not merely physical but also psychological. It affects an individual’s sense of responsibility, value, uniqueness and perhaps most obviously their relationship with parents. Although the complexity of divorces, large age gaps, mixed families and single parent households must be taken into consideration, U.S. Americans continue to hold common expectations for each childhood role. For instance, eldest children are expected to set good examples for their younger siblings while youngest children are expected to obey their elders.  For this study birth order will be examined in terms of its relationship to personality traits (see research questions).

 

The Eldest Child

          When asked to rate their own position and the perceived value of other birth positions, “the first born position was viewed as the most favored… followed by the middle, youngest and only child positions” (Nyman, 1995). While the eldest child moves from being the only to the oldest, a child in this position has the advantage of never being dethroned. More siblings may come along but the oldest child will always hold their rank.

          Positive qualities of firstborns include independence, intelligence, ambition, responsibility, caring and friendliness (Nyman, 1995). Eldest children have also been found to be the highest achieving, have the highest IQ, greatest academic success/fewest academic problems, highest motivation and a need for achievement (Eckstein, 2000). More than any other position the most research can be found on eldest children, perhaps because they are over represented amongst learned groups in both college students and faculty (Eckstein, 2000). “Psychologically first persons initiate and accomplish goals through directing, leading, achieving and attempting to please” (Stewart, Stewart & Campbell, 2001). Eldest children have been shown to have high levels of self-confidence and are perhaps egotistical. “Psychologically first children rated themselves higher in… traits including intelligence, high standards, considerate (sic) and hard worker” (Lohman, Lohman & Christensen, 1985). First-borns never rated themselves lower than their siblings on socially desirable traits and the traits they did rate themselves lower in were the negative traits of irresponsibility, rebelliousness and being spoiled (Lohman et al, 1985).

          According to empirical studies on birth order personality differences by Eckstien, first-borns are the “most afflictive under stress” (Eckstein, 2000). Perhaps first-borns feel more stressed because they are known for being dominate-aggressive with a high need for achievement (Nyman, 1995). This is the only position directly associated with leadership and few negative characteristics (Nyman, 1995) but it should be noted that “firsts rated themselves lower in athletic(ism)” (Lohman et al, 1985). 

          Eldest males were found to be self-centered, spoiled, dominant and independent. Eldest females were viewed as spoiled, nurturing and responsible (Nyman, 1995). Because most physical firstborns also feel psychologically first, they are an easily studied homogenous group (Lohman et al, 1985).

 

The Middle Child

          The middle child starts as the youngest and is dethroned to become the middle. Being in the middle provides both the benefits and negatives of having a duel position with older and younger siblings. Positive qualities of middle children include sociableness, thoughtfulness, responsibility, ambition, independence (Nyman, 1995) and the fewest acting out problems (Eckstein, 2000). The middle position is the hardest to define as an individual could be the middle of three, four, or five or more children. It is perhaps for this reason that there is little research on middles. Also in the case of only and two child families the middle position simply does not exist. What is known about middles is that they are great mediators. Middle children rate themselves higher than their younger siblings on intelligence and being hardworking (Lohman et al, 1985).

          Due to their fluctuating responsibilities middles have a hard time defining their identity. “For the middle… negative experiences seem associated with perceiving oneself as disconnected, marginalized, or estranged from one’s family” (Stewart et al, 2001). It is the only position defined as neglected/overlooked and also the only position not described as spoiled (Nyman, 1995). Negative qualities of middles include being insecure, confused, neglected, rebellious (Nyman, 1995) and having the greatest feeling of not belonging (Eckstein, 2000).

          Middle females were found to be intelligent while middle males were viewed as dominate-aggressive and irresponsible but open minded (Nyman, 1995). In Stewart et al’s research on the relationship between birth order, family atmosphere and personality, middles, especially males, “were strongly related to family atmospheres involving dysfunction and disharmony” (Stewart et al, 2001).

 

The Youngest Child

          The youngest child not dethroned is perpetually viewed as “the baby”.  Because their older sibling(s) are developmentally advanced, youngest children are often over shadowed and seek attention by becoming the family comedian. Adler viewed youngest children as spoiled, and the second largest population of problem children (eldests being the first). He described them as highly ambitious but easily discouraged and therefore lazy.

          “The pampered child” according to Adler is spoiled by all the family and not just by the parents (Sollod et al, 2009). While eldest children try to motivate others, “the psychologically youngest may seek to achieve the same ends though more passive or perhaps manipulative means… using charm, persuasion, complaints, or even guilt…to achieve goals” (Stewart et al, 2001). Positive qualities are sociableness, thoughtfulness (Nyman, 1995) and empathy (Eckstein, 2000).

          Youngest children had the greatest number of negative terms including spoiled, dependent, irresponsible, rebellious and immature (Nyman, 1995). Lohman et al’s study on psychological positions and perceived sibling differences found that “low ratings for the second position on good and intellect point to the lower self-image characteristic of children in this position” (Lohman et al, 1985).

          Females were seen as nurturing, independent and passive, while males were seen as both dependent and independent, self-centered, insecure and lazy (Nyman, 1995). It should be noted that the youngest role has the “greatest overrepresentation of psychiatric disorders if from a small family” and a “tendency toward alcoholism” (Eckstein, 2000).

 

The Only Child

          The only child, due to a lack of siblings and therefore playmates, often takes on adult roles but experiences loneliness. They share some of the same characteristics as oldest children because oldest children were once onlys themselves. Adler describes onlys as, “often very sweet and affectionate… later in life they may develop charming manners in order to appeal to others” (Sollod et al, 2009). Many positive qualities benefit the only child such as independence, ambition, sociableness, dominance, responsibility, thoughtfulness and intelligence (Nyman, 1995). Only children have the greatest need for achievement and are most likely to go to college but also have the most behavior problems (Eckstein, 2000).

          “The negative qualities that were accented resembled those attached to the youngest child position” (Nyman, 1995). “The negative experiences associated with the only… involve feeling smothered or enmeshed with others in the family” (Stewart, Stewart & Campbell, 2001). Negative traits of onlys emphasize “self-centeredness and the notion of being spoiled, followed by dominance, aloneness, and dependence.” (Nyman, 1995). Female onlys are viewed as shy while male onlys can be seen as closed minded and insecure (Nyman, 1995).

          Applying what is already known from birth order research and the theory of reasoned action this study will make the argument that an individual’s birth order position affects their personality traits, attitudes and subjective norms.

(Birth Order) → (Personality Traits) → (Attitudes) + (Subjective Norms) → (Intentions) = (Behaviors)**

** Birth order leads to certain personality traits that form attitudes and subjective norms, these then lead to intentions which create behaviors.

 

Birth Order and Sexuality

 

          How predictive birth order is of promiscuous intentions and promiscuous behaviors? (see research questions). While there is little research on birth order and sexual practices there is some research on birth order and virginity. Eldest males and females reported first engaging in sexual intercourse at a younger age than their siblings’ reports. It is possible that this is due to “a more rapid assumption of adult rights and privileges by firstborn(s)” (Touhey, 1971). However along with having the earliest sexuality, oldests also tend to be the least sexually conventional (Eckstein, 2000).  Firstborns and laterborns did not differ in their desired age of marriage however they did differ with their desired number of sexual partners and the age to have their first child. “Laterborns desire to have children at a later age and desire a greater number of sex partners at several future time intervals” (Michalski & Shackelford, 2002). A question to be addressed in this study is what promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms are shared within people of the same birth order? (see research questions).

 

Sexual Promiscuity

 

          While there are many different types, levels, definitions and reasons for promiscuity, for the purposes of this study the goal is not to answer or define these questions but rather to investigate the personality traits that all sexually promiscuous individuals share. This study will inquire how personality traits predict an individual’s promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms and/or promiscuous behaviors (see research questions). It should be noted that promiscuity often has a negative connotation within society. Promiscuity in this study will be not be viewed as positive or negative but neutral. It is defined here as, a casual sexual act outside of a committed relationship. A sexual act will be constituted as anything at and beyond open-mouth kissing.

          The most prominent trait in the western world associated with sexual promiscuity is extraversion (Schmitt, 2004). “Extraverted and antagonistic individuals are likely to be sexually promiscuous” (Markey & Markey, 2007). “We found that those with some sexual experience compared with those with none, were more extraverted” (Ingledew & Ferguson, 2007).

          Speculated reasons are that extraverted people seek out rewards and pleasures (Schmitt, 2004) which may include earlier sexual experiences (Ingledew & Ferguson, 2007). Dominant extraverted people may be sexually promiscuous “because they may not be shy about seeking out partners with whom they can engage in these behaviors” (Markey & Markey, 2007).  Another theory is that extraverts “being more gregarious, simply encounter sexual opportunities earlier” (Ingledew & Ferguson, 2007).

          Within the sample of extroverted and interpersonally dominant individuals those with extremely warm or extremely cold personalities had more sexual partners. Cold individuals multiple sex partners could be from a fear of rejection or pain that a long-lasting relationship may cause. Another explanation is that cold individuals are selfish and may see nothing wrong with getting pleasure regardless of their partner’s feelings (Markey & Markey, 2007).

          Warm individuals on the other hand “may view sex as a generous act that provides an opportunity to exchange love, intimacy, or friendship with as many people as possible” (Markey & Markey, 2007). 

 

Safe Sex Practices

          Promiscuity is not simply about the number of sexual partners an individual has but is also about the levels and safety of the sexual act. “Personality traits (that) influence individuals’ participation motives and personality also directly influences self-determination of safer sexual behavior” (Ingledew & Ferguson, 2007). “Agreeable (and conscientious) individuals feel more autonomous in their motivation for safer sex, and…behave less riskily (Ingledew & Ferguson, 2007). It is hypothesized that these individuals are having sex for intimacy reasons, while “individuals who have sex for reason of enhancement (e.g., physical pleasure) behave more riskily” (Ingledew & Ferguson, 2007).

            Adding promiscuity into the theory of reasoned action examines birth order’s effect on the attitudes and subjective norms of promiscuity. These in turn lead to promiscuous intentions and promiscuity itself. How predictive are promiscuous intentions of promiscuous behaviors? (see research questions).

(Birth Order) → (Personality Traits) → (Attitudes about Promiscuity) + (Subjective Norms about Promiscuity) → (Promiscuous Intentions) = (Promiscuous Behaviors)***

^***Birth order leads to personality traits which form attitudes about promiscuity and subjective norms about promiscuity, leading to promiscuous intentions which create promiscuous behaviors.

Research Questions

 

1. What personality traits are shared within people of the same birth order?
2. How predictive is birth order of promiscuous intentions?
3. How predictive is birth order of promiscuous behaviors?
4. What promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms are shared within people of the same birth order?
5. How are personality traits predictive of individual’s promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms?
6. How are personality traits predictive of promiscuous behaviors?
7. What promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms lead to promiscuous intentions?
8. What promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms lead to promiscuous behaviors?
9. How predictive are promiscuous intentions of promiscuous behaviors?

Methods

Participants

          The sample for this study consisted of 107 people. The participants were composed of undergraduate students ranging from freshmen/first year students to 5^th year seniors; 69% were female and 31% were male. The majority of student participants were seniors at 39%, followed by juniors 27%, sophomores 21%, freshmen/first years 8%, and 5^th year seniors 5%. In terms of birth order 49% surveyed were oldest, 24% youngest, 18% middle and 9% youngest.

 

Procedure

          Over 350 participants were invited to partake in this study via an online group created on the social networking site Facebook.com. The group was entitled “Personality, Sexual Attitudes, Sexual History! I need your opinions!” Participants were informed that the study would take 15 minutes or less to complete and would only be available for one week, from March 31, 2009 to April 7, 2009. They were told that their answers would be completely anonymous and used only for the purposes of this study. Partakers were presented with the following list showing the survey’s ten sections and titles so as to know what to expect in both content and time length. 

“Undergraduate Survey 2009

1. General Information
2. You and Your Siblings (Survey automatically skips if you have no siblings)
3. How I am in General…
4. Describing Your Sexuality
5. Sexual Attitudes
6. Sexual History (Survey may skip over sections dependent upon your answers)
7. Section B
8. Section C
9. Section D
10. THANK YOU!”

          Using a free account program from eSurveysPro.com a hyperlink was provided that lead applicants to the survey. Participants were encouraged to invite friends to take the survey and to check back with the Facebook.com group in a month’s time as the study’s results and findings will be posted.

 

Instruments

          The variables in this study are (a) personality traits, (b) birth order, (c) promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms, (d) promiscuous intentions and (e) promiscuous behaviors. Each variable was examined by number of sub-categories. For statistical purposes participants were asked their gender and year in undergraduate school.

 

(a) Personality traits

          Personality traits were measured using a version of Lew Goldberg’s Big Five Personality Traits modified by John and Srivastava 1999. This modified version included 44 items that were measured using a five point Likert scale where 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly.

Personality traits examined were:

Extraversion- the participant’s outgoingness.

Conscientiousness- how scrupulous and careful the participant is.

Neuroticism- the participant’s anxiousness, obsessiveness and sensitivity.

Agreeableness- the participant’s friendliness and willingness to comply to others.

 Openness- the level of honesty and vulnerability the participant gives to others.

 

(b) Birth order

            Birth order was grouped according to famous psychologist Alfred Adler’s categories of oldest, middle, youngest and only.  Addition questions asked the participants how many siblings they have and whether their siblings are brother(s), sister(s) or both.

            The statements “My sibling(s) and I have a large age gap” and “I am emotionally close to my sibling(s)” were created and included. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with the statements using a 5 point Likert scale where 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly. If participants answered that they were only children the survey automatically skipped over the birth order questions and went on to the “How I am in General…” personality assessment section.

 

 (c) Promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms

            Promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms were measured with The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale by Hendrick and Hendrick 2006.  This 23 item scale was measured using a five point Likert scale where 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly. Five addition items were created and are as follows:

“I should have waited longer to lose my virginity.

I fear AIDS and other STDs/STIs.

I do everything I can to protect my body when engaging in sexual activities.

I have more sex than others my age.

I have more present/past sexual partners than others my age.”

 

Promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms looked at:

Permissiveness- the participant’s tolerance of their own and other’s sexuality.

Birth Control Beliefs- the participant’s beliefs on birth control and who should take responsibility, male or female.

Communion- the participant’s beliefs on sex as a communicative shared interaction.

Instrumentality- the participant’s beliefs on the purpose of sex.

Safe Sex Beliefs- the participant’s beliefs in practicing STD/STI protection.

Self-comparison- how the participant views their sexual drive as compared to their peers. Measured according to the two statements “I have more sex than others my age” and “I have more present/past sexual partners than others my age.”

 

(d) Promiscuous intentions

          Promiscuous intentions were measured using Schmitt and Buss’s 2000 “Sexy Seven”. Participants were given a list of 67 sexually charged adjectives and were asked to rate how accurately each adjective describes themselves.  Participants used a five point Likert scale where 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly.

Promiscuous intentions examined:

 Sexual Attractiveness- how sexually attractive and seductive the participant believes themselves to be.

Relationship Exclusivity- the participant’s willingness/attitudes about engaging in a committed, exclusive relationship.

Sexual Restraint- the participants believed ability to resist sexual temptation.

Erotophilic Disposition- the participants sexuality in relation to their personality, i.e. the participants level of guilt about sex, willingness to talk about sex and attitudes toward sexual explicit material.

Emotional Investment –the amount of emotional investment participants find necessary for a relationship.

 

(e) Promiscuous behaviors

          Promiscuous behaviors were measure via a participant’s sexual history using a modified survey from Davis, Yarber, Bauserman, Schreer and Davis’s 1998 “Handbook of Sexually-related Measures”. This part of the survey consisted of 25 questions broken into four sections containing fill-in answers, multiple choice and yes/no responses where participants either agreed or disagree with the statements.

Some sections of the sexual history questions were automatically skipped according to the participant’s answer to question:

“When was you last sexual encounter? This includes non-penetrative sex such as oral sex and mutual masturbation.

1. I have had a sexual encounter in the last month.
2. I have not had a sexual encounter in the last month.
3. I have never had a sexual encounter.”

Additional questions that were added were included in Section D:

“Have you or has one of your partners ever been pregnant?

Have you or a partner ever taken a pregnancy test or had a pregnancy scare?

Have you ever been tested for STDs/STIs?

If yes, have you ever tested positive for a STD/STI?

Have you been afraid that you might have a STD/STI?”

 

            Apart from the sometimes automatically skipped sections, answers were required for each question with the exception of two due to their extremely personal nature. The two optional questions were, “If yes, at what age did you first have penetrative sex?” and “If yes, have you ever tested positive for an STD/STI?”

            The tenth and final section of the survey was a thank you page thanking the participants for their time. A list of all survey questions can be seen on the sample survey in appendix A (see appendix A).

Results

Research question one asked, “What personality traits are shared within people of the same birth order?”

          Birth order categories and personality traits were examined using an AVONA calculation and the formula (F(4,105)= 1.17, p >.05). Overall no significant correlations between personality characteristics and birth order were found. Onlys however showed a significantly higher level of extraversion than all other birth order categories (3.128(106)= 331.57, .029<.05).

 

Research question two asked, “How predictive is birth order of promiscuous intentions?”

          No significant correlations were found between birth order and promiscuous intentions.

 

Research question three asked, “How predictive is birth order of promiscuous behaviors?” 

          Birth order was not found to be directly predictive of promiscuous behaviors. (F(3, 104) = .932, p >.05).

 

Research question four inquired, “What promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms are shared within people of the same birth order?”

          No significant correlations were found between promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms and birth order.

 

Research question five inquired, “How are personality traits predictive of an individual’s promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms?” The five findings for this question were examined via their correlation coefficients and the formula r(df)=____,p >/< .05

          It was found that higher levels of extraversion lead to greater communion (.305(106)= 32.33, .001<.05).

          Conscientiousness had a negative correlation with permissiveness, (-.194(106)=   -20.56, .045<.05) and self-comparison (-.229(106)= -24.27, .018<.05).

          Neuroticism lead to lowered permissiveness (-.390(106)= -41.34, .000<.05) while openness increased permissiveness (.228(106)= 24.16, .018<.05).

 

Research question six asked, “How are personality traits predictive of promiscuous behaviors?”

          Conscientiousness had a negative correlation to promiscuous behaviors, however all other personality traits were not predictive of promiscuous behaviors. (r (106)= .49, p<.05)

 

Research question seven inquired, “What promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms lead to promiscuous intentions?”

          Permissiveness had a positive correlation with sexual attractiveness (.265(106)= 28.09, .006<.05), relationship exclusivity (.370(106)= 39.22, .000<.05) and erotophilic disposition (.444(106)= 47.06, .000<.05). However permissiveness had a negative correlation with sexual restraint (-.381(106)= -40.39, .000<.05).

          Birth control beliefs had a positive correlation with sexual restraint (.788(106)= 83.53, .000<.05)  and a negative correlation with sexual attractiveness (-.488(106)= -51.73, .000<.05) and emotional investment (-.292(106)= -30.95, .002<.05)

          Communion increased sexual attractiveness (.306(106)= 32.44, .001<.05) and  emotional investment (.354(106)= 37.52, .000<.05) but lowered sexual restraint (-.193(106)= -20.46, .046<.05).

          Safe sex beliefs had a positive correlation with sexual restraint (.193(106)= 20.46, .047<.05) but lowered erotophilic disposition (-.193(106)= -20.46, .046<.05).

          Self comparison increased sexual attractiveness (.433(106)= 45.90, .000<.05), relationship exclusivity (.369(106)= 39.11, .000<.05) and erotophilic disposition (.458(106)= 48.55, .000<.05) but had a negative correlation with sexual restraint (-.566(106)= -59.99, .000<.05). 

 

Research question eight inquired, “What promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms lead to promiscuous behaviors?”

          A series of regression models were tested but promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms were not predictive of promiscuous behaviors.

 

Research question nine asked, “How predictive are promiscuous intentions of promiscuous behaviors?”

          A significant positive correlation was found between sexual restraint and safe sex behaviors. (r (102)= 31, p <.05).  No other relationships were found between promiscuous intentions and promiscuous behaviors.

Discussion

          The results of this study were examined using the Theory of Reasoned Action developed by Fishbein and Ajzen. The theory that states a person’s attitudes and subjective norms can predict intentions that then lead to predictive behaviors.

(Attitudes) + (Subjective Norms) → (Intentions) = (Behaviors)

(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

          For this study a modified version was created hypothesizing that birth order leads to personality traits then leading to attitudes and subjective norms about promiscuity. These attitudes and subjective norms are predictive of promiscuous intentions which lead to promiscuous behaviors.

(Birth Order → Personality Traits) → (Attitudes about Promiscuity + Subjective Norms about Promiscuity) → (Promiscuous Intentions) = (Promiscuous Behaviors)

 

          Research question one examined the relationship between birth order and personality traits (Birth Order → Personality Traits). In conflict with previous research no significant correlations were found except for one. Only children were found to be more extraverted than any other birth order. Given previous research indicating that extraverted people are more promiscuous (Ingledew & Ferguson, 2007) it could be hypothesized that only children are the most promiscuous group.

 

         Research questions two, three, four and eight yielded no results. No significant correlations were found between or birth order and promiscuous intentions (Birth Order) → (Promiscuous Intentions), birth order and promiscuous behaviors (Birth Order) → (Promiscuous Behaviors), birth order and promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms (Birth Order) → (Attitudes about Promiscuity + Subjective Norms about Promiscuity) or promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms and promiscuous behaviors (Attitudes about Promiscuity + Subjective Norms about Promiscuity) → (Promiscuous Behaviors).

 

          Research question five looked at the predictability of personality traits on promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms (Personality Traits) → (Attitudes about Promiscuity + Subjective Norms about Promiscuity). It was found that the more extraverted and outgoing people have higher levels of communion. It makes sense that people who like to talk and communicate with others would also view sex as a communicative process. Not surprisingly conscientiousness lead to lowered permissiveness and a belief that the individual has had fewer sexual experiences and partners than their peers. Neuroticism also lowered permissiveness while an open personality naturally increased it.

 

          When examining research question six, how personality traits were predictive of promiscuous behaviors (Personality Traits) → (Promiscuous Behaviors), the only significant finding was that conscientious people engaged in less promiscuous behaviors. This could be due to conscientious people worrying more about their sense of right and wrong. If an individual is conscientious of their belief that promiscuity is wrong, then they will likely behave less promiscuously in an effort to comply with their beliefs.

 

          By far the greatest number of findings was in the relationship between promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms and promiscuous intentions (Attitudes about Promiscuity + Subjective Norms about Promiscuity) → (Promiscuous Intentions). Research question seven found that the more sexually permissive a person was the more they believed themselves to be attractive to others and to have a sexual personality. Seemingly in conflict, permissive people were found to have high relationship exclusivity but low sexual restraint. Lowered sexual restraint does not necessarily mean an increased chance of cheating or adultery. This finding perhaps means that permissive people are highly committed to their partners and find it hard to resist their partner’s sexual advances. When a person believed that they had more sex and sexual partners than their peers the results were exactly the same as those who were more permissive. It increased sexual attractiveness, relationship exclusivity, and erotophilic disposition and lowered sexual restraint. It seems natural that someone who believes they have had more sexual experience than their peers would also view themselves as more permissive.

          In correlation with the previous finding that extraversion increased communion, communion was found to increase sexual attractiveness. These findings make sense as extraverted people tend to be more confident and therefore are more likely to view themselves as attractive. Communion also increased emotional investment. Those who view sex as something to communicate and share between two people are inadvertently implying that they want to be emotionally involved with their partner.

          Interestingly communion lowered sexual restraint. Perhaps this is because extraverted, gregarious people wish to connect and communicate with many people, even when this connection takes the form of a sexual act.

          Birth control beliefs had exactly the opposite effects of communion. Birth control beliefs lowered sexual attractiveness and emotional investment yet increased sexual restraint. Taking the time and effort to use birth control shows sexual restraint but it is unclear as to why birth control use lowered sexual attractiveness and emotional investment. It may be that those who view themselves as less attractive subconsciously or possibly on a biological level believe that they have less of a chance to mate and pass on their genes and therefore do not practice birth control. It could also be that people who think of themselves as less attractive are that way because they put less effort into taking care of themselves. Birth control is first and foremost a way to take care of one’s own body and interests.

          Birth control use could lower emotional investment because the user might be using it in order to just have sex and avoid a situation (such as having a child) that would require emotional investment. Safe sex beliefs also correlated to sexual restraint, but they lowered erotophilic disposition.

          The final two variables examined were promiscuous intentions as predictors of promiscuous behaviors (Promiscuous Intentions) → (Promiscuous Behaviors). Research question nine’s only finding was that as sexual restraint increased safe sex behaviors increased as well.

           When applying Fishbein and Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior to the data, only children were found to be more extraverted than any other birth order. Extraversion lead to an increase to in communion and therefore a decrease in sexual restraint; lowered sexual restraint lessened safe sex behaviors. Only → (+) Extraverted → (+) Communion →  (-) Sexual Restraint = (-) Safe Sex Behaviors

           Given this model it seems possible to infer that only children engage in lowered safe sex behaviors.  As has been hypothesized of eldest children (Touhey, 1971) it is possible that only children being surrounded by adults take on adult roles, even sexual roles, sooner than other birth orders. This increase in adult responsibilities could lead to a more extraverted personality and a greater desire to connect to others, including through sex. The increased need to connect through sex might lead to lowered sexual restraint and therefore lessened safe sex behaviors.

 

Limitations

 

          This study held many limitations the first and foremost being the small sample size. Although over 160 participants filled out the form only 108 of those surveys were usable for the study. While 108 was a good sample size the percentages of each birth order were severely unbalanced. Only 9% of the population were only children meaning the results on only children could easily be skewed by a single person. Oldest children on the other hand consisted of 48% of the population. However this over representation was expected given knowledge from previous research stating that eldest children are the majority in learned communities in both students and staff (Eckstein, 2000).

          Another limitation from the sample was a lack of diversity. Nearly all of the participants were Caucasian, had some college education and were between the ages of 18-22.

          The survey’s length of 178 questions and the extremely personal nature of the survey’s subjects may have discouraged some individuals from participating.

Conclusion

Conclusion & Areas for Further Research

 

            While extremely little was found on birth order correlations there were numerous significant findings on the variable attitudes and subjective norms about promiscuity. The most findings were discovered in the relationship between promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms and promiscuous intentions (Attitudes about Promiscuity + Subjective Norms about Promiscuity) → (Promiscuous Intentions). Another relationship that yielded many results was that of the relationship between promiscuity attitudes and subjective norms and personality traits (Personality Traits) → (Attitudes about Promiscuity + Subjective Norms about Promiscuity). Both relationships would be great paths for further research and although this study did not examine it, it would be of interest to look at the relationship between personality traits and promiscuous intentions (Personality Traits) → (Promiscuous Intentions).

           This study found that personality traits do in fact predict attitudes and subjective norms about promiscuity and that their attitudes and subject norms are in fact predictive of promiscuous intentions. If further research discovered a significant relationship between personality traits and promiscuous intentions this knowledge could be used for preventive measures in safe sex campaigning. Advertisements and marking to promote safe sex to both teenagers and adults could be catered to appeal to certain personality traits. For example two separate campaigns could be created for extroverted and introverted people to target each group’s needs and their specific attitudes and subjective norms on safe sex.

            The very little found on birth order as a predictor of both personality traits and the promiscuity variables, indicates that birth order is not as important as previous research suggests. It may be that birth order was not predictive of the variables in this study or it may be that birth order is predictive of very little, if anything at all. The question begs to be asked, if birth order is not predictive of personality traits, then what does inform or predict personality traits? Are they something we are simply born with or is there something else more complex at work? This question leads the way for a new study and much needed further research.

Appendix A -Sample Survey

1. General Information

1. Age:        SAMPLE

2. Gender:        (1) Male

3. What year are you in your undergraduate education?        (1) Freshman/First Year

4. As a child you were raised as the…        (1) Oldest

2. You and Your Sibling(s)

5. How many siblings do you have?        SAMPLE

6. I have…        (1) Brother(s)

7. To which extent do you agree or disagree with the statements?        My sibling(s) and I have a large age gap: (1) Disagree Strongly        I am emotionally close to my sibling(s): (1) Disagree Strongly

3. How I am in general

8. I am someone who…        1. Is talkative: (1) Disagree Strongly        2. Tends to find fault with others: (1) Disagree Strongly        3. Does a thorough job: (1) Disagree Strongly        4. Is depressed, blue: (1) Disagree Strongly        5. Is original, comes up with new ideas: (1) Disagree Strongly        6. Is reserved: (1) Disagree Strongly        7. Is helpful and unselfish with others: (1) Disagree Strongly        8. Can be somewhat careless: (1) Disagree Strongly

9. I am someone who…        9. Is relaxed, handles stress well.: (1) Disagree Strongly        10. Is curious about many different things: (1) Disagree Strongly        11. Is full of energy: (1) Disagree Strongly        12. Starts quarrels with others: (1) Disagree Strongly        13. Is a reliable worker: (1) Disagree Strongly        14. Can be tense: (1) Disagree Strongly        15. Is ingenious, a deep thinker: (1) Disagree Strongly        16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm: (1) Disagree Strongly

10. I am someone who…        17. Has a forgiving nature: (1) Disagree Strongly        18. Tends to be disorganized: (1) Disagree Strongly        19. Worries a lot: (1) Disagree Strongly        20. Has an active imagination: (1) Disagree Strongly        21. Tends to be quiet: (1) Disagree Strongly        22. Is generally trusting: (1) Disagree Strongly        23. Tends to be lazy: (1) Disagree Strongly        24. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset: (1) Disagree Strongly

11. I am someone who…        25. Is inventive: (1) Disagree Strongly        26. Has an assertive personality: (1) Disagree Strongly        27. Can be cold and aloof: (1) Disagree Strongly        28. Perseveres until the task is finished: (1) Disagree Strongly        29. Can be moody: (1) Disagree Strongly        30. Values artistic, aesthetic experiences: (1) Disagree Strongly        31. Is sometimes shy, inhibited: (1) Disagree Strongly        32. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone: (1) Disagree Strongly

12. I am someone who…        33. Does things efficiently: (1) Disagree Strongly        34. Remains calm in tense situations: (1) Disagree Strongly        35. Prefers work that is routine: (1) Disagree Strongly        36. Is outgoing, sociable: (1) Disagree Strongly        37. Is sometimes rude to others: (1) Disagree Strongly        38. Makes plans and follows through with them: (1) Disagree Strongly        39. Gets nervous easily: (1) Disagree Strongly        40. Likes to reflect, play with ideas: (1) Disagree Strongly

13. I am someone who…        41. Has few artistic interests: (1) Disagree Strongly        42. Likes to cooperate with others: (1) Disagree Strongly        43. Is easily distracted: (1) Disagree Strongly        44. Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature: (1) Disagree Strongly

4. Describing Your Sexuality

14. [No Question Text Set]        Abstinent: (1) Disagree Strongly        Adorable: (1) Disagree Strongly        Adulterous: (1) Disagree Strongly        Affectionate: (1) Disagree Strongly        Alluring: (1) Disagree Strongly        Amorous: (1) Disagree Strongly        Arousing: (1) Disagree Strongly        Asexual: (1) Disagree Strongly        Attractive: (1) Disagree Strongly        Bisexual: (1) Disagree Strongly        Celibate: (1) Disagree Strongly        Charming: (1) Disagree Strongly        Chaste: (1) Disagree Strongly        Compassionate: (1) Disagree Strongly        Coy: (1) Disagree Strongly

15. [No Question Text Set]        Crude: (1) Disagree Strongly        Cuddlesome: (1) Disagree Strongly        Devoted: (1) Disagree Strongly        Effeminate: (1) Disagree Strongly        Erotic: (1) Disagree Strongly        Faithful: (1) Disagree Strongly        Feminine: (1) Disagree Strongly        Flirtatious: (1) Disagree Strongly        Gentlemanly: (1) Disagree Strongly        Hard-to-get: (1) Disagree Strongly        Heterosexual: (1) Disagree Strongly        Homosexual: (1) Disagree Strongly        Horny: (1) Disagree Strongly        Immodest: (1) Disagree Strongly        Indecent: (1) Disagree Strongly

16. [No Question Text Set]        Indiscreet: (1) Disagree Strongly        Jealous: (1) Disagree Strongly        Kinky: (1) Disagree Strongly        Ladylike: (1) Disagree Strongly        Lewd: (1) Disagree Strongly        Loose: (1) Disagree Strongly        Lovable: (1) Disagree Strongly        Loving: (1) Disagree Strongly        Lustful: (1) Disagree Strongly        Manly: (1) Disagree Strongly        Marriable: (1) Disagree Strongly        Masculine: (1) Disagree Strongly        Monogamous: (1) Disagree Strongly        Nymphomaniacal: (1) Disagree Strongly        Obscene: (1) Disagree Strongly

17. [No Question Text Set]        Orgasmic: (1) Disagree Strongly        Orgiastic: (1) Disagree Strongly        Passionate: (1) Disagree Strongly        Perverted: (1) Disagree Strongly        Polygamous: (1) Disagree Strongly        Promiscuous: (1) Disagree Strongly        Provocative: (1) Disagree Strongly        Prudish: (1) Disagree Strongly        Risqué: (1) Disagree Strongly        Romantic: (1) Disagree Strongly        Seductive: (1) Disagree Strongly        Sensual: (1) Disagree Strongly        Sexual: (1) Disagree Strongly        Sexy: (1) Disagree Strongly        Shameless: (1) Disagree Strongly

18. [No Question Text Set]        Stunning: (1) Disagree Strongly        Suggestive: (1) Disagree Strongly        Sultry: (1) Disagree Strongly        Unfaithful: (1) Disagree Strongly        Virginal: (1) Disagree Strongly        Vulgar: (1) Disagree Strongly        Womanly: (1) Disagree Strongly

5. Sexual Attitudes

19. Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. I believe that…        1. I do not need to be committed to a person to have sex with him/her: (1) Disagree Strongly        2. Casual sex is acceptable: (1) Disagree Strongly        3. I would like to have sex with many partners: (1) Disagree Strongly        4. One-night stands are sometimes very enjoyable: (1) Disagree Strongly        5. It is okay to have ongoing sexual relationships with more than one person at a time: (1) Disagree Strongly

20. [No Question Text Set]        6. Sex as a simple exchange of favors is okay if both people agree to it: (1) Disagree Strongly        7. The best sex is with no strings attached: (1) Disagree Strongly        8. Life would have fewer problem if people could have sex more freely: (1) Disagree Strongly        9. It is possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like that person very much: (1) Disagree Strongly        10. It is okay for sex to be just good physical release: (1) Disagree Strongly

21. [No Question Text Set]        11. Birth control is part of responsible sexuality: (1) Disagree Strongly        12. A woman should share responsibility for birth control: (1) Disagree Strongly        13. A man should share responsibility for birth control: (1) Disagree Strongly        14. Sex is the closest form of communication between two people: (1) Disagree Strongly        15. A sexual encounter between two people deeply in love is the ultimate human interaction: (1) Disagree Strongly

22. [No Question Text Set]        16. At its best, sex seems to be the merging of two souls: (1) Disagree Strongly        17. Sex is a very important part of life: (1) Disagree Strongly        18. Sex is usually an intensive, almost overwhelming experience: (1) Disagree Strongly        19. Sex is best when you let yourself go and focus on your own pleasure: (1) Disagree Strongly        20. Sex is primarily the taking of pleasure from another person: (1) Disagree Strongly

23. [No Question Text Set]        21. The main purpose of sex is to enjoy oneself: (1) Disagree Strongly        22. Sex is primarily physical: (1) Disagree Strongly        23. Sex is primarily a bodily function, like eating: (1) Disagree Strongly        24. I should have waited longer to lose my virginity: (1) Disagree Strongly        25. I fear AIDS and other STDs/STIs: (1) Disagree Strongly

24. [No Question Text Set]        26. I do everything I can to protect my body when engaging in sexual activities: (1) Disagree Strongly        27. I have more sex than others my age: (1) Disagree Strongly        28. I have more present/past sexual partners than others my age: (1) Disagree Strongly

6. Sexual History

25. Have you ever had penetrative sex (sex in which the penis enters the vagina or anus)?        (1) Yes

26. If yes, at what age did you first have penetrative sex?        SAMPLE

27. Have you ever had unprotected penetrative sex (penetrative sex without a condom)?        (1) Yes

28. When was your last sexual encounter? -This includes non-penetrative sex such as oral sex and mutual masturbation.        (1) I have had a sexual encounter in the last month

7. Section B

29. In the last month how many sexual partners have you had?        SAMPLE

30. How many of these were regular partners (People with whom you have had sex more t than once)?        SAMPLE

31. How many times have you had sex with a regular partner in the last month?        SAMPLE

32. On how many of these occasions with a regular partner did you have penetrative sex?        SAMPLE

33. On how many of these occasions with a regular partner did you use a condom?        SAMPLE

34. How many times have you had sex with other partners in the last month?        SAMPLE

35. On how many of these occasions with other partners did you have penetrative sex?        SAMPLE

36. On how many of these occasions with other partners did you use a condom?        SAMPLE

8. Section C

37. How long ago was your last sexual encounter?        (1) Less than a week ago

38. Was s/he a regular sexual partner (a partner with whom you have had sex more than once)?        (1) Yes

39. What kind(s) of sex did you have on this occasion? Please answer yes or no to the following activities:        Unprotected vaginal sex: (1) Yes        Vaginal sex with a condom: (1) Yes        Unprotected anal sex: (1) Yes        Anal sex with a condom: (1) Yes        Oral sex: (1) Yes        Other forms of non-penetrative sex (Such as massage and mutual masturbation): (1) Yes

9. Section D

40. [No Question Text Set]        Have you or has one of your partners ever been pregnant?: (1) Yes        Have you or a partner ever taken a pregnancy test or had a pregnancy scare?: (1) Yes        Have you been afraid that you might have a STD/STI?: (1) Yes        Have you ever been tested for STDs/STIs?: (1) Yes

41. [No Question Text Set]        If yes, have you ever tested positive for a STD/STI?: (1) Yes

10. THANK YOU!!

Works Cited

 

Davis, C.M., Yarber, W.L., Bauserman, R., Schreer, G., & Davis S.L. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of sexually-related measures. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

 

Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc.

 

Eckstein, D. (2000). Empirical studies indicating significant birth-order-related personality differences. The Journal of Individual Psychology. 56, 481-494.

 

(2009). Esurveyspro: Premium survey services. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from eSurveysPro Web site: http://www.esurveyspro.com/

 

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Reich, D. A. (2006). The brief sexual attitudes scale. Journal of Sex Research. 43, 76-86.

 

Ingledew, D. K., & Ferguson, E. (2007). Personality and riskier sexual behavior: Motivation mediators. Psychology and Health. 22, 291-315.

 

International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences (http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.

 

Lohman, J.F., Lohman, T.G., & Christensen, O. (1985). Psychological position and perceived sibling differences. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice. 41, 313-327.

 

Markey, P.M., & Markey, C.N. (2007). The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity. Journal of Research in Personality. 41, 1199-1212.

 

Michalski, R.L., & Shackelford, T.K. (2002). Birth order and sexual strategy. Personality and Individual Differences. 33, 661-667.

 

Nieman, A. G. (2009, March 31). Personality, sexual attitudes, sexual history! I need your opinions!. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from Facebook Web site: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=63169558211&ref=mf&nctrct=1238640319863

 

Nyman, L. (1995). The identification of birth order personality attributes. The Journal of Psychology. 129, 51-59.

 

Pervin, L., & John, O.P. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.

 

Schmitt, D.P., & Buss, D.M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond and subsumed by the big five?. Journal of Research in Personality. 34, 141-177.

 

Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The big five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality. 18, 301-319.

 

Sollod, R.N., Wilson, J.P., & Monte, C.F. (2009). Beneath the mask: An introduction to theories of personality. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 

Srivastava, S. (2009). Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors. Retrieved March 13, 2009 from http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.html

 

Stewart, A.E., Stewart, E.A., & Campbell, L.F. (2001). The relationship of psychological birth order to the family atmosphere and to personality. The Journal of Individual Psychology. 57, 363-387.

 

Touhey, J.C. (1971).Birth order and virginity. Psychological Reports. 28, 894.