No Evidence That Siblings’ Gender Affects Personality Across Nine Countries

Dudek, Thomas; Brenøe, Anne Ardila; Feld, Jan; Rohrer, Julia M.

doi:10.1177/09567976221094630

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if a relevant natural experiment can be found, it might not precisely constitute the treatment of interest or it might only allow researchers to identify a particular causal effect. For example, in Dudek et al (2022), the effect of the sex of the next younger sibling was identified but not the effect of the sex of the next older sibling or of any other sibling. Out of substantive considerations, all of these effects would be relevant to provide a full picture of how siblings shape personality.…”

Section: The Challenges Of Using Natural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Examples of natural experiments with as-if randomization are naturally occurring events, such as famines or earthquakes (e.g., Belloc et al, 2016); policy interventions, such as the U.S. 1970 Clean Air Act amendments (Schwaba et al, 2021); alphabetical seating orders (e.g., Byrne, 1961); biological sex of a child or sibling (e.g., Dudek et al, 2022); or the randomization of offspring genotype during meiosis (i.e., offspring as-if randomly inherits one allele from each parent at every point in the genome; e.g., Madole & Harden, 2023). 5…”

Section: Types Of Studies Exploiting Natural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The standard natural experiment with random assignment is most similar to randomized experiments as routinely implemented by psychological researchers. Examples of natural experiments with as-if randomization are naturally occurring events, such as famines or earthquakes (e.g., Belloc et al, 2016); policy interventions, such as the U.S. 1970 Clean Air Act amendments (Schwaba et al, 2021); alphabetical seating orders (e.g., Byrne, 1961); biological sex of a child or sibling (e.g., Dudek et al, 2022); or the randomization of offspring genotype during meiosis (i.e., offspring as-if randomly inherits one allele from each parent at every point in the genome; e.g., Madole & Harden, 2023). 5 As already alluded to above, in the case of as-if randomization, it is particularly important to check for potential confounding factors that might bias the effect estimation.…”

Section: Standard Natural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Natural Experiments: Missed Opportunities for Causal Inference in Psychology

Grosz,

Ayaita,

Arslan

et al. 2024

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge about causal effects is essential for building useful theories and designing effective interventions. The preferred design for learning about causal effects is randomized experiments (i.e., studies in which the researchers randomly assign units to treatment and control conditions). However, randomized experiments are often unethical or unfeasible. On the other hand, observational studies are usually feasible but lack the random assignment that renders randomized experiments causally informative. Natural experiments can sometimes offer unique opportunities for dealing with this dilemma, allowing causal inference on the basis of events that are not controlled by researchers but that nevertheless establish random or as-if random assignment to treatment and control conditions. Yet psychological researchers have rarely exploited natural experiments. To remedy this shortage, we describe three main types of studies exploiting natural experiments (standard natural experiments, instrumental-variable designs, and regression-discontinuity designs) and provide examples from psychology and economics to illustrate how natural experiments can be harnessed. Natural experiments are challenging to find, provide information about only specific causal effects, and involve assumptions that are difficult to validate empirically. Nevertheless, we argue that natural experiments provide valuable causal-inference opportunities that have not yet been sufficiently exploited by psychologists.

show abstract

Section: The Challenges Of Using Natural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Types Of Studies Exploiting Natural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standard Natural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Natural Experiments: Missed Opportunities for Causal Inference in Psychology

Grosz,

Ayaita,

Arslan

et al. 2024

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even if a relevant natural experiment can be found, it might not precisely constitute the treatment NATURAL EXPERIMENTS 18 of interest or it might only allow researchers to identify a particular causal effect. For example, in Dudek et al (2022), only the effect of the sex of the next younger sibling was identified but not the effect of the sex of the next older sibling or of any other sibling. Out of substantive considerations, all of these effects would be relevant to provide a full picture of how siblings shape personality.…”

Section: The Challenges Of Using Natural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The standard natural experiment with random assignment is most similar to controlled experiments as routinely implemented by psychological researchers.In standard natural experiments with as-if random assignment, treatments are not assigned through an actual randomization process, but the assignment is nevertheless essentially random in the sense that factors related to the participant (e.g., intentions, age, education) do not influence whether the participant receives the treatment or not. Examples of natural experiments with as-if randomization are naturally occurring events, such as famines or earthquakes (e.g.,Belloc et al, 2016); policy interventions, such as the United States 1970 Clean Air Act amendments(Schwaba et al, 2021); alphabetical seating orders (e.g.,Byrne, 1961); biological sex of a child or sibling (e.g.,Dudek et al, 2022); or the randomization of offspring genotype during meiosis (i.e., offspring randomly inherits one allele from each parent at every point in the genome; e.g.,Madole & Harden, 2022).In standard natural experiments with as-if random assignment, it is crucial to check whether assignment is indeed as-if random Dudek et al (2022). provided an example of how such checks might be performed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Experiments: Missed Opportunities for Causal Inference in Psychology

Grosz¹,

Ayaita²,

Arslan³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Causal inference is a central goal of science. Experiments are the preferred design for learning about causal effects, but experiments are often unethical or unfeasible. On the other hand, observational studies are usually feasible but lack the random assignment that renders experiments causally informative. Natural experiments can sometimes offer unique opportunities for dealing with this dilemma, allowing causal inference on the basis of events that are not controlled by the researcher but that nevertheless establish random or as-if random assignment to treatment and control conditions. Yet, psychological researchers are hardly aware of the concept of natural experiments and have therefore rarely exploited natural experiments so far. To remedy this shortage, we describe three main types of studies exploiting natural experiments (standard natural experiments, instrumental variable designs, and regression discontinuity designs) and provide examples from psychology and economics to illustrate how natural experiments can be harnessed. Natural experiments are challenging to find, provide information about only specific causal effects, and involve assumptions that are difficult to validate. Nevertheless, we believe that natural experiments provide valuable causal inference opportunities that have not yet been sufficiently exploited by psychologists.

show abstract

Are economic preferences shaped by the family context? The relation of birth order and siblings’ gender composition to economic preferences

Detlefsen,

Friedl,

de Miranda

et al. 2024

J Risk Uncertain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The formation of economic preferences in childhood and adolescence has long-term consequences for life outcomes. We study in an experiment how both birth order and siblings’ gender composition are related to risk, time, and social preferences. We find that second-born children are typically less patient, more risk-tolerant, and more trusting. However, siblings’ gender composition interacts importantly with birth order effects. Second-born children are more risk-taking only with same-gender siblings. In mixed-gender environments, children seem to identify with the gender stereotype that boys are much more willing to take risks than girls, irrespective of birth order. For trust and trustworthiness, birth order effects are larger with mixed-gender siblings. Only for patience, siblings’ gender composition does not matter.

show abstract

No Evidence That Siblings’ Gender Affects Personality Across Nine Countries

Cited by 5 publications

References 56 publications

Natural Experiments: Missed Opportunities for Causal Inference in Psychology

Natural Experiments: Missed Opportunities for Causal Inference in Psychology

Natural Experiments: Missed Opportunities for Causal Inference in Psychology

Are economic preferences shaped by the family context? The relation of birth order and siblings’ gender composition to economic preferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About