Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Exploring the effects of birth order on human lifespan in Polish historical populations, 1738–1968

Exploring the effects of birth order on human lifespan in Polish historical populations, 1738–1968 Does birth order affect human lifespan? Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Anthropological Review • Vol. 84(4), 383–394 (2021) Exploring the effects of birth order on human lifespan in Polish historical populations, 1738–1968 1 2 3 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski , Aleksandra Żebrak , Sławomir Kozieł Division of Anatomy, Department of Human Morphology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland Department of Anthropology, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland Department of Anthropology, Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland AbstrAct : While the relationships between birth order and later outcomes in life, including health and wealth, have been the subject of investigation for several decades, little or no data exist regarding the relationship between birth order and life expectancy in the Polish population. The aim of this study was to explore the link between birth order and lifespan in Polish historical populations. We obtained 8523 re- cords from a historical dataset that was established for parishioners from the borough of Bejsce, including 4463 males and 4060 females. These data pertain to the populations that lived over a long period in a group of localities for which parish registers were well preserved. The Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wal- lis ANOVA and ANCOVA were run. The results strongly suggest that birth order affects male longevity. However, no such association was found for females. On balance, the hypothesis that first-born boys live longer because they are born to relatively younger parents has received some empirical support and de- serves further study. We hypothesise that the effects of birth order on human health and lifespan might be overshadowed by other factors, including educational attainment, socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Key words : age at death, birth order, health, lifespan, mortality, siblings, survival Introduction environmental factors (Govindaraju et al. 2015; Chmielewski et al. 2016; Ch- Human lifespan is a multifactorial trait mielewski 2020; Costa et al. 2019). that is affected by genetic background, While the relationships between birth epigenetic mechanisms, lifestyle and order and later outcomes in life, includ- Original Research Article Received: June 28, 2021; Revised: October 23, 2021; Accepted: November 8, 2021 DOI: 10.2478/anre-2021-0026 © 2021 Polish Anthropological Society 384 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł ing health and wealth, have been the fer longevity, is flawed. Like ageing, life is subject of investigation for several de- a complex interplay of various elements, cades, little or no data exist regarding including extrinsic (environmental) and the relationship between birth order intrinsic (genetic and epigenetic) pro- and longevity in Poland. It has been es- cesses and factors (Chmielewski 2017, tablished that economic resources and 2020; Whitwell et al. 2020). Although social conditions within the family of early life events have some health im- origin have important consequences for pacts later in life (Bartke 2015; Ch- health outcomes in later life (Gluckman mielewski 2016; Hemati et al. 2021), et al. 2008). However, few studies have many other factors, including the genetic explored the links between birth order background, the environment, exposure and long-term survival in adolescents to carcinogens and other harmful sub- and adults (O’Leary et al. 1996; Modin stances, educational attainment, SES and 2002; Smith et al. 2009). To our knowl- lifestyle, play a key role in shaping health edge, no such studies have been reported outcomes (Govindaraju et al. 2015; Ch- for the Polish population. mielewski et al. 2016; Costa et al. 2019). Currently, it is not clear whether and Furthermore, it can be argued that the ef- how lifespan is affected by birth order. fects of birth order on health and survival Several studies have shown that first- in later life are currently too small to be born children have a longevity advantage readily detected, and this relationship is over later-born children, which can be probably tenuous in modern populations. attributed to the fact that they are born Nevertheless, it has been demonstrat- to relatively younger parents (Gavrilov et ed that first-born individuals are more al. 1997; Gavrilov et al. 2000). In partic- likely to be overweight and obese in adult ular, it has been demonstrated that indi- life (Rosenberg 1988; Siervo et al. 2010; viduals who were the first-born in large Derraik et al. 2016). First-born adults families were two to three times more have also been shown to be at a higher likely to reach the age of 100 years than risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular children of higher birth orders (Gavrilo- disease (Lammi et al. 2007). Some other va and Gavrilov 2007). Nonetheless, the studies have reported that the probabili- effects of birth order on lifespan are over- ty of having high blood pressure declines shadowed by other factors, including ed- with birth order, and the largest gap is ucational attainment, economic resourc- between first-born and second-born sub - es, socioeconomic status (SES), lifestyle jects (Black 2017). Since hypertension (Gavrilov, personal communication). and obesity are the major risk factors for Furthermore, it has been established that coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke first-born children do better on some as - and premature death (Global BMI Mor- pects and worse on others (Black 2017). tality Collaboration et al. 2016; Muller et Therefore, a binary answer (i.e. ‘yes/ al. 2016; Mills et al. 2020), it has been no’ or ‘true/false’) to the question: ‘Do hypothesised that first-born individuals first-born individuals live longer than experience worse health outcomes in their later-born counterparts?’ cannot be adult life, as they have greater adiposity obtained. and cardiovascular risk in comparison to Moreover, the idea that a single trait, their later-born siblings. However, other such as being a first-born child, can con - authors have reported no association be- Does birth order affect human lifespan? 385 tween birth order and cardiovascular risk ulations that existed over a long period, (Howe et al. 2014). i.e. from 1738 to 1968, in a group of lo- Interestingly, first-born individuals calities for which parish registers were are more likely to consider themselves to well preserved. be in good health (Black 2017). Moreover, A total of 8523 records, including they are two to three times more likely 4463 males and 4060 females, were in- to become centenarians compared with cluded in the analysis. All of these re- later-born children (Gavrilova and Gavri- cords derive from a historical dataset that lov 2007). Furthermore, it has been es- was established for parishioners from the tablished that measures of mental health borough of Bejsce, which is historically generally decline with birth order (Gates referred to as the ‘Bejsce parish’. It cov- et al. 1988; Easey et al. 2019). Previous ered a relatively large area, and because studies have shown that first-born indi - of its fertile land and moderate climate, viduals tend to be more intelligent and it has been inhabited continuously since resourceful than their later-born siblings, the Migration period. The Bejsce parish presumably because they received more was located in a relatively safe region in parental care and mental stimulation at Southern Poland, between Kraków and a relatively younger age (Lehmann et al. Kielce. Historically, this group of local- 2018). Moreover, it is well known that ities has been relatively rich and pros- the eldest child in the family is typical- perous. Another advantage of the study ly more disciplined. First-born children sample is the fact that it is homogeneous have no competition, and they are a sur- in terms of nationality and religion of the rogate parent towards their later-born inhabitants. siblings. Thus, they perform parental In the analysis, two databases from roles for their siblings on behalf of their the archives were used: (A) data on in- parents, which is a trait that they carry dividuals and (B) data on marriages. (A) forward in life. On the other hand, sever- includes: (1) an individual number code al studies have found that later-born chil- for identification purposes, (2) date of dren are less likely to have mental health birth, (3) sex, (4) a number code of the problems and are more likely to have pro- person’s father, (5) a number code of the social behaviours and resilience (Fukuya person’s mother, (6) number of marriag- et al. 2021). The current study aims to es, (7) number of offspring and (8) date evaluate the relationship between birth of death. (B) contains information on order and lifespan in inhabitants of Be- the marital history and includes data on: jsce based on a large sample drawn from (1) a number code of the person’s hus- historical cohorts. band, (2) a number code of the person’s wife, (3) a number code of the marriage, (4) date of marriage and (5) number of Materials and methods children. By combining both databases, For the purpose of the study, we collected it was possible to connect children with data from Polish church records. Parish- their mothers and fathers, siblings with ioner data detailing their birth and death each other and spouses with each other dates, birth and death dates of their par- in order to group individuals into families ents, sex, marital status and family size of origin and into families in adult life. were used. The data pertain to the pop- 386 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Table 1. Study sample showing the four consecutive birth cohorts Males Females Total Birth cohort n (%) n (%) n (%) No. 1 1738–1808 652 (14.6) 619 (15.2) 1271 (14.9) No. 2 1809–1848 1235 (27.7) 1778 (29.1) 2413 (28.3) No. 3 1849–1888 1610 (36.1) 1455 (35.8) 3065 (36.0) No. 4 1889–1968 966 (21.6) 808 (19.9) 1774 (20.8) Total 4463 (52.4) 4060 (47.6) 8523 (100.0) The study sample was divided into was performed for the entire study sam- four birth cohorts (Table 1). The num- ple, while the second part was conducted ber of subjects in these consecutive birth for two groups: (1) individuals who died cohorts are presented in Table 2. In all at the age of 15 years or younger and (2) groups, the lifespan significantly deviat - individuals who died at later ages. ed from normal distribution assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Therefore, Results non-parametric tests were employed. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to com- The baseline characteristics of the study pare the lifespan between the two stud- sample are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Con- ied groups. The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA sidering deaths up to the age of 15 years, was run to compare more groups with girls lived longer than boys. However, each other. After controlling for birth co- no differences were found for individu- hort and mother’s age at birth, the anal- als who lived longer than 15 years (Table ysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was per- 3). Table 4 shows the results of the Krus- formed along with the GLM procedure in kal-Wallis test. Table 5 reports on the dif- order to analyse the effect of birth order ferences in lifespan, which were assessed on lifespan. The first part of the analysis with ANOVA, in individuals who died Table 2. Number of individuals in the four consecutive birth cohorts, depending on their birth order Birth order Birth cohort Males Females Total % First 1738–1808 302 278 580 15.0 1809–1848 492 474 966 25.1 1849–1888 699 642 1341 34.8 1889–1968 540 428 968 25.1 Total 2033 1822 3855 100.0 Second 1738–1808 199 214 413 15.4 1809–1848 400 389 789 29.4 1849–1888 521 452 973 36.2 1889–1968 276 236 512 19.1 Total 1396 1291 2687 100.0 Third 1738–1808 151 127 278 14.1 1809–1848 343 315 658 33.2 1849–1888 390 361 751 37.9 1889–1968 150 144 294 14.8 Total 1034 947 1981 100.0 Does birth order affect human lifespan? 387 after the age of 15 years. In females, no order on lifespan remained significant in differences were observed for those who males but not in females (Table 6). How- died at the age of ≤ 15 years and after ever, a statistically significant second-or - age 15. der interaction between birth order and After controlling for birth cohort and birth cohort was observed. mother’s age at birth, the effects of birth Table 3. Sex differences in lifespan in the two studied groups Age at death Mean (SD) Median U p ≤ 15 years Boys 2.5 (3.4) 1.1 3.3 <0.001 Girls 2.8 (3.4) 1.3 Cohort No. 1 2.6 (3.3) 1.4 No. 2 2.9 (3.5) 1.5 No. 3 2.8 (3.3) 1.6 No. 4 2.3 (3.5) 0.7 H=131.5 <0.001 ≥ 15 years Males 50.2 (19.0) 52.4 1.9 0.068 Females 49.0 (20.4) 49.5 Cohort No. 1 50.5 (15.2) 52.4 No. 2 50.0 (19.2) 50.4 No. 3 53.4 (21.1) 57.3 No. 4 32.5 (14.0) 28.2 H=306.5 <0.001 Table 4. Differences in lifespan in males and females who died at the age of 15 years or earlier, depending on their birth cohort and birth order Males Females H df p F df p Whole lifespan BC 327.48 3 <0.001 381.59 3 <0.001 BO 314.36 2 <0.001 318.87 2 <0.001 Earlier or at age of 15 years BC 364.78 3 <0.001 367.94 3 <0.001 BO 320.86 2 <0.001 337.48 2 <0.05 BC, birth cohort; BO, birth order; df, degrees of freedom. Differences were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 5. Differences in lifespan in individuals who died after the age of 15 years, depending on their birth cohort and birth order Males Females F df p F df p BC 72.56 3 <0.001 43.16 3 <0.001 BO 32.47 2 0.099 33.13 2 <0.05 BC, birth cohort; BO, birth order; df, degrees of freedom. Differences were assessed using ANOVA. 388 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Table 6. Results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Males Females 2 2 Wald’s χ df p Wald’s χ df p BC 1166.3 3 <0.001 1490.8 3 <0.001 BO 1148.2 2 <0.001 1194.6 2 <0.001 BC × BO 1320.0 6 <0.001 1259.5 6 <0.001 Mother’s age 1698.3 1 <0.001 1314.7 1 <0.001 BC, birth cohort; BO, birth order; df, degrees of freedom. Dependent variable is lifetime and independent variables are sex, BC and BO. Mother’s age is a covariable. In the first birth cohort (1738–1808), strength of the effects of birth order on third-born males had the lowest age at lifespan varied in different historical pe- death as opposed to their siblings. These riods. In boys, the effects climaxed in the differences in lifespan were 6 years in re- 18th century and waned afterwards. In lation to the middle siblings (p = 0.003) those who were born in the 20th century, and 7 years in relation to the first-born there were no differences in lifespan due (p < 0.001). In the second birth cohort to birth order. However, in the 18th cen- (1809–1848), first-born males lived tury firstborns tended to live longer than significantly longer (by about 5 years) their later-born siblings. than boys of higher birth orders. In the To date, several studies have demon- third birth cohort, however, second-born strated that first-born children have an males had the highest age at death (26.9 advantage in educational attainment, years) and lived significantly longer than health status and later outcomes in life their siblings (p = 0.005). In the fourth over their later-born counterparts (Behr- birth cohort, third-born males had the man and Taubman 1986; Hanushek 1992; highest age at death and these differenc- Price 2008; Keller et al. 2015). Interest- es in lifespan were statistically signifi - ingly, when birth order is controlled for, cant (p = 0.046). family size has either a small effect or no effect on the first-born child (Black et al. 2005; Conley and Glauber 2006). Obser- Discussion vations that offspring from older parents, This study uses a large and representa- but especially from older mothers, have tive sample of children and adults, de- shorter life expectancies, suggest that rived from historical data, to test the the accumulation of genetic damage in hypothesis that birth order affects lifes- eggs (and sperm, as similar effects have pan. The results suggest that birth order been observed for the paternal line) oc- affects male longevity, while no such as- curring over time can negatively affect sociation was found for females. In gen- the healthspan and lifespan of offspring eral, the lower-birth-order males had a (Crow 1997; Gavrilov et al. 1997; Gavri- survival advantage over males of higher lov et al. 2000). Epigenetic alterations birth orders. Nevertheless, the youngest in germ cells also play a critical role in males had the highest age at death in the development and growth throughout on- fourth birth cohort. The second order in- togeny (Chamani and Keefe 2019). teraction between birth cohort and birth Alternatively, this might be an arte- order is significant, which means that the fact of genetic heterogeneity in mortality Does birth order affect human lifespan? 389 rates within populations, as short-lived Modern diets tend to be rich in sugar, women do not contribute offspring to saturated fats and processed food. Since ‘old female’ cohorts, resulting in a pop- ageing, obesity, energy dense diets and ulation-level shift in the genetic compo- physical inactivity constitute the main sition of offspring with increasing female risk factors for the development of type age (Vaupel and Yashin 1985). However, 2 diabetes (Thibault et al. 2016), the several studies have controlled for this general picture might have looked quite confound. For example, Priest and asso- different in the historic populations. ciates (2002) reported that maternal age Even if firstborns are more susceptible still had an effect on offspring survival. to type 2 diabetes, it is conceivable that Furthermore, individuals who were the they did not live long enough in the past first-born in large families were two to to develop this condition. In the past, three times more likely to reach the age life conditions were different. It is also of 100 years in comparison to later-born possible that the  advantageous  first- children (Gavrilova and Gavrilov 2007). born effect on life expectancy in the his- In general, these findings have been in - toric samples was outcompeted by the terpreted as indicating possible inter- negative first-born effect on health in the actions between age of parents and the recent samples. health status of their offspring. It has A growing body of evidence suggests been hypothesised that sperm and eggs that early-life events can affect the long- become damaged with increasing age. term health and survival of offspring via Therefore, children born of relatively old- several different mechanisms (Stöger er parents are more likely to have health 2008; Taylor 2010; Wells 2011; Mar- problems in later life. tin-Gronert and Ozanne 2012). Biolog- On the other hand, observations that ical factors acting during early develop- first-born children are smaller at birth ment, such as nutritional and hormonal but are more likely to be overweight and signals, can alter the onset of various obese in later life in comparison to their chronic diseases in adulthood and during later-born siblings, challenge the view ageing (Bartke 2015). The concept of that first-born individuals tend to have developmental ‘programming’ of adult better health outcomes in terms of life health and longevity is supported by re- expectancy (Siervo et al. 2010; Derraik sults from both animal models and an- et al. 2016). These links have been his- thropological investigations (Aiken and torically studied and have not signifi - Ozanne 2014). In general, males are cantly changed since their first descrip - more vulnerable than females. Therefore, tion in the 19th century. Moreover, it has the observed relationships are more pro- been established that modern first-born nounced in men. Likewise, the month of children have a higher risk of type 2 di- birth effects on lifespan are stronger in abetes in adult life (Lammi et al. 2007). men (Doblhammer and Vaupel 2001; Le- Nevertheless, this may not have been rchl 2004; Chmielewski and Borysławski the case for the historic samples. Over 2016). the last decades, life expectancy has in- It has been suggested that the bio- creased dramatically. In general, modern social factors and the social context of people are taller, heavier and live lon- the family are involved in the relation- ger compared to previous generations. ship between birth order and lifespan. 390 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł The scientific literature is replete with outcomes. In general, the empirical data examples which indicate that children reveal that the first-born child receives in larger families tend to have lower lev- about 20 more minutes of quality fa- els of educational attainment and worse ther-time and 25 more minutes of qual- outcomes in adult life in terms of risky ity mother-time each day at each age as behaviours and delinquency (Becker and opposed to the second-born child (Price Lewis 1973; Blake 1989; Steelman et. 2008). These observations indicate that 2002; Black et al. 2005). Furthermore, there are birth-order differences in the it has been established that parental re- amount of quality time that children sources available to each child decrease spend with their parents. as the number of siblings increases. In Other studies have found that both particular, the Resource Dilution Hy- first-born children and last-born chil - pothesis states that siblings are compet- dren are at a greater risk of dying com- itors for parents’ time, energy, money, pared with those in the middle (Mishra support and other resources (Blake 1989; et al. 2017). Children of higher birth Downey 2001; Li et al. 2008; Tanskanen orders might be in a more favourable et al. 2016). Accordingly, the first-born position than their older siblings due to child has the exclusive attention and re- the greater amount of material resources sources of the parents. As the number that have been accumulated by their par- of children in the family increases, the ents. Furthermore, later-born children resources accrued by any one child nec- experience a household environment in essarily decline. Even one sibling dilutes which the parents are more experienced the resources that are available to the at parenting and have more income other sibling (Downey 2001). Further- (Behrman and Taubman 1986; Powell more, an increased number of siblings and Steelman 1995). Nonetheless, chil- of the opposite sex can be harmful to dren of higher birth orders have worse educational achievement as sex minority outcomes in terms of risky behaviours children might find their gender-specif - and delinquency, which suggests that ic needs unmet (Powell and Steelman they are more likely to die earlier due to 1995; Conley 2000). accidents, violence and suicides (Becker It is important to note that method- and Lewis 1973; Blake 1989; Steelman ological issues can affect the interpreta- et. 2002; Barclay and Kolk 2015). Inter- tion of these findings. As Price (2008) estingly, firstborns score higher (by 2 points out, parents who have a ‘good’ points) in IQ tests and are more likely to child are more likely to have more chil- be in a higher social class (Lehmann et dren, such that reversion to the mean in- al. 2018), which may translate into high- creases the likelihood of the second birth er income and SES. being a ‘worse’ child. Although, early Firstborns have higher educational studies reported small and insignificant attainment than second-born children, effects of birth order on child outcomes and the difference in educational attain- (Kessler 1991), later investigations re- ment between the first child and the fifth vealed that higher-birth-order children child in a five-child family is comparable have worse outcomes. Hanushek (1992) with that between the educational at- found a U-shaped relationship where the tainment of whites and blacks calculat- first-born and last-born have the best ed from the 2000 Census (Black et al. Does birth order affect human lifespan? 391 2005). Moreover, other studies have re- Conclusions vealed an inverse link between education attainment and mortality. Adults with These findings are consistent with the higher education are healthier and tend idea that birth order can affect lifespan. to live longer than those with primary or Nevertheless, the observed effects are vocational education (Baker et al. 2011; rarely straightforward as firstborns do Hummer and Hernandez 2013; Krueger not always live longer than their younger et al. 2015; Sasson and Hayward 2019; siblings. Males are more vulnerable than Johnston 2020). females and these effects are typically Several investigations have indicated more pronounced in males. a significant role of parents and older siblings in shaping proper pro-health be- Authors’ contribution haviours in younger siblings. It has been demonstrated that younger siblings are PPC did a literature review, interpreted more likely to use stimulants, e.g. alco- the results and wrote the manuscript. AŻ hol, if their older siblings also use these prepared the data for analysis, advised on substances (Elliott 1992; Modin 2002). interpretation of the results and wrote an Given that first-born children are more early version of the paper. SK conceived likely to achieve higher levels of educa- the idea for the article, analysed the data tion and higher positions on the social and proofread the manuscript. scale, they tend to live longer compared with their younger siblings. This state- Conflict of interest ment is consistent with several studies on child survival. It is also possible that The authors declare no conflict of inter - the long-term effect of birth order posi- ests. tion on mortality is mediated by person- ality traits, adult social class, education, Corresponding author income and SES. It is, however, important to note that Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Division of this study is not without its limitations. Anatomy, Department of Human Mor- One major issue is that the observed phology and Embryology, Faculty of lifespan was rather short, which sug- Medicine, Wroclaw Medical Universi- gests that life expectancy was reduced ty, 6a Chałubińskiego Street, 50-368 due to unknown factors such as natural Wrocław, Poland disasters, epidemics and conflicts. Fu - e-mail: piotr.chmielewski@umed.wroc.pl thermore, Catholic priests often exclud- ed atheists, agnostics, non-believers and References those who professed other faiths from Aiken CE, Ozanne SE. 2014. Transgenera- their parish registers. Thus, it is possi- tional developmental programming. Hum ble that the collected data represent only Reprod Update 20:63–75. Catholics. However, the overwhelming Baker DP, Leon J, Smith Greenaway EG, Col- majority of Poles identified themselves as lins J, Movit M. 2011. The education ef- Catholic, which means that the collected fect on population health: a reassessment. data are still representative for the Polish Popul Dev Rev 37:307–32. population. 392 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Barclay K, Kolk M. 2015. Birth order and mor- size and birth order from exogenous vari- tality: a population-based cohort study. ation in fertility. J Hum Resour 41:722– Demography 52:613–39. 737. Bartke A. 2015. Early life events can shape ag- Costa D, Scognamiglio M, Fiorito C, Ben- ing and longevity. Curr Aging Sci 8:11–3. incasa G, Napoli C. 2019. Genetic back- Becker GS, Lewis HG. 1973. On the interac- ground, epigenetic factors and dietary tion between the quantity and quality of interventions which influence human lon - children. J Polit Econ 81:S279–88. gevity. Biogerontology 20:605–26. Behrman JR, Taubman P. 1986. Birth order, Crow JF. 1997. The high spontaneous mu- schooling, and earnings. J Labor Econ tation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94: 4:121–50. 8380–6. Black SE. 2017. New evidence on the impacts Derraik JG, Ahlsson F, Lundgren M, Jons- of birth order. NBER Reporter 4:15–8. son B, Cutfield WS. 2016. First-borns Black SE, Devereux PJ, Salvanes, KG. 2005. have greater BMI and are more likely to The more the merrier? The effect of family be overweight or obese: a study of sibling size and birth order on children’s educa- pairs among 26,812 Swedish women. J tion. Q J Econ 120:669–700. Epidemiol Community Health 70:78–81. Blake J. 1989. Number of siblings and educa- Doblhammer G, Vaupel JW. 2001. Lifespan de- tional attainment. Science 245:32–6. pends on month of birth. PNAS 98:2934– Chamani IJ, Keefe DL. 2019. Epigenetics and 9. female reproductive aging. Front Endocri- Downey DB. 2001. Number of siblings and nol 10:473. intellectual development. The resource Chmielewski P. 2016. Teoria sezonowego pro- dilution explanation. Am Psychol 56:497– gramowania długowieczności. Kosmos 504. 65:323–37. Easey KE, Mars B, Pearson R, Heron J, Gun- Chmielewski P . 2017. Rethinking modern the- nell D. 2019. Association of birth order ories of ageing and their classification: the with adolescent mental health and suicide proximate mechanisms and the ultimate attempts: a population-based longitudi- explanations. Anthropol Rev 80:259–72. nal study.  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Chmielewski PP. 2020. From gerontology to 28:1079–86. geroscience: a synopsis on ageing. An- Elliott BA. 1992. Birth order and health: thropol Rev 83:419–37. major issues. Social Science & Medicine Chmielewski P, Borysławski K. 2016. Un- 35:443–52. derstanding the links between month of Fukuya Y, Fujiwara T, Isumi A, Doi S, Ochi birth, body height, and longevity: why M. 2021. Association of birth order with some studies reveal that shorter people mental health problems, self-esteem, re- live longer – further evidence of seasonal silience, and happiness among children: programming from the Polish population. results from a-CHILD study. Front Psychi- Anthropol Rev 79:375–95. atry 12:638088. Chmielewski P, Borysławski K, Strzelec B. Gates L, Lineberger MR, Crockett J, Hubbard 2016. Contemporary views on human ag- J. 1988. Birth order and its relationship ing and longevity. Anthropol Rev 79:115– to depression, anxiety, and self-concept 142. test scores in children.  J Genet Psychol Conley D. 2000. Sibship sex composition: ef- 149:29–34. fects on educational attainment. Soc Sci Gavrilov LA, Gavrilova NS, Semenova VG, Ev- Res 29:441–57. dokushkina GN, Kroutko VN, Gavrilova Conley D, Glauber R. 2006. Parental educa- AL, Evdokushkina NN, Lapshin EV. 1997. tion investment and children’s academic Maternal age and lifespan of the offspring. risk: estimates of the impact of sibship Proc Russian Acad Sci 354:569–72. Does birth order affect human lifespan? 393 Gavrilov LA, Gavrilova NS, Evdokushkina skills than later born siblings. Frontiers in GN, Semenova VG. 2000. Mutations, pa- Psychology 6:705. rental age, and offspring longevity: new Kessler D. 1991. Birth order, family size, and ideas and findings. Am J Phys Anthropol achievement: family structure and wage 30:156. determination. Journal of Labor Econom- Gavrilova NS, Gavrilov LA. 2007. Search for ics 9:413–26. predictors of exceptional human longevi- Krueger PM, Tran MK, Hummer RA, Chang ty. N Am Actuar J 11:49–67. VW. 2015. Mortality attributable to low Global BMI Mortality Collaboration, Di An- levels of education in the United States. gelantonio E, Bhupathiraju ShN, Worm- PloS One 10:e0131809. ser D, Gao P, Kaptoge S, Berrington de Lammi N, Moltchanova E, Blomstedt P, Eriks- Gonzalez A, et al. 2016. Body-mass index son JG, Taskinen O, Sarti C, et al. 2007. and all-cause mortality: individual-partic- The effect of birth order and parental age ipant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospec- on the risk of type 1 and 2 diabetes among tive studies in four continents. Lancet. young adults. Diabetologia 50:2433–8. 388:776–86. Lehmann JY, Nuevo-Chiquero A, Vidal-Fer- Gluckman PD, Hanson MA, Cooper C, Thorn- nandez M. 2018. The early origins of birth burg KL. 2008. Effect of in utero and ear- order differences in children’s outcomes ly-life conditions on adult health and dis- and parental behaviour. J Hum Resour ease. N Engl J Med 359:61–73. 53:123–56. Govindaraju D, Atzmon G, Barzilai N. 2015. Lerchl A. 2004. Month of birth and life ex- Genetics, lifestyle and longevity: Lessons pectancy: role of gender and age in a com- from centenarians.  Appl Transl Genom parative approach. Naturwissenschaften 4:23–32. 91:422–5. Hanushek E. 1992. The trade-off between Li H, Zhang J, Zhu Y. 2008. The quanti- child quantity and quality. J Polit Econ ty-quality trade-off of children in a devel- 100:84–117. oping country: identification using Chi - Hemati Z, Keikha M, Riahi R, Daniali SS, nese twins. Demography 45:223–43. Goudarzi M, Kelishadi R. 2021. A system- Martin-Gronert MS, Ozanne SE. 2012. Mech- atic review on the association of month anisms underlying the developmental ori- and season of birth with future anthro- gins of disease. Rev Endocr Metab Disord pometric measures. Nature Pediatr Res 13:85–92. 89:31–45. Mills KT, Stefanescu A, He J. 2020. The glob- Howe LD, Hallal PC, Matijasevich A, Wells al epidemiology of hypertension. Nat Rev JC, Santos IS, Barros AJ, et al.2014. The Nephrol 16:223–37. association of birth order with later body Mishra SK, Ram B, Singh A, Yadav A. 2017. mass index and blood pressure: a compar- Birth order, stage of infancy and infant ison between prospective cohort studies mortality in India. J Biosoc Sci 50:604–25. from the United Kingdom and Brazil. Na- Modin B. 2002. Birth order and mortality: ture Int J Obes 38:973–9. a life-long follow-up of 14,200 boys and Hummer RA, Hernandez EM. 2013. The ef- girls born in early 20th century Sweden. fect of educational attainment on adult Soc Sci Med 54:1051–64. mortality in the United States. Population Muller DC, Murphy N, Johansson M, Ferra- Bulletin 68:1–16. ri P, Tsilidis KK, Boutron-Ruault MC, et Johnston RB. 2020. Promoting education is al. 2016. Modifiable causes of premature preventive medicine at its best. Pediatr death in middle-age in Western Europe: Res 87:185–7. results from the EPIC cohort study. BMC Keller K, Troesch LM, Grob A. 2015. First- Med 14:87. born siblings show better second language O’Leary SR, Wingard DL, Edelstein SL, Criqui MH, Tucker JS, Friedman HS. 1996. 394 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Is birth order associated with adult mor- configuration: recent advances and chal - tality? Ann Epidemiol 6:34–40. lenges. Ann Rev Sociol 28:243–69. Powell B, Steelman LC. 1995. Feeling the Stöger R. 2008. The thrifty epigenotype: an pinch: child spacing and constraints on acquired and heritable predisposition for parental economic investments in chil- obesity and diabetes? Bio Essays 30:156– dren. Social Forces 73:1465–86. 66. Price J. 2008. Parental quality time: does birth Tanskanen AO, Erola J, Kallio J. 2016. Paren- order matter? J Hum Resour 43:240–65. tal resources, sibship size, and education- Priest NK, Mackowiak B, Promislow DEL. al performance in 20 countries: Evidence 2002. The role of parental age effects on for the compensation model.  Cross Cult the evolution of aging. Evolution 56:927– Res 50:452–77. 35. Taylor SE. 2010. Mechanisms linking early Rosenberg M. 1988. Birth weights in three life stress to adult health outcomes. PNAS Norwegian cities, 1860–1984. Secular 107:8507–12. trends and influencing factors. Ann Hum Thibault V, Bélanger M, LeBlanc E, Babin L, Biol 15:275–88. Halpine S, Greene B, et al.2016. Factors Sasson I, Hayward MD. 2019. Association be- that could explain the increasing preva- tween educational attainment and caus- lence of type 2 diabetes among adults in es of death among white and black US a Canadian province: a critical review and adults, 2010–2017. JAMA 322:756–63. analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr 8:71. Siervo M, Horta BL, Stephan BC, Victora CG, Vaupel JW, Yashin AI. 1985. Heterogeneity’s Wells JC. 2010. First-borns carry a high- ruses: some surprising effects of selection er metabolic risk in early adulthood: ev- on population dynamics. American Statis- idence from a prospective cohort study. tician 39:176–95. PLoS One 5:e13907. Wells JCK. 2011. The thrifty phenotype: an Smith KR, Mineau GP, Garibotti G, Kerber adaptation in growth or metabolism? Am R. 2009. Effects of childhood and mid- J Hum Biol 23:65–75. dle-adulthood family conditions on lat- Whitwell HJ, Bacalini MG, Blyuss O, Chen er-life mortality: evidence from the Utah S, Garagnani P, Gordleeva SY, et al. 2020. population database, 1850–2002. Soc Sci The human body as a super network: digi- Med 68:1649–58. tal methods to analyze the propagation of Steelman L, Powell B, Werum R, Carter S. aging. Front Aging Neurosci 12:136. 2002. Reconsidering the effects of sibling http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Anthropological Review de Gruyter

Exploring the effects of birth order on human lifespan in Polish historical populations, 1738–1968

Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/exploring-the-effects-of-birth-order-on-human-lifespan-in-polish-8UF37Unchz

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2021 Polish Anthropological Society
ISSN
2083-4594
eISSN
2083-4594
DOI
10.2478/anre-2021-0026
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Does birth order affect human lifespan? Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Anthropological Review • Vol. 84(4), 383–394 (2021) Exploring the effects of birth order on human lifespan in Polish historical populations, 1738–1968 1 2 3 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski , Aleksandra Żebrak , Sławomir Kozieł Division of Anatomy, Department of Human Morphology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland Department of Anthropology, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland Department of Anthropology, Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland AbstrAct : While the relationships between birth order and later outcomes in life, including health and wealth, have been the subject of investigation for several decades, little or no data exist regarding the relationship between birth order and life expectancy in the Polish population. The aim of this study was to explore the link between birth order and lifespan in Polish historical populations. We obtained 8523 re- cords from a historical dataset that was established for parishioners from the borough of Bejsce, including 4463 males and 4060 females. These data pertain to the populations that lived over a long period in a group of localities for which parish registers were well preserved. The Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wal- lis ANOVA and ANCOVA were run. The results strongly suggest that birth order affects male longevity. However, no such association was found for females. On balance, the hypothesis that first-born boys live longer because they are born to relatively younger parents has received some empirical support and de- serves further study. We hypothesise that the effects of birth order on human health and lifespan might be overshadowed by other factors, including educational attainment, socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Key words : age at death, birth order, health, lifespan, mortality, siblings, survival Introduction environmental factors (Govindaraju et al. 2015; Chmielewski et al. 2016; Ch- Human lifespan is a multifactorial trait mielewski 2020; Costa et al. 2019). that is affected by genetic background, While the relationships between birth epigenetic mechanisms, lifestyle and order and later outcomes in life, includ- Original Research Article Received: June 28, 2021; Revised: October 23, 2021; Accepted: November 8, 2021 DOI: 10.2478/anre-2021-0026 © 2021 Polish Anthropological Society 384 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł ing health and wealth, have been the fer longevity, is flawed. Like ageing, life is subject of investigation for several de- a complex interplay of various elements, cades, little or no data exist regarding including extrinsic (environmental) and the relationship between birth order intrinsic (genetic and epigenetic) pro- and longevity in Poland. It has been es- cesses and factors (Chmielewski 2017, tablished that economic resources and 2020; Whitwell et al. 2020). Although social conditions within the family of early life events have some health im- origin have important consequences for pacts later in life (Bartke 2015; Ch- health outcomes in later life (Gluckman mielewski 2016; Hemati et al. 2021), et al. 2008). However, few studies have many other factors, including the genetic explored the links between birth order background, the environment, exposure and long-term survival in adolescents to carcinogens and other harmful sub- and adults (O’Leary et al. 1996; Modin stances, educational attainment, SES and 2002; Smith et al. 2009). To our knowl- lifestyle, play a key role in shaping health edge, no such studies have been reported outcomes (Govindaraju et al. 2015; Ch- for the Polish population. mielewski et al. 2016; Costa et al. 2019). Currently, it is not clear whether and Furthermore, it can be argued that the ef- how lifespan is affected by birth order. fects of birth order on health and survival Several studies have shown that first- in later life are currently too small to be born children have a longevity advantage readily detected, and this relationship is over later-born children, which can be probably tenuous in modern populations. attributed to the fact that they are born Nevertheless, it has been demonstrat- to relatively younger parents (Gavrilov et ed that first-born individuals are more al. 1997; Gavrilov et al. 2000). In partic- likely to be overweight and obese in adult ular, it has been demonstrated that indi- life (Rosenberg 1988; Siervo et al. 2010; viduals who were the first-born in large Derraik et al. 2016). First-born adults families were two to three times more have also been shown to be at a higher likely to reach the age of 100 years than risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular children of higher birth orders (Gavrilo- disease (Lammi et al. 2007). Some other va and Gavrilov 2007). Nonetheless, the studies have reported that the probabili- effects of birth order on lifespan are over- ty of having high blood pressure declines shadowed by other factors, including ed- with birth order, and the largest gap is ucational attainment, economic resourc- between first-born and second-born sub - es, socioeconomic status (SES), lifestyle jects (Black 2017). Since hypertension (Gavrilov, personal communication). and obesity are the major risk factors for Furthermore, it has been established that coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke first-born children do better on some as - and premature death (Global BMI Mor- pects and worse on others (Black 2017). tality Collaboration et al. 2016; Muller et Therefore, a binary answer (i.e. ‘yes/ al. 2016; Mills et al. 2020), it has been no’ or ‘true/false’) to the question: ‘Do hypothesised that first-born individuals first-born individuals live longer than experience worse health outcomes in their later-born counterparts?’ cannot be adult life, as they have greater adiposity obtained. and cardiovascular risk in comparison to Moreover, the idea that a single trait, their later-born siblings. However, other such as being a first-born child, can con - authors have reported no association be- Does birth order affect human lifespan? 385 tween birth order and cardiovascular risk ulations that existed over a long period, (Howe et al. 2014). i.e. from 1738 to 1968, in a group of lo- Interestingly, first-born individuals calities for which parish registers were are more likely to consider themselves to well preserved. be in good health (Black 2017). Moreover, A total of 8523 records, including they are two to three times more likely 4463 males and 4060 females, were in- to become centenarians compared with cluded in the analysis. All of these re- later-born children (Gavrilova and Gavri- cords derive from a historical dataset that lov 2007). Furthermore, it has been es- was established for parishioners from the tablished that measures of mental health borough of Bejsce, which is historically generally decline with birth order (Gates referred to as the ‘Bejsce parish’. It cov- et al. 1988; Easey et al. 2019). Previous ered a relatively large area, and because studies have shown that first-born indi - of its fertile land and moderate climate, viduals tend to be more intelligent and it has been inhabited continuously since resourceful than their later-born siblings, the Migration period. The Bejsce parish presumably because they received more was located in a relatively safe region in parental care and mental stimulation at Southern Poland, between Kraków and a relatively younger age (Lehmann et al. Kielce. Historically, this group of local- 2018). Moreover, it is well known that ities has been relatively rich and pros- the eldest child in the family is typical- perous. Another advantage of the study ly more disciplined. First-born children sample is the fact that it is homogeneous have no competition, and they are a sur- in terms of nationality and religion of the rogate parent towards their later-born inhabitants. siblings. Thus, they perform parental In the analysis, two databases from roles for their siblings on behalf of their the archives were used: (A) data on in- parents, which is a trait that they carry dividuals and (B) data on marriages. (A) forward in life. On the other hand, sever- includes: (1) an individual number code al studies have found that later-born chil- for identification purposes, (2) date of dren are less likely to have mental health birth, (3) sex, (4) a number code of the problems and are more likely to have pro- person’s father, (5) a number code of the social behaviours and resilience (Fukuya person’s mother, (6) number of marriag- et al. 2021). The current study aims to es, (7) number of offspring and (8) date evaluate the relationship between birth of death. (B) contains information on order and lifespan in inhabitants of Be- the marital history and includes data on: jsce based on a large sample drawn from (1) a number code of the person’s hus- historical cohorts. band, (2) a number code of the person’s wife, (3) a number code of the marriage, (4) date of marriage and (5) number of Materials and methods children. By combining both databases, For the purpose of the study, we collected it was possible to connect children with data from Polish church records. Parish- their mothers and fathers, siblings with ioner data detailing their birth and death each other and spouses with each other dates, birth and death dates of their par- in order to group individuals into families ents, sex, marital status and family size of origin and into families in adult life. were used. The data pertain to the pop- 386 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Table 1. Study sample showing the four consecutive birth cohorts Males Females Total Birth cohort n (%) n (%) n (%) No. 1 1738–1808 652 (14.6) 619 (15.2) 1271 (14.9) No. 2 1809–1848 1235 (27.7) 1778 (29.1) 2413 (28.3) No. 3 1849–1888 1610 (36.1) 1455 (35.8) 3065 (36.0) No. 4 1889–1968 966 (21.6) 808 (19.9) 1774 (20.8) Total 4463 (52.4) 4060 (47.6) 8523 (100.0) The study sample was divided into was performed for the entire study sam- four birth cohorts (Table 1). The num- ple, while the second part was conducted ber of subjects in these consecutive birth for two groups: (1) individuals who died cohorts are presented in Table 2. In all at the age of 15 years or younger and (2) groups, the lifespan significantly deviat - individuals who died at later ages. ed from normal distribution assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Therefore, Results non-parametric tests were employed. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to com- The baseline characteristics of the study pare the lifespan between the two stud- sample are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Con- ied groups. The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA sidering deaths up to the age of 15 years, was run to compare more groups with girls lived longer than boys. However, each other. After controlling for birth co- no differences were found for individu- hort and mother’s age at birth, the anal- als who lived longer than 15 years (Table ysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was per- 3). Table 4 shows the results of the Krus- formed along with the GLM procedure in kal-Wallis test. Table 5 reports on the dif- order to analyse the effect of birth order ferences in lifespan, which were assessed on lifespan. The first part of the analysis with ANOVA, in individuals who died Table 2. Number of individuals in the four consecutive birth cohorts, depending on their birth order Birth order Birth cohort Males Females Total % First 1738–1808 302 278 580 15.0 1809–1848 492 474 966 25.1 1849–1888 699 642 1341 34.8 1889–1968 540 428 968 25.1 Total 2033 1822 3855 100.0 Second 1738–1808 199 214 413 15.4 1809–1848 400 389 789 29.4 1849–1888 521 452 973 36.2 1889–1968 276 236 512 19.1 Total 1396 1291 2687 100.0 Third 1738–1808 151 127 278 14.1 1809–1848 343 315 658 33.2 1849–1888 390 361 751 37.9 1889–1968 150 144 294 14.8 Total 1034 947 1981 100.0 Does birth order affect human lifespan? 387 after the age of 15 years. In females, no order on lifespan remained significant in differences were observed for those who males but not in females (Table 6). How- died at the age of ≤ 15 years and after ever, a statistically significant second-or - age 15. der interaction between birth order and After controlling for birth cohort and birth cohort was observed. mother’s age at birth, the effects of birth Table 3. Sex differences in lifespan in the two studied groups Age at death Mean (SD) Median U p ≤ 15 years Boys 2.5 (3.4) 1.1 3.3 <0.001 Girls 2.8 (3.4) 1.3 Cohort No. 1 2.6 (3.3) 1.4 No. 2 2.9 (3.5) 1.5 No. 3 2.8 (3.3) 1.6 No. 4 2.3 (3.5) 0.7 H=131.5 <0.001 ≥ 15 years Males 50.2 (19.0) 52.4 1.9 0.068 Females 49.0 (20.4) 49.5 Cohort No. 1 50.5 (15.2) 52.4 No. 2 50.0 (19.2) 50.4 No. 3 53.4 (21.1) 57.3 No. 4 32.5 (14.0) 28.2 H=306.5 <0.001 Table 4. Differences in lifespan in males and females who died at the age of 15 years or earlier, depending on their birth cohort and birth order Males Females H df p F df p Whole lifespan BC 327.48 3 <0.001 381.59 3 <0.001 BO 314.36 2 <0.001 318.87 2 <0.001 Earlier or at age of 15 years BC 364.78 3 <0.001 367.94 3 <0.001 BO 320.86 2 <0.001 337.48 2 <0.05 BC, birth cohort; BO, birth order; df, degrees of freedom. Differences were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. Table 5. Differences in lifespan in individuals who died after the age of 15 years, depending on their birth cohort and birth order Males Females F df p F df p BC 72.56 3 <0.001 43.16 3 <0.001 BO 32.47 2 0.099 33.13 2 <0.05 BC, birth cohort; BO, birth order; df, degrees of freedom. Differences were assessed using ANOVA. 388 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Table 6. Results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Males Females 2 2 Wald’s χ df p Wald’s χ df p BC 1166.3 3 <0.001 1490.8 3 <0.001 BO 1148.2 2 <0.001 1194.6 2 <0.001 BC × BO 1320.0 6 <0.001 1259.5 6 <0.001 Mother’s age 1698.3 1 <0.001 1314.7 1 <0.001 BC, birth cohort; BO, birth order; df, degrees of freedom. Dependent variable is lifetime and independent variables are sex, BC and BO. Mother’s age is a covariable. In the first birth cohort (1738–1808), strength of the effects of birth order on third-born males had the lowest age at lifespan varied in different historical pe- death as opposed to their siblings. These riods. In boys, the effects climaxed in the differences in lifespan were 6 years in re- 18th century and waned afterwards. In lation to the middle siblings (p = 0.003) those who were born in the 20th century, and 7 years in relation to the first-born there were no differences in lifespan due (p < 0.001). In the second birth cohort to birth order. However, in the 18th cen- (1809–1848), first-born males lived tury firstborns tended to live longer than significantly longer (by about 5 years) their later-born siblings. than boys of higher birth orders. In the To date, several studies have demon- third birth cohort, however, second-born strated that first-born children have an males had the highest age at death (26.9 advantage in educational attainment, years) and lived significantly longer than health status and later outcomes in life their siblings (p = 0.005). In the fourth over their later-born counterparts (Behr- birth cohort, third-born males had the man and Taubman 1986; Hanushek 1992; highest age at death and these differenc- Price 2008; Keller et al. 2015). Interest- es in lifespan were statistically signifi - ingly, when birth order is controlled for, cant (p = 0.046). family size has either a small effect or no effect on the first-born child (Black et al. 2005; Conley and Glauber 2006). Obser- Discussion vations that offspring from older parents, This study uses a large and representa- but especially from older mothers, have tive sample of children and adults, de- shorter life expectancies, suggest that rived from historical data, to test the the accumulation of genetic damage in hypothesis that birth order affects lifes- eggs (and sperm, as similar effects have pan. The results suggest that birth order been observed for the paternal line) oc- affects male longevity, while no such as- curring over time can negatively affect sociation was found for females. In gen- the healthspan and lifespan of offspring eral, the lower-birth-order males had a (Crow 1997; Gavrilov et al. 1997; Gavri- survival advantage over males of higher lov et al. 2000). Epigenetic alterations birth orders. Nevertheless, the youngest in germ cells also play a critical role in males had the highest age at death in the development and growth throughout on- fourth birth cohort. The second order in- togeny (Chamani and Keefe 2019). teraction between birth cohort and birth Alternatively, this might be an arte- order is significant, which means that the fact of genetic heterogeneity in mortality Does birth order affect human lifespan? 389 rates within populations, as short-lived Modern diets tend to be rich in sugar, women do not contribute offspring to saturated fats and processed food. Since ‘old female’ cohorts, resulting in a pop- ageing, obesity, energy dense diets and ulation-level shift in the genetic compo- physical inactivity constitute the main sition of offspring with increasing female risk factors for the development of type age (Vaupel and Yashin 1985). However, 2 diabetes (Thibault et al. 2016), the several studies have controlled for this general picture might have looked quite confound. For example, Priest and asso- different in the historic populations. ciates (2002) reported that maternal age Even if firstborns are more susceptible still had an effect on offspring survival. to type 2 diabetes, it is conceivable that Furthermore, individuals who were the they did not live long enough in the past first-born in large families were two to to develop this condition. In the past, three times more likely to reach the age life conditions were different. It is also of 100 years in comparison to later-born possible that the  advantageous  first- children (Gavrilova and Gavrilov 2007). born effect on life expectancy in the his- In general, these findings have been in - toric samples was outcompeted by the terpreted as indicating possible inter- negative first-born effect on health in the actions between age of parents and the recent samples. health status of their offspring. It has A growing body of evidence suggests been hypothesised that sperm and eggs that early-life events can affect the long- become damaged with increasing age. term health and survival of offspring via Therefore, children born of relatively old- several different mechanisms (Stöger er parents are more likely to have health 2008; Taylor 2010; Wells 2011; Mar- problems in later life. tin-Gronert and Ozanne 2012). Biolog- On the other hand, observations that ical factors acting during early develop- first-born children are smaller at birth ment, such as nutritional and hormonal but are more likely to be overweight and signals, can alter the onset of various obese in later life in comparison to their chronic diseases in adulthood and during later-born siblings, challenge the view ageing (Bartke 2015). The concept of that first-born individuals tend to have developmental ‘programming’ of adult better health outcomes in terms of life health and longevity is supported by re- expectancy (Siervo et al. 2010; Derraik sults from both animal models and an- et al. 2016). These links have been his- thropological investigations (Aiken and torically studied and have not signifi - Ozanne 2014). In general, males are cantly changed since their first descrip - more vulnerable than females. Therefore, tion in the 19th century. Moreover, it has the observed relationships are more pro- been established that modern first-born nounced in men. Likewise, the month of children have a higher risk of type 2 di- birth effects on lifespan are stronger in abetes in adult life (Lammi et al. 2007). men (Doblhammer and Vaupel 2001; Le- Nevertheless, this may not have been rchl 2004; Chmielewski and Borysławski the case for the historic samples. Over 2016). the last decades, life expectancy has in- It has been suggested that the bio- creased dramatically. In general, modern social factors and the social context of people are taller, heavier and live lon- the family are involved in the relation- ger compared to previous generations. ship between birth order and lifespan. 390 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł The scientific literature is replete with outcomes. In general, the empirical data examples which indicate that children reveal that the first-born child receives in larger families tend to have lower lev- about 20 more minutes of quality fa- els of educational attainment and worse ther-time and 25 more minutes of qual- outcomes in adult life in terms of risky ity mother-time each day at each age as behaviours and delinquency (Becker and opposed to the second-born child (Price Lewis 1973; Blake 1989; Steelman et. 2008). These observations indicate that 2002; Black et al. 2005). Furthermore, there are birth-order differences in the it has been established that parental re- amount of quality time that children sources available to each child decrease spend with their parents. as the number of siblings increases. In Other studies have found that both particular, the Resource Dilution Hy- first-born children and last-born chil - pothesis states that siblings are compet- dren are at a greater risk of dying com- itors for parents’ time, energy, money, pared with those in the middle (Mishra support and other resources (Blake 1989; et al. 2017). Children of higher birth Downey 2001; Li et al. 2008; Tanskanen orders might be in a more favourable et al. 2016). Accordingly, the first-born position than their older siblings due to child has the exclusive attention and re- the greater amount of material resources sources of the parents. As the number that have been accumulated by their par- of children in the family increases, the ents. Furthermore, later-born children resources accrued by any one child nec- experience a household environment in essarily decline. Even one sibling dilutes which the parents are more experienced the resources that are available to the at parenting and have more income other sibling (Downey 2001). Further- (Behrman and Taubman 1986; Powell more, an increased number of siblings and Steelman 1995). Nonetheless, chil- of the opposite sex can be harmful to dren of higher birth orders have worse educational achievement as sex minority outcomes in terms of risky behaviours children might find their gender-specif - and delinquency, which suggests that ic needs unmet (Powell and Steelman they are more likely to die earlier due to 1995; Conley 2000). accidents, violence and suicides (Becker It is important to note that method- and Lewis 1973; Blake 1989; Steelman ological issues can affect the interpreta- et. 2002; Barclay and Kolk 2015). Inter- tion of these findings. As Price (2008) estingly, firstborns score higher (by 2 points out, parents who have a ‘good’ points) in IQ tests and are more likely to child are more likely to have more chil- be in a higher social class (Lehmann et dren, such that reversion to the mean in- al. 2018), which may translate into high- creases the likelihood of the second birth er income and SES. being a ‘worse’ child. Although, early Firstborns have higher educational studies reported small and insignificant attainment than second-born children, effects of birth order on child outcomes and the difference in educational attain- (Kessler 1991), later investigations re- ment between the first child and the fifth vealed that higher-birth-order children child in a five-child family is comparable have worse outcomes. Hanushek (1992) with that between the educational at- found a U-shaped relationship where the tainment of whites and blacks calculat- first-born and last-born have the best ed from the 2000 Census (Black et al. Does birth order affect human lifespan? 391 2005). Moreover, other studies have re- Conclusions vealed an inverse link between education attainment and mortality. Adults with These findings are consistent with the higher education are healthier and tend idea that birth order can affect lifespan. to live longer than those with primary or Nevertheless, the observed effects are vocational education (Baker et al. 2011; rarely straightforward as firstborns do Hummer and Hernandez 2013; Krueger not always live longer than their younger et al. 2015; Sasson and Hayward 2019; siblings. Males are more vulnerable than Johnston 2020). females and these effects are typically Several investigations have indicated more pronounced in males. a significant role of parents and older siblings in shaping proper pro-health be- Authors’ contribution haviours in younger siblings. It has been demonstrated that younger siblings are PPC did a literature review, interpreted more likely to use stimulants, e.g. alco- the results and wrote the manuscript. AŻ hol, if their older siblings also use these prepared the data for analysis, advised on substances (Elliott 1992; Modin 2002). interpretation of the results and wrote an Given that first-born children are more early version of the paper. SK conceived likely to achieve higher levels of educa- the idea for the article, analysed the data tion and higher positions on the social and proofread the manuscript. scale, they tend to live longer compared with their younger siblings. This state- Conflict of interest ment is consistent with several studies on child survival. It is also possible that The authors declare no conflict of inter - the long-term effect of birth order posi- ests. tion on mortality is mediated by person- ality traits, adult social class, education, Corresponding author income and SES. It is, however, important to note that Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Division of this study is not without its limitations. Anatomy, Department of Human Mor- One major issue is that the observed phology and Embryology, Faculty of lifespan was rather short, which sug- Medicine, Wroclaw Medical Universi- gests that life expectancy was reduced ty, 6a Chałubińskiego Street, 50-368 due to unknown factors such as natural Wrocław, Poland disasters, epidemics and conflicts. Fu - e-mail: piotr.chmielewski@umed.wroc.pl thermore, Catholic priests often exclud- ed atheists, agnostics, non-believers and References those who professed other faiths from Aiken CE, Ozanne SE. 2014. Transgenera- their parish registers. Thus, it is possi- tional developmental programming. Hum ble that the collected data represent only Reprod Update 20:63–75. Catholics. However, the overwhelming Baker DP, Leon J, Smith Greenaway EG, Col- majority of Poles identified themselves as lins J, Movit M. 2011. The education ef- Catholic, which means that the collected fect on population health: a reassessment. data are still representative for the Polish Popul Dev Rev 37:307–32. population. 392 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Barclay K, Kolk M. 2015. Birth order and mor- size and birth order from exogenous vari- tality: a population-based cohort study. ation in fertility. J Hum Resour 41:722– Demography 52:613–39. 737. Bartke A. 2015. Early life events can shape ag- Costa D, Scognamiglio M, Fiorito C, Ben- ing and longevity. Curr Aging Sci 8:11–3. incasa G, Napoli C. 2019. Genetic back- Becker GS, Lewis HG. 1973. On the interac- ground, epigenetic factors and dietary tion between the quantity and quality of interventions which influence human lon - children. J Polit Econ 81:S279–88. gevity. Biogerontology 20:605–26. Behrman JR, Taubman P. 1986. Birth order, Crow JF. 1997. The high spontaneous mu- schooling, and earnings. J Labor Econ tation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94: 4:121–50. 8380–6. Black SE. 2017. New evidence on the impacts Derraik JG, Ahlsson F, Lundgren M, Jons- of birth order. NBER Reporter 4:15–8. son B, Cutfield WS. 2016. First-borns Black SE, Devereux PJ, Salvanes, KG. 2005. have greater BMI and are more likely to The more the merrier? The effect of family be overweight or obese: a study of sibling size and birth order on children’s educa- pairs among 26,812 Swedish women. J tion. Q J Econ 120:669–700. Epidemiol Community Health 70:78–81. Blake J. 1989. Number of siblings and educa- Doblhammer G, Vaupel JW. 2001. Lifespan de- tional attainment. Science 245:32–6. pends on month of birth. PNAS 98:2934– Chamani IJ, Keefe DL. 2019. Epigenetics and 9. female reproductive aging. Front Endocri- Downey DB. 2001. Number of siblings and nol 10:473. intellectual development. The resource Chmielewski P. 2016. Teoria sezonowego pro- dilution explanation. Am Psychol 56:497– gramowania długowieczności. Kosmos 504. 65:323–37. Easey KE, Mars B, Pearson R, Heron J, Gun- Chmielewski P . 2017. Rethinking modern the- nell D. 2019. Association of birth order ories of ageing and their classification: the with adolescent mental health and suicide proximate mechanisms and the ultimate attempts: a population-based longitudi- explanations. Anthropol Rev 80:259–72. nal study.  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Chmielewski PP. 2020. From gerontology to 28:1079–86. geroscience: a synopsis on ageing. An- Elliott BA. 1992. Birth order and health: thropol Rev 83:419–37. major issues. Social Science & Medicine Chmielewski P, Borysławski K. 2016. Un- 35:443–52. derstanding the links between month of Fukuya Y, Fujiwara T, Isumi A, Doi S, Ochi birth, body height, and longevity: why M. 2021. Association of birth order with some studies reveal that shorter people mental health problems, self-esteem, re- live longer – further evidence of seasonal silience, and happiness among children: programming from the Polish population. results from a-CHILD study. Front Psychi- Anthropol Rev 79:375–95. atry 12:638088. Chmielewski P, Borysławski K, Strzelec B. Gates L, Lineberger MR, Crockett J, Hubbard 2016. Contemporary views on human ag- J. 1988. Birth order and its relationship ing and longevity. Anthropol Rev 79:115– to depression, anxiety, and self-concept 142. test scores in children.  J Genet Psychol Conley D. 2000. Sibship sex composition: ef- 149:29–34. fects on educational attainment. Soc Sci Gavrilov LA, Gavrilova NS, Semenova VG, Ev- Res 29:441–57. dokushkina GN, Kroutko VN, Gavrilova Conley D, Glauber R. 2006. Parental educa- AL, Evdokushkina NN, Lapshin EV. 1997. tion investment and children’s academic Maternal age and lifespan of the offspring. risk: estimates of the impact of sibship Proc Russian Acad Sci 354:569–72. Does birth order affect human lifespan? 393 Gavrilov LA, Gavrilova NS, Evdokushkina skills than later born siblings. Frontiers in GN, Semenova VG. 2000. Mutations, pa- Psychology 6:705. rental age, and offspring longevity: new Kessler D. 1991. Birth order, family size, and ideas and findings. Am J Phys Anthropol achievement: family structure and wage 30:156. determination. Journal of Labor Econom- Gavrilova NS, Gavrilov LA. 2007. Search for ics 9:413–26. predictors of exceptional human longevi- Krueger PM, Tran MK, Hummer RA, Chang ty. N Am Actuar J 11:49–67. VW. 2015. Mortality attributable to low Global BMI Mortality Collaboration, Di An- levels of education in the United States. gelantonio E, Bhupathiraju ShN, Worm- PloS One 10:e0131809. ser D, Gao P, Kaptoge S, Berrington de Lammi N, Moltchanova E, Blomstedt P, Eriks- Gonzalez A, et al. 2016. Body-mass index son JG, Taskinen O, Sarti C, et al. 2007. and all-cause mortality: individual-partic- The effect of birth order and parental age ipant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospec- on the risk of type 1 and 2 diabetes among tive studies in four continents. Lancet. young adults. Diabetologia 50:2433–8. 388:776–86. Lehmann JY, Nuevo-Chiquero A, Vidal-Fer- Gluckman PD, Hanson MA, Cooper C, Thorn- nandez M. 2018. The early origins of birth burg KL. 2008. Effect of in utero and ear- order differences in children’s outcomes ly-life conditions on adult health and dis- and parental behaviour. J Hum Resour ease. N Engl J Med 359:61–73. 53:123–56. Govindaraju D, Atzmon G, Barzilai N. 2015. Lerchl A. 2004. Month of birth and life ex- Genetics, lifestyle and longevity: Lessons pectancy: role of gender and age in a com- from centenarians.  Appl Transl Genom parative approach. Naturwissenschaften 4:23–32. 91:422–5. Hanushek E. 1992. The trade-off between Li H, Zhang J, Zhu Y. 2008. The quanti- child quantity and quality. J Polit Econ ty-quality trade-off of children in a devel- 100:84–117. oping country: identification using Chi - Hemati Z, Keikha M, Riahi R, Daniali SS, nese twins. Demography 45:223–43. Goudarzi M, Kelishadi R. 2021. A system- Martin-Gronert MS, Ozanne SE. 2012. Mech- atic review on the association of month anisms underlying the developmental ori- and season of birth with future anthro- gins of disease. Rev Endocr Metab Disord pometric measures. Nature Pediatr Res 13:85–92. 89:31–45. Mills KT, Stefanescu A, He J. 2020. The glob- Howe LD, Hallal PC, Matijasevich A, Wells al epidemiology of hypertension. Nat Rev JC, Santos IS, Barros AJ, et al.2014. The Nephrol 16:223–37. association of birth order with later body Mishra SK, Ram B, Singh A, Yadav A. 2017. mass index and blood pressure: a compar- Birth order, stage of infancy and infant ison between prospective cohort studies mortality in India. J Biosoc Sci 50:604–25. from the United Kingdom and Brazil. Na- Modin B. 2002. Birth order and mortality: ture Int J Obes 38:973–9. a life-long follow-up of 14,200 boys and Hummer RA, Hernandez EM. 2013. The ef- girls born in early 20th century Sweden. fect of educational attainment on adult Soc Sci Med 54:1051–64. mortality in the United States. Population Muller DC, Murphy N, Johansson M, Ferra- Bulletin 68:1–16. ri P, Tsilidis KK, Boutron-Ruault MC, et Johnston RB. 2020. Promoting education is al. 2016. Modifiable causes of premature preventive medicine at its best. Pediatr death in middle-age in Western Europe: Res 87:185–7. results from the EPIC cohort study. BMC Keller K, Troesch LM, Grob A. 2015. First- Med 14:87. born siblings show better second language O’Leary SR, Wingard DL, Edelstein SL, Criqui MH, Tucker JS, Friedman HS. 1996. 394 Piotr Paweł Chmielewski, Aleksandra Żebrak, Sławomir Kozieł Is birth order associated with adult mor- configuration: recent advances and chal - tality? Ann Epidemiol 6:34–40. lenges. Ann Rev Sociol 28:243–69. Powell B, Steelman LC. 1995. Feeling the Stöger R. 2008. The thrifty epigenotype: an pinch: child spacing and constraints on acquired and heritable predisposition for parental economic investments in chil- obesity and diabetes? Bio Essays 30:156– dren. Social Forces 73:1465–86. 66. Price J. 2008. Parental quality time: does birth Tanskanen AO, Erola J, Kallio J. 2016. Paren- order matter? J Hum Resour 43:240–65. tal resources, sibship size, and education- Priest NK, Mackowiak B, Promislow DEL. al performance in 20 countries: Evidence 2002. The role of parental age effects on for the compensation model.  Cross Cult the evolution of aging. Evolution 56:927– Res 50:452–77. 35. Taylor SE. 2010. Mechanisms linking early Rosenberg M. 1988. Birth weights in three life stress to adult health outcomes. PNAS Norwegian cities, 1860–1984. Secular 107:8507–12. trends and influencing factors. Ann Hum Thibault V, Bélanger M, LeBlanc E, Babin L, Biol 15:275–88. Halpine S, Greene B, et al.2016. Factors Sasson I, Hayward MD. 2019. Association be- that could explain the increasing preva- tween educational attainment and caus- lence of type 2 diabetes among adults in es of death among white and black US a Canadian province: a critical review and adults, 2010–2017. JAMA 322:756–63. analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr 8:71. Siervo M, Horta BL, Stephan BC, Victora CG, Vaupel JW, Yashin AI. 1985. Heterogeneity’s Wells JC. 2010. First-borns carry a high- ruses: some surprising effects of selection er metabolic risk in early adulthood: ev- on population dynamics. American Statis- idence from a prospective cohort study. tician 39:176–95. PLoS One 5:e13907. Wells JCK. 2011. The thrifty phenotype: an Smith KR, Mineau GP, Garibotti G, Kerber adaptation in growth or metabolism? Am R. 2009. Effects of childhood and mid- J Hum Biol 23:65–75. dle-adulthood family conditions on lat- Whitwell HJ, Bacalini MG, Blyuss O, Chen er-life mortality: evidence from the Utah S, Garagnani P, Gordleeva SY, et al. 2020. population database, 1850–2002. Soc Sci The human body as a super network: digi- Med 68:1649–58. tal methods to analyze the propagation of Steelman L, Powell B, Werum R, Carter S. aging. Front Aging Neurosci 12:136. 2002. Reconsidering the effects of sibling

Journal

Anthropological Review – de Gruyter

Published: Jan 1, 2022

Keywords: age at death; birth order; health; lifespan; mortality; siblings; survival

There are no references for this article.