3 ms·
> The only "online crap" explanation I can think of is if the "first born" box was pre-filled and people changed the response for their number of siblings but d
by richmarr 9y ago
> The only "online crap" explanation I can think of is if the "first born" box was pre-filled and people changed the response for their number of siblings but didn't change the pre-filled response for birth order.
In the survey, birth order is inferred from the field that records the number of elder siblings. If the form design nudged respondants to not completing that field more than other fields (via unclear or biasing wording, ordering effects, etc) that could produce a similar outcome.
I haven't looked at the survey so no idea, but there are more potential causes than defaults.
- jm_l 9y agoI took the survey, am a younger sibling, and have very strong memory of the questions being very fair. If I think I my hardest I can't imagine any reason another responder would have been pulled to unconsciously report wrong data on the birth order questions.
- richmarr 9y agoWith respect, your opinion is anecdotal. These things aren't always obvious, or even visible to respondants at all. I'm not saying there's no effect, just that right now this claimed finding seems contrary to the existing body of evidence. This finding may well be accurate (and the existing studies in error). Alternatively it may be a mistake. Alternatively both could be true and this survey represents a special case, some kind of selection bias. Given that this survey is yet to be peer reviewed or replicated I think the most likely explanation is a mistake, but that's just my perception of the balance of probabilities.