Hedging Example 2
Examples of hedging devices used to express caution
The following is an excerpt from an article entitled "Are firstborns really natural leaders?" in The Conversation by Klara Sabolova,
Lecturer in Psychology at the University of South Wales. The article contains numerous examples of hedging devices. You can also view the whole article by clicking in the top right hand corner of the box below.
Loading
Mouse over the highlighted words to see how hedging is used in this text.
The firstborn effect
According to a recent Swedish study, firstborns have more favourable personality traits, including openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extroversion, friendliness and greater emotional stability, than their later-born siblings. As a result, they are more likely to become chief executives and senior managers, whereas later-born children, who love to take risks, often end up being self-employed.
Firstborns tend to possess psychological characteristics related to leadership, including responsibility, creativity, obedience and dominance. They are also more likely to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their younger siblings. These qualities are believed to make firstborns more successful. But the “baby” of the family is more likely to take risks, rebel, show addictive behaviour and lack independence compared with their older siblings.
There are two explanations that could justify this firstborn effect. From the evolutionary perspective, parents favour and invest (shelter and food) in their firstborn to increase their chances of survival and reproduction. But this comes at a cost because the parent is now unable to invest the same amount of resources in later-born offspring.
Younger siblings then have to compete for these limited parental resources and attention. (So parents who spend less time helping their later-born children with schoolwork may do so because of the lack of spare resources.)
But children who are born last often receive preferential treatment. This is because parents now have the last chance to invest their resources. They are also older and tend to have more money at this point. Parents are more likely to invest in the education of their latest-born offspring.
Parental expectations could also explain the more favourable personality traits among firstborns. That is, parents tend to be stricter in their parenting with the firstborn. Parents also encourage toughness because firstborns need to act as role models (and surrogate parent) for their later-born siblings and defend the values of the parents.
Firstborns must keep their “first” position and never fall behind the younger sibling. The rivalry and conflict between firstborn and later-born offspring is the result of the younger sibling’s need to establish their position in the family. Although they try to race and copy the role of their older firstborn sibling, this privileged position is already taken. Laterborns must also differentiate themselves to attract parental resources, which could explain their rebellious behaviour.
Mixed evidence
These explanations are sound, but the evidence to support the link between personality traits and birth order is mixed. Some studies show a strong association between leadership abilities and birth order, but others do not support these findings.
The inconsistencies in findings may stem from factors that are sometimes neglected, such as the sex of the siblings. The firstborn effect (and the chances of becoming a chief executive) is weaker in the case of later-born males with older brothers as opposed to those who have older sisters.
Age gap spacing also needs to be taken into account because larger age gaps between siblings result in a more nurturing surrogate parent role of the older sibling and reduces the rivalry conflict between the siblings.
The fertility age of the mother could also sway the personality outcomes because mothers who have later-born children are older than when they had their firstborn and many studies don’t control for this factor.
It appears that the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised.
Obviously, not all first born children become chief executives or senior managers. It's a question of probability. According to the Swedish study, there is a statistical probability that there will be more firstborns among this category of employment.
Without reading the details of the study we don't know how likely this is. It's rather vague.
Vagueness is what hedging is all about; imprecise probabilities or likelihoods, general tendencies etc. Sometimes these expressions give the impression of a significant differences whereas in fact the likelihood may be very slim indeed. In fact, this article concludes that there is "mixed evidence" and that it appears that "the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised".
"Likely" is an adjective. Other adjectives used in this way are probable, possible, certain (used in a negative sentence - not certain that).
The word “tend" is a verb commonly used to hedge. It indicates a probability but we don't know without consulting orginal research what that probability exactly is. The noun is also used: tendency.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph. "They" in this sentence refers to "Firstborns" in the previous one. "more likely" is a hedge because it is vague: we don't know how much more likely firstborns are to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their siblings. It may be a big difference or it may be insignificant. However, in these texts "likely" usually means that the researchers have discovered a small but statistically significant difference. You can investigate this by following the links in the original article.
The words “are believed" is also a vague term. It's in the passive voice so we don't know who believes - presumably those who research these topics. The verb "believe" leaves room for doubt. Without evidence that may convince others, a belief is just a statement of what one person or group of persons think. Others may have different ideas.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph and earlier in this one. In this case, the "likelihood" is that the "baby" of the family will indulge in negative behaviour. It's a hedge because obviously not all younger siblings do this and there are no statistics in this article. However, the link in this paragraph will take you to a research paper which investigated birth order and civil disobedience and claims that there is a "significant relationship between the number of times the students had been arrested and birth order".
There are 4 instances of the word "could" in this text. "could" is a modal verb and like "may" and "might" is often used as a hedge.
The word "could" makes a big difference to this sentence. Without it "There are two explanations that justify this firstborn effect" is a strong categorical statement with no room for discussion. The word "could" softens this significantly. Now the sentence becomes one of possibility allowing for doubt, discussion, further investigation and refinement of this hypothesis. This is what hedging is all about. It allows for doubt and error, and it also is more likely to draw the reader into the discussion rather than just accepting or refusing to accept the writer's position.
This is the first instance of the modal "may" in this text. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children. It works in exactly the same way as the word "could" in the previous paragraph.
"Often" belongs in a class of words (adjectives and adverbs) known as approximators. They have a hedging effect by making the statement less conclusive. Without the word "often", this sentence would mean that children who are born last always receive preferential treatment. This would be a very strong statement indeed.
"Tend" is an impersonal verb indicating probability and as such is used to hedge. Without this word, the sentence would mean that all parents always have more money at this later stage of their lives. So the word "tend" (or some other hedging device) is important in order to indicate that this is generally true but not always.
We’ve already seen that "more likely" is an indication of probability. It’s an important hedge for the same reason as the other two hedges in this paragraph. The likelihood is not just a guess on the part of the writer; there is a link in this sentence pointing to research which supports this idea.
This is the second instances of the word "could" in this text. This is part 2 of the two explanations mentioned three paragraphs back. Remember, this is a possible explanation, not a definitive one.
This is the second example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation (for the “more favourable personality traits among firstborns”). The fact that it is advanced as a possible explanation with this hedging device leaves open the possibility of other explanations and also the possibility that this explanation may not be a good one.
Like the previous examples of "tend" this is an indication of probability rather than a statement of the absolute truth.
This paragraph is itself a type of hedge. The first sentence states that the evidence (for the link between personality traits and birth order) is mixed. So now we have some doubt about the evidence supporting the explanations. The second sentence tells us more about the mixed evidence: “Some studies show a strong association …” but others “do not support these findings” and there are links in this sentence to research supporting both these positions.
This is the third example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation for the (supposed) rebellious behaviour of laterborns.
This paragraph tries to explain why the evidence mentioned in the previous paragraph is mixed.
But again the writer needs to be cautious because there is no definitive answer. So she uses the modal "may" to indicate this.
The word "sometimes" is another example of an approximator which can be used as a hedging device. In this case it’s not really a hedge - the hedge is in the word "may”. But it is important. The factors may not always be neglected, only sometimes. So this could explain the inconsistencies. Not having control over factors which influence a phenomenon can give rise to difficulties in interpretation of results.
This is the 4th instance of the word "could" in this text. This "could" also signals a possible factor. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children.
The modal "may" in this last sentence is also a hedge. The writer is saying that we cannot be sure about the role of birth order in determining psychological profiles.
Mouse over the highlighted words to see how hedging is used in this text.
The firstborn effect
According to a recent Swedish study, firstborns have more favourable personality traits, including openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extroversion, friendliness and greater emotional stability, than their later-born siblings. As a result, they are more likely to become chief executives and senior managers, whereas later-born children, who love to take risks, often end up being self-employed.
Firstborns tend to possess psychological characteristics related to leadership, including responsibility, creativity, obedience and dominance. They are also more likely to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their younger siblings. These qualities are believed to make firstborns more successful. But the “baby” of the family is more likely to take risks, rebel, show addictive behaviour and lack independence compared with their older siblings.
There are two explanations that could justify this firstborn effect. From the evolutionary perspective, parents favour and invest (shelter and food) in their firstborn to increase their chances of survival and reproduction. But this comes at a cost because the parent is now unable to invest the same amount of resources in later-born offspring.
Younger siblings then have to compete for these limited parental resources and attention. (So parents who spend less time helping their later-born children with schoolwork may do so because of the lack of spare resources.)
But children who are born last often receive preferential treatment. This is because parents now have the last chance to invest their resources. They are also older and tend to have more money at this point. Parents are more likely to invest in the education of their latest-born offspring.
Parental expectations could also explain the more favourable personality traits among firstborns. That is, parents tend to be stricter in their parenting with the firstborn. Parents also encourage toughness because firstborns need to act as role models (and surrogate parent) for their later-born siblings and defend the values of the parents.
Firstborns must keep their “first” position and never fall behind the younger sibling. The rivalry and conflict between firstborn and later-born offspring is the result of the younger sibling’s need to establish their position in the family. Although they try to race and copy the role of their older firstborn sibling, this privileged position is already taken. Laterborns must also differentiate themselves to attract parental resources, which could explain their rebellious behaviour.
Mixed evidence
These explanations are sound, but the evidence to support the link between personality traits and birth order is mixed. Some studies show a strong association between leadership abilities and birth order, but others do not support these findings.
The inconsistencies in findings may stem from factors that are sometimes neglected, such as the sex of the siblings. The firstborn effect (and the chances of becoming a chief executive) is weaker in the case of later-born males with older brothers as opposed to those who have older sisters.
Age gap spacing also needs to be taken into account because larger age gaps between siblings result in a more nurturing surrogate parent role of the older sibling and reduces the rivalry conflict between the siblings.
The fertility age of the mother could also sway the personality outcomes because mothers who have later-born children are older than when they had their firstborn and many studies don’t control for this factor.
It appears that the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised.
Obviously, not all first born children become chief executives or senior managers. It's a question of probability. According to the Swedish study, there is a statistical probability that there will be more firstborns among this category of employment.
Without reading the details of the study we don't know how likely this is. It's rather vague.
Vagueness is what hedging is all about; imprecise probabilities or likelihoods, general tendencies etc. Sometimes these expressions give the impression of a significant differences whereas in fact the likelihood may be very slim indeed. In fact, this article concludes that there is "mixed evidence" and that it appears that "the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised".
"Likely" is an adjective. Other adjectives used in this way are probable, possible, certain (used in a negative sentence - not certain that).
The word “tend" is a verb commonly used to hedge. It indicates a probability but we don't know without consulting orginal research what that probability exactly is. The noun is also used: tendency.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph. "They" in this sentence refers to "Firstborns" in the previous one. "more likely" is a hedge because it is vague: we don't know how much more likely firstborns are to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their siblings. It may be a big difference or it may be insignificant. However, in these texts "likely" usually means that the researchers have discovered a small but statistically significant difference. You can investigate this by following the links in the original article.
The words “are believed" is also a vague term. It's in the passive voice so we don't know who believes - presumably those who research these topics. The verb "believe" leaves room for doubt. Without evidence that may convince others, a belief is just a statement of what one person or group of persons think. Others may have different ideas.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph and earlier in this one. In this case, the "likelihood" is that the "baby" of the family will indulge in negative behaviour. It's a hedge because obviously not all younger siblings do this and there are no statistics in this article. However, the link in this paragraph will take you to a research paper which investigated birth order and civil disobedience and claims that there is a "significant relationship between the number of times the students had been arrested and birth order".
There are 4 instances of the word "could" in this text. "could" is a modal verb and like "may" and "might" is often used as a hedge.
The word "could" makes a big difference to this sentence. Without it "There are two explanations that justify this firstborn effect" is a strong categorical statement with no room for discussion. The word "could" softens this significantly. Now the sentence becomes one of possibility allowing for doubt, discussion, further investigation and refinement of this hypothesis. This is what hedging is all about. It allows for doubt and error, and it also is more likely to draw the reader into the discussion rather than just accepting or refusing to accept the writer's position.
This is the first instance of the modal "may" in this text. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children. It works in exactly the same way as the word "could" in the previous paragraph.
"Often" belongs in a class of words (adjectives and adverbs) known as approximators. They have a hedging effect by making the statement less conclusive. Without the word "often", this sentence would mean that children who are born last always receive preferential treatment. This would be a very strong statement indeed.
"Tend" is an impersonal verb indicating probability and as such is used to hedge. Without this word, the sentence would mean that all parents always have more money at this later stage of their lives. So the word "tend" (or some other hedging device) is important in order to indicate that this is generally true but not always.
We’ve already seen that "more likely" is an indication of probability. It’s an important hedge for the same reason as the other two hedges in this paragraph. The likelihood is not just a guess on the part of the writer; there is a link in this sentence pointing to research which supports this idea.
This is the second instances of the word "could" in this text. This is part 2 of the two explanations mentioned three paragraphs back. Remember, this is a possible explanation, not a definitive one.
This is the second example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation (for the “more favourable personality traits among firstborns”). The fact that it is advanced as a possible explanation with this hedging device leaves open the possibility of other explanations and also the possibility that this explanation may not be a good one.
Like the previous examples of "tend" this is an indication of probability rather than a statement of the absolute truth.
This is the third example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation for the (supposed) rebellious behaviour of laterborns.
This paragraph is itself a type of hedge. The first sentence states that the evidence (for the link between personality traits and birth order) is mixed. So now we have some doubt about the evidence supporting the explanations. The second sentence tells us more about the mixed evidence: “Some studies show a strong association …” but others “do not support these findings” and there are links in this sentence to research supporting both these positions.
This paragraph tries to explain why the evidence mentioned in the previous paragraph is mixed.
But again the writer needs to be cautious because there is no definitive answer. So she uses the modal "may" to indicate this.
The word "sometimes" is another example of an approximator which can be used as a hedging device. In this case it’s not really a hedge - the hedge is in the word "may”. But it is important. The factors may not always be neglected, only sometimes. So this could explain the inconsistencies. Not having control over factors which influence a phenomenon can give rise to difficulties in interpretation of results.
This is the 4th instance of the word "could" in this text. This "could" also signals a possible factor. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children.
The modal "may" in this last sentence is also a hedge. The writer is saying that we cannot be sure about the role of birth order in determining psychological profiles.
Mouse over the highlighted words to see how hedging is used in this text.
The firstborn effect
According to a recent Swedish study, firstborns have more favourable personality traits, including openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extroversion, friendliness and greater emotional stability, than their later-born siblings. As a result, they are more likely to become chief executives and senior managers, whereas later-born children, who love to take risks, often end up being self-employed.
Firstborns tend to possess psychological characteristics related to leadership, including responsibility, creativity, obedience and dominance. They are also more likely to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their younger siblings. These qualities are believed to make firstborns more successful. But the “baby” of the family is more likely to take risks, rebel, show addictive behaviour and lack independence compared with their older siblings.
There are two explanations that could justify this firstborn effect. From the evolutionary perspective, parents favour and invest (shelter and food) in their firstborn to increase their chances of survival and reproduction. But this comes at a cost because the parent is now unable to invest the same amount of resources in later-born offspring.
Younger siblings then have to compete for these limited parental resources and attention. (So parents who spend less time helping their later-born children with schoolwork may do so because of the lack of spare resources.)
But children who are born last often receive preferential treatment. This is because parents now have the last chance to invest their resources. They are also older and tend to have more money at this point. Parents are more likely to invest in the education of their latest-born offspring.
Parental expectations could also explain the more favourable personality traits among firstborns. That is, parents tend to be stricter in their parenting with the firstborn. Parents also encourage toughness because firstborns need to act as role models (and surrogate parent) for their later-born siblings and defend the values of the parents.
Firstborns must keep their “first” position and never fall behind the younger sibling. The rivalry and conflict between firstborn and later-born offspring is the result of the younger sibling’s need to establish their position in the family. Although they try to race and copy the role of their older firstborn sibling, this privileged position is already taken. Laterborns must also differentiate themselves to attract parental resources, which could explain their rebellious behaviour.
Mixed evidence
These explanations are sound, but the evidence to support the link between personality traits and birth order is mixed. Some studies show a strong association between leadership abilities and birth order, but others do not support these findings.
The inconsistencies in findings may stem from factors that are sometimes neglected, such as the sex of the siblings. The firstborn effect (and the chances of becoming a chief executive) is weaker in the case of later-born males with older brothers as opposed to those who have older sisters.
Age gap spacing also needs to be taken into account because larger age gaps between siblings result in a more nurturing surrogate parent role of the older sibling and reduces the rivalry conflict between the siblings.
The fertility age of the mother could also sway the personality outcomes because mothers who have later-born children are older than when they had their firstborn and many studies don’t control for this factor.
It appears that the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised.
Obviously, not all first born children become chief executives or senior managers. It's a question of probability. According to the Swedish study, there is a statistical probability that there will be more firstborns among this category of employment.
Without reading the details of the study we don't know how likely this is. It's rather vague.
Vagueness is what hedging is all about; imprecise probabilities or likelihoods, general tendencies etc. Sometimes these expressions give the impression of a significant differences whereas in fact the likelihood may be very slim indeed. In fact, this article concludes that there is "mixed evidence" and that it appears that "the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised".
"Likely" is an adjective. Other adjectives used in this way are probable, possible, certain (used in a negative sentence - not certain that).
The word “tend" is a verb commonly used to hedge. It indicates a probability but we don't know without consulting orginal research what that probability exactly is. The noun is also used: tendency.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph. "They" in this sentence refers to "Firstborns" in the previous one. "more likely" is a hedge because it is vague: we don't know how much more likely firstborns are to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their siblings. It may be a big difference or it may be insignificant. However, in these texts "likely" usually means that the researchers have discovered a small but statistically significant difference. You can investigate this by following the links in the original article.
The words “are believed" is also a vague term. It's in the passive voice so we don't know who believes - presumably those who research these topics. The verb "believe" leaves room for doubt. Without evidence that may convince others, a belief is just a statement of what one person or group of persons think. Others may have different ideas.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph and earlier in this one. In this case, the "likelihood" is that the "baby" of the family will indulge in negative behaviour. It's a hedge because obviously not all younger siblings do this and there are no statistics in this article. However, the link in this paragraph will take you to a research paper which investigated birth order and civil disobedience and claims that there is a "significant relationship between the number of times the students had been arrested and birth order".
There are 4 instances of the word "could" in this text. "could" is a modal verb and like "may" and "might" is often used as a hedge.
The word "could" makes a big difference to this sentence. Without it "There are two explanations that justify this firstborn effect" is a strong categorical statement with no room for discussion. The word "could" softens this significantly. Now the sentence becomes one of possibility allowing for doubt, discussion, further investigation and refinement of this hypothesis. This is what hedging is all about. It allows for doubt and error, and it also is more likely to draw the reader into the discussion rather than just accepting or refusing to accept the writer's position.
This is the first instance of the modal "may" in this text. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children. It works in exactly the same way as the word "could" in the previous paragraph.
"Often" belongs in a class of words (adjectives and adverbs) known as approximators. They have a hedging effect by making the statement less conclusive. Without the word "often", this sentence would mean that children who are born last always receive preferential treatment. This would be a very strong statement indeed.
"Tend" is an impersonal verb indicating probability and as such is used to hedge. Without this word, the sentence would mean that all parents always have more money at this later stage of their lives. So the word "tend" (or some other hedging device) is important in order to indicate that this is generally true but not always.
We’ve already seen that "more likely" is an indication of probability. It’s an important hedge for the same reason as the other two hedges in this paragraph. The likelihood is not just a guess on the part of the writer; there is a link in this sentence pointing to research which supports this idea.
This is the second instances of the word "could" in this text. This is part 2 of the two explanations mentioned three paragraphs back. Remember, this is a possible explanation, not a definitive one.
This is the second example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation (for the “more favourable personality traits among firstborns”). The fact that it is advanced as a possible explanation with this hedging device leaves open the possibility of other explanations and also the possibility that this explanation may not be a good one.
Like the previous examples of "tend" this is an indication of probability rather than a statement of the absolute truth.
This is the third example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation for the (supposed) rebellious behaviour of laterborns.
This paragraph is itself a type of hedge. The first sentence states that the evidence (for the link between personality traits and birth order) is mixed. So now we have some doubt about the evidence supporting the explanations. The second sentence tells us more about the mixed evidence: “Some studies show a strong association …” but others “do not support these findings” and there are links in this sentence to research supporting both these positions.
This paragraph tries to explain why the evidence mentioned in the previous paragraph is mixed.
But again the writer needs to be cautious because there is no definitive answer. So she uses the modal "may" to indicate this.
The word "sometimes" is another example of an approximator which can be used as a hedging device. In this case it’s not really a hedge - the hedge is in the word "may”. But it is important. The factors may not always be neglected, only sometimes. So this could explain the inconsistencies. Not having control over factors which influence a phenomenon can give rise to difficulties in interpretation of results.
This is the 4th instance of the word "could" in this text. This "could" also signals a possible factor. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children.
The modal "may" in this last sentence is also a hedge. The writer is saying that we cannot be sure about the role of birth order in determining psychological profiles.
Mouse over the highlighted words to see how hedging is used in this text.
The firstborn effect
According to a recent Swedish study, firstborns have more favourable personality traits, including openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extroversion, friendliness and greater emotional stability, than their later-born siblings. As a result, they are more likely to become chief executives and senior managers, whereas later-born children, who love to take risks, often end up being self-employed.
Firstborns tend to possess psychological characteristics related to leadership, including responsibility, creativity, obedience and dominance. They are also more likely to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their younger siblings. These qualities are believed to make firstborns more successful. But the “baby” of the family is more likely to take risks, rebel, show addictive behaviour and lack independence compared with their older siblings.
There are two explanations that could justify this firstborn effect. From the evolutionary perspective, parents favour and invest (shelter and food) in their firstborn to increase their chances of survival and reproduction. But this comes at a cost because the parent is now unable to invest the same amount of resources in later-born offspring.
Younger siblings then have to compete for these limited parental resources and attention. (So parents who spend less time helping their later-born children with schoolwork may do so because of the lack of spare resources.)
But children who are born last often receive preferential treatment. This is because parents now have the last chance to invest their resources. They are also older and tend to have more money at this point. Parents are more likely to invest in the education of their latest-born offspring.
Parental expectations could also explain the more favourable personality traits among firstborns. That is, parents tend to be stricter in their parenting with the firstborn. Parents also encourage toughness because firstborns need to act as role models (and surrogate parent) for their later-born siblings and defend the values of the parents.
Firstborns must keep their “first” position and never fall behind the younger sibling. The rivalry and conflict between firstborn and later-born offspring is the result of the younger sibling’s need to establish their position in the family. Although they try to race and copy the role of their older firstborn sibling, this privileged position is already taken. Laterborns must also differentiate themselves to attract parental resources, which could explain their rebellious behaviour.
Mixed evidence
These explanations are sound, but the evidence to support the link between personality traits and birth order is mixed. Some studies show a strong association between leadership abilities and birth order, but others do not support these findings.
The inconsistencies in findings may stem from factors that are sometimes neglected, such as the sex of the siblings. The firstborn effect (and the chances of becoming a chief executive) is weaker in the case of later-born males with older brothers as opposed to those who have older sisters.
Age gap spacing also needs to be taken into account because larger age gaps between siblings result in a more nurturing surrogate parent role of the older sibling and reduces the rivalry conflict between the siblings.
The fertility age of the mother could also sway the personality outcomes because mothers who have later-born children are older than when they had their firstborn and many studies don’t control for this factor.
It appears that the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised.
Obviously, not all first born children become chief executives or senior managers. It's a question of probability. According to the Swedish study, there is a statistical probability that there will be more firstborns among this category of employment.
Without reading the details of the study we don't know how likely this is. It's rather vague.
Vagueness is what hedging is all about; imprecise probabilities or likelihoods, general tendencies etc. Sometimes these expressions give the impression of a significant differences whereas in fact the likelihood may be very slim indeed. In fact, this article concludes that there is "mixed evidence" and that it appears that "the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised".
"Likely" is an adjective. Other adjectives used in this way are probable, possible, certain (used in a negative sentence - not certain that).
The word “tend" is a verb commonly used to hedge. It indicates a probability but we don't know without consulting orginal research what that probability exactly is. The noun is also used: tendency.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph. "They" in this sentence refers to "Firstborns" in the previous one. "more likely" is a hedge because it is vague: we don't know how much more likely firstborns are to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their siblings. It may be a big difference or it may be insignificant. However, in these texts "likely" usually means that the researchers have discovered a small but statistically significant difference. You can investigate this by following the links in the original article.
The words “are believed" is also a vague term. It's in the passive voice so we don't know who believes - presumably those who research these topics. The verb "believe" leaves room for doubt. Without evidence that may convince others, a belief is just a statement of what one person or group of persons think. Others may have different ideas.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph and earlier in this one. In this case, the "likelihood" is that the "baby" of the family will indulge in negative behaviour. It's a hedge because obviously not all younger siblings do this and there are no statistics in this article. However, the link in this paragraph will take you to a research paper which investigated birth order and civil disobedience and claims that there is a "significant relationship between the number of times the students had been arrested and birth order".
There are 4 instances of the word "could" in this text. "could" is a modal verb and like "may" and "might" is often used as a hedge.
The word "could" makes a big difference to this sentence. Without it "There are two explanations that justify this firstborn effect" is a strong categorical statement with no room for discussion. The word "could" softens this significantly. Now the sentence becomes one of possibility allowing for doubt, discussion, further investigation and refinement of this hypothesis. This is what hedging is all about. It allows for doubt and error, and it also is more likely to draw the reader into the discussion rather than just accepting or refusing to accept the writer's position.
This is the first instance of the modal "may" in this text. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children. It works in exactly the same way as the word "could" in the previous paragraph.
"Often" belongs in a class of words (adjectives and adverbs) known as approximators. They have a hedging effect by making the statement less conclusive. Without the word "often", this sentence would mean that children who are born last always receive preferential treatment. This would be a very strong statement indeed.
"Tend" is an impersonal verb indicating probability and as such is used to hedge. Without this word, the sentence would mean that all parents always have more money at this later stage of their lives. So the word "tend" (or some other hedging device) is important in order to indicate that this is generally true but not always.
We’ve already seen that "more likely" is an indication of probability. It’s an important hedge for the same reason as the other two hedges in this paragraph. The likelihood is not just a guess on the part of the writer; there is a link in this sentence pointing to research which supports this idea.
Like the previous examples of "tend" this is an indication of probability rather than a statement of the absolute truth.
This is the second instances of the word "could" in this text. This is part 2 of the two explanations mentioned three paragraphs back. Remember, this is a possible explanation, not a definitive one.
This is the second example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation (for the “more favourable personality traits among firstborns”). The fact that it is advanced as a possible explanation with this hedging device leaves open the possibility of other explanations and also the possibility that this explanation may not be a good one.
This is the third example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation for the (supposed) rebellious behaviour of laterborns.
This paragraph is itself a type of hedge. The first sentence states that the evidence (for the link between personality traits and birth order) is mixed. So now we have some doubt about the evidence supporting the explanations. The second sentence tells us more about the mixed evidence: “Some studies show a strong association …” but others “do not support these findings” and there are links in this sentence to research supporting both these positions.
This paragraph tries to explain why the evidence mentioned in the previous paragraph is mixed.
But again the writer needs to be cautious because there is no definitive answer. So she uses the modal "may" to indicate this.
The word "sometimes" is another example of an approximator which can be used as a hedging device. In this case it’s not really a hedge - the hedge is in the word "may”. But it is important. The factors may not always be neglected, only sometimes. So this could explain the inconsistencies. Not having control over factors which influence a phenomenon can give rise to difficulties in interpretation of results.
This is the 4th instance of the word "could" in this text. This "could" also signals a possible factor. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children.
The modal "may" in this last sentence is also a hedge. The writer is saying that we cannot be sure about the role of birth order in determining psychological profiles.
Mouse over the highlighted words to see how hedging is used in this text.
The firstborn effect
According to a recent Swedish study, firstborns have more favourable personality traits, including openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extroversion, friendliness and greater emotional stability, than their later-born siblings. As a result, they are more likely to become chief executives and senior managers, whereas later-born children, who love to take risks, often end up being self-employed.
Firstborns tend to possess psychological characteristics related to leadership, including responsibility, creativity, obedience and dominance. They are also more likely to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their younger siblings. These qualities are believed to make firstborns more successful. But the “baby” of the family is more likely to take risks, rebel, show addictive behaviour and lack independence compared with their older siblings.
There are two explanations that could justify this firstborn effect. From the evolutionary perspective, parents favour and invest (shelter and food) in their firstborn to increase their chances of survival and reproduction. But this comes at a cost because the parent is now unable to invest the same amount of resources in later-born offspring.
Younger siblings then have to compete for these limited parental resources and attention. (So parents who spend less time helping their later-born children with schoolwork may do so because of the lack of spare resources.)
But children who are born last often receive preferential treatment. This is because parents now have the last chance to invest their resources. They are also older and tend to have more money at this point. Parents are more likely to invest in the education of their latest-born offspring.
Parental expectations could also explain the more favourable personality traits among firstborns. That is, parents tend to be stricter in their parenting with the firstborn. Parents also encourage toughness because firstborns need to act as role models (and surrogate parent) for their later-born siblings and defend the values of the parents.
Firstborns must keep their “first” position and never fall behind the younger sibling. The rivalry and conflict between firstborn and later-born offspring is the result of the younger sibling’s need to establish their position in the family. Although they try to race and copy the role of their older firstborn sibling, this privileged position is already taken. Laterborns must also differentiate themselves to attract parental resources, which could explain their rebellious behaviour.
Mixed evidence
These explanations are sound, but the evidence to support the link between personality traits and birth order is mixed. Some studies show a strong association between leadership abilities and birth order, but others do not support these findings.
The inconsistencies in findings may stem from factors that are sometimes neglected, such as the sex of the siblings. The firstborn effect (and the chances of becoming a chief executive) is weaker in the case of later-born males with older brothers as opposed to those who have older sisters.
Age gap spacing also needs to be taken into account because larger age gaps between siblings result in a more nurturing surrogate parent role of the older sibling and reduces the rivalry conflict between the siblings.
The fertility age of the mother could also sway the personality outcomes because mothers who have later-born children are older than when they had their firstborn and many studies don’t control for this factor.
It appears that the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised.
Obviously, not all first born children become chief executives or senior managers. It's a question of probability. According to the Swedish study, there is a statistical probability that there will be more firstborns among this category of employment.
Without reading the details of the study we don't know how likely this is. It's rather vague.
Vagueness is what hedging is all about; imprecise probabilities or likelihoods, general tendencies etc. Sometimes these expressions give the impression of a significant differences whereas in fact the likelihood may be very slim indeed. In fact, this article concludes that there is "mixed evidence" and that it appears that "the psychological profiles of firstborns may have been over-generalised".
"Likely" is an adjective. Other adjectives used in this way are probable, possible, certain (used in a negative sentence - not certain that).
The word “tend" is a verb commonly used to hedge. It indicates a probability but we don't know without consulting orginal research what that probability exactly is. The noun is also used: tendency.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph. "They" in this sentence refers to "Firstborns" in the previous one. "more likely" is a hedge because it is vague: we don't know how much more likely firstborns are to have higher academic abilities and levels of intelligence than their siblings. It may be a big difference or it may be insignificant. However, in these texts "likely" usually means that the researchers have discovered a small but statistically significant difference. You can investigate this by following the links in the original article.
The words “are believed" is also a vague term. It's in the passive voice so we don't know who believes - presumably those who research these topics. The verb "believe" leaves room for doubt. Without evidence that may convince others, a belief is just a statement of what one person or group of persons think. Others may have different ideas.
We've already seen the phrase “more likely" in the first paragraph and earlier in this one. In this case, the "likelihood" is that the "baby" of the family will indulge in negative behaviour. It's a hedge because obviously not all younger siblings do this and there are no statistics in this article. However, the link in this paragraph will take you to a research paper which investigated birth order and civil disobedience and claims that there is a "significant relationship between the number of times the students had been arrested and birth order".
There are 4 instances of the word "could" in this text. "could" is a modal verb and like "may" and "might" is often used as a hedge.
The word "could" makes a big difference to this sentence. Without it "There are two explanations that justify this firstborn effect" is a strong categorical statement with no room for discussion. The word "could" softens this significantly. Now the sentence becomes one of possibility allowing for doubt, discussion, further investigation and refinement of this hypothesis. This is what hedging is all about. It allows for doubt and error, and it also is more likely to draw the reader into the discussion rather than just accepting or refusing to accept the writer's position.
This is the 1st instance of the modal "may" in this text. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children. It works in exactly the same way as the word "could" in the previous paragraph.
"Often" belongs in a class of words (adjectives and adverbs) known as approximators. They have a hedging effect by making the statement less conclusive. Without the word "often", this sentence would mean that children who are born last always receive preferential treatment. This would be a very strong statement indeed.
"Tend" is an impersonal verb indicating probability and as such is used to hedge. Without this word, the sentence would mean that all parents always have more money at this later stage of their lives. So the word "tend" (or some other hedging device) is important in order to indicate that this is generally true but not always.
We’ve already seen that "more likely" is an indication of probability. It’s an important hedge for the same reason as the other two hedges in this paragraph. The likelihood is not just a guess on the part of the writer; there is a link in this sentence pointing to research which supports this idea.
This is the second instances of the word "could" in this text. This is part 2 of the two explanations mentioned three paragraphs back. Remember, this is a possible explanation, not a definitive one.
This is the second example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation (for the “more favourable personality traits among firstborns”). The fact that it is advanced as a possible explanation with this hedging device leaves open the possibility of other explanations and also the possibility that this explanation may not be a good one.
Like the previous examples of "tend" this is an indication of probability rather than a statement of the absolute truth.
This is the third example of the use of the modal "could" in this excerpt. It is used to propose a possible explanation for the (supposed) rebellious behaviour of laterborns.
This paragraph is itself a type of hedge. The first sentence states that the evidence (for the link between personality traits and birth order) is mixed. So now we have some doubt about the evidence supporting the explanations. The second sentence tells us more about the mixed evidence: “Some studies show a strong association …” but others “do not support these findings” and there are links in this sentence to research supporting both these positions.
This paragraph tries to explain why the evidence mentioned in the previous paragraph is mixed.
But again the writer needs to be cautious because there is no definitive answer. So she uses the modal "may" to indicate this.
The word "sometimes" is another example of an approximator which can be used as a hedging device. In this case it’s not really a hedge - the hedge is in the word "may”. But it is important. The factors may not always be neglected, only sometimes. So this could explain the inconsistencies. Not having control over factors which influence a phenomenon can give rise to difficulties in interpretation of results.
This is the 4th instance of the word "could" in this text. This "could" also signals a possible factor. This time the hedge concerns the possiblity that there is a causal relationship between the mother's fertility age and the personality of her children.
The modal "may" in this last sentence is also a hedge. The writer is saying that we cannot be sure about the role of birth order in determining psychological profiles.
The next page contains exercises to practice using hedging devices.
Next ❯
❮ Previous
