Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Confluence Model

  • John F. KihlstromEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1617-1

The confluence model is a general framework for understanding developmental processes by tracing the mutual influences between the individual and his or her social environment as they unfold over time to shape some characteristic of personality. The term employs a riparian metaphor, referring to the merging of two watercourses, such as the Allegheny and the Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh. The essential feature of the confluence model is that “the individual is considered to be a part of his own environment” (Zajonc and Markus 1975, p. 86).

A Birth Order Effect on Intelligence

The confluence model was initially proposed by Zajonc and Markus (1975) as an explanation for a striking pattern in the relationship between birth order, family size (i.e., number of siblings), and intellectual performance observed in a study by Belmont and Marolla (1973). As part of routine testing for the military draft, the Dutch government had administered Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a culture-fair,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barbut, M. (1993). Comments on a pseudo-mathematical model in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 203–210.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belmont, L., & Marolla, F. A. (1973). Birth order, family size, and intelligence. Science, 182, 1096–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4117.1096.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berbaum, M. L., & Moreland, R. (1980). Intellectual development within the family: A new application of the confluence model. Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 506–515.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.16.5.506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berbaum, M. L., Markus, G. B., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). A closer look at Galbraith’s “closer look”. Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 174–180.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.2.174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berbaum, M. L., Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1986). Contentions over the confluence model: A reply to Price, Walsh, and Vilburg. Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 270–274.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjerkedal, T., Kristensen, P., Skjeret, G. A., & Brevik, J. I. (2007). Intelligence test scores and birth order among young Norwegian men (conscripts) analyzed within and between families. Intelligence, 35(5), 503–514.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology – Analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307–336.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035592.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adaptations in the development of antisocial behavior: A confluence model. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 61–95). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eviatar, Z., Zaidel, E., & Wickens, T. (1994). Nominal and physical decision criteria in same-different judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 56(1), 62–72.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galbraith, R. C. (1982). Sibling spacing and intellectual development: A closer look at the confluence models. Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 151–173.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.2.151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galbraith, R. C. (1983). Individual differences in intelligence: A reappraisal of the confluence model. Intelligence, 7(2), 185–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(83)90028-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, E. E. (1985). Major developments in social psychology since 1930. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 47–107). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Kihlstrom, J. F. (2013). The person-situation interaction. In D. Carlston (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 786–805). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lewin, K. (1939/1951). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. In K. Lewin (Ed.), Field theory in social science (pp. 130–154). New York: Harper & Row. (Reprinted from: 1951).Google Scholar
  15. Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., Barnes, G., & Acker, M. (1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 353–369.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Markus, G. B., & Zajonc, R. B. (1977). Family configuration and intellectual development: A simulation. Behavioral Science, 22(2), 137–142.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830220208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCall, R. B. (1985). The confluence model and theory. Child Development, 56(1), 217–218.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1130187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Price, G. G., Walsh, D. J., & Vilberg, W. R. (1984). The confluence model’s good predictions of mental age beg the question. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 195–200.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Retherford, R. D., & Sewell, W. H. (1991). Birth order and intelligence: Further tests of the confluence model. American Sociological Review, 56(2), 141–158.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rodgers, J. L. (1984). Confluence effects: Not here, not now. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 321–331.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.2.321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodgers, J. L. (2001a). The confluence model: An academic “tragedy of the commons?”. In E. L. Grigorenko & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Family environment and intellectual functioning: A life-span perspective (pp. 71–95). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Rodgers, J. L. (2001b). What causes birth order-intelligence patterns? The admixture hypothesis, revived. American Psychologist, 56(6–7), 505–510.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodgers, J. L., Cleveland, H. H., van den Oord, E., & Rowe, D. C. (2000). Resolving the debate over birth order, family size, and intelligence. American Psychologist, 55(6), 599–612.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schooler, C. (1972). Birth order effects: Not here, not now! Psychological Bulletin, 78, 161–175.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wichman, A. L., Rodgers, J. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2007). Birth order has no effect on intelligence: A reply and extension of previous findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1195–1200.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205279581.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Zajonc, R. B. (1976). Family configuration and intelligence: Variations in scholastic aptitude scores parallel trends in family size and the spacing of children. Science, 192, 227–236.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.192.4236.227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Zajonc, R. B. (1983). Validating the confluence model. Psychological Bulletin, 93(3), 457–480.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.3.457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zajonc, R. B. (1986). The decline and rise of scholastic aptitude scores: A prediction derived from the confluence model. American Psychologist, 41(8), 862–867.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.8.862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zajonc, R. B. (1993). The confluence model: Differential or difference equation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 211–215.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). The family dynamics of intellectual development. American Psychologist, 56(6–7), 490–496.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Zajonc, R. B., & Bargh, J. (1980). The confluence model: Parameter estimation for six divergent data sets on family factors and intelligence. Intelligence, 4(4), 349–361.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(80)90028-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, G. B. (1975). Birth order and intellectual development. Psychological Review, 82, 74–88.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zajonc, R. B., & Mullally, P. R. (1997). Birth order: Reconciling conflicting effects. American Psychologist, 52(7), 685–699.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.7.685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zajonc, R. B., & Sulloway, F. J. (2007). The confluence model: Birth order as a within-family or between-family dynamic? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1187–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Zajonc, R. B., Markus, H., & Markus, G. B. (1979). The birth order puzzle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1325–1341.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zajonc, R. B., Markus, G. B., Berbaum, M. L., Bargh, J. A., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). One justified criticism plus three flawed analyses equals two unwarranted conclusions: A reply to Retherford and Sewell. American Sociological Review, 56(2), 159–165.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Glenn Scheyd
    • 1
  1. 1.Nova Southeastern UniversityFort LauderdaleUSA