Birthday effect

Abstract: The month of birth was significantly associated with the month of death in 102, 265 individuals who died in Kiev during the period 1990–2000. A consistent trend in deaths was revelaed, with an excess around the birthday. This excesson the actual anniversary of birth was 44.4% in men (χ2 = 11.48, P <0.001) and 36.2% in women (χ2 = 7.64, P < 0.01) over the expected value. Significant variations in the mortality rate were obtained, according to the month of the individual annual cycle (IAC). The excess of mortality has been associated with the first and the last months of IAC in different age groups as well as for all major causes of death: circulatory (heart and cerebrovascular) diseases, malignant neoplasms and violent death. Neither the emotional stress nor the behavioral changes associated with the birthday can explain the results obtained. We hypothesize that ‘birthstress’ might be imprinted in a structure of the biological rhythms of the organism, thus resulting in periodic changes of vulnerability and survivability during the course of the IAC.

Abstract: While the birthday effect has been widely studied in the economics and sport literature, this study introduces the concept of the ‘real’ birthday effect. It holds that birthday celebrations yield f...

Abstract: A recent article by Gilbert R. Gredler that appeared in the Journal of Learning Disabilities (1980;13:239-242) was a reaction to DiPasquale and others (1980) regarding birthdate and achievement behavior in children. In his article, Gredler makes a number of statements which I would like to review, presenting contrasting points of view. Gredler begins by noting that there are destructive aspects of Gesellian Psychology in that maturational psychologists have been able to transmit their beliefs into changes of school practices. He notes that when people wish to debate their views in journals and conventions, no harm is done. It is dangerous when society begins to accept these beliefs and act on them. Gredler also seems to be saying that there is something inherently destructive in Gesellian Psychology and I would have assumed that the remainder of his article would have dealt fully with these destructive aspects. However, as is often the case with critics of the Gesellian Psychology, the remainder of the article deals only with the notion of maturity as it relates to achievement. This is where Gredler, as well as others who criticize Gesell, make critical errors. Those of us who believe in developmental placement proposed by the Gesell Institute are the first to admit that if we look only at achievement behavior in children, young children can often achieve and do well in academics of school. As a matter of fact, there are in the literature on developmental placement, two child characters that express this achievement behavior. They can be found in \"One Piece of the Puzzle\" (Carll & Richard 1977). These characters do quite well academically. They are of superior intellect. Other things being equal, children of superior intellect have a better chance of doing well in school academically, but the two characters described do not do well in many other facets of their lives. Socially, they are in a great deal of trouble. We are told in education that the \"whole child\" comes to school. The whole child is to be educated. Many philosophies that I have reviewed over my years in education as a teacher, counselor, psychologist, and administrator, suggest that the Gesell Institute approach is one of the few philosophies which allows us to look at the whole child. In discussing maturational psychology, Ilg and Ames (1965) talk about total school readiness, not simply readiness for academic work. When Ilg and Ames talk about overall school readiness for a child, they wish to see the child totally ready for school rather than simply be ready for cognitive or academic tasks. The children mentioned above do quite well academically, but socially are inept and in many ways dysfunctional. I imagine that Gredler would be quite content with a child who does well academically, but is experiencing social difficulties, including at times, substantial degrees of stress. These pressures often cause other psychological problems to develop in the child, but I imagine we are to set these aside because the child is doing well academically. There are children who are not young socially, but have not attained maturation in fine-motor development. The children experience difficulties in the second or third grade when cursive writing is begun. I assume that Gredler would tell us that as long as a child is reading and doing arithmetic at and above grade levels, we can put him or her in a remedial handwriting program. We could use the label \"disgraphic\" or another to explain the problems in handwriting, when all that may have been needed was time to develop more fine skills. There are children whose large motor skills are not developed. These children will have a difficult time with locomotion. The schools also take care of these children by having adaptive or remedial physical education programs and placing the children in these programs when their large-motor behavior is not smooth and graceful. Will Gredler tell us that as long as the child is doing well academically, this is fine? Finally, there are those children who are in a total way much younger developmentally than their birthday age. Despite everything else, they will likely experience failure in many different aspects of their school life and totally as a person. It would be a different matter, as Gredler suggests, if the Gesellian Philosophy were incorrect and harmful, and if he were to show totally how it were. We would waste the children's time with \"play\" rather than to get them into \"work.\" I suggest there are many reasons why their developmental approach is appropriate and necessary. Also, I agree with Gredler's example that changes in teaching also are necessary. But, I believe that the approach offered by the developmental placement program of Gesell is part of the two-pronged approach needed. I hope that if Gredler responds that his response will be directed toward a more complete picture of the Gesellian Philosophy rather than the fractionalized one in his current article.