In 1985, Canadian psychologist Dr. Roger Barnsley serendipitously discovered his now widely recognized theory, The Relative Age Effect (RAE). Here’s how and how it applies.
In January that year, Barnsley and his wife, Paula, attended a Western Hockey League (WHL) game in Lethbridge, Alberta. The WHL is a Junior division of the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), which typically serves as the final level of competition before being drafted into the NHL or playing professionally in other highly competitive leagues in North America and worldwide.
Dr. Roger Barnsley (photo courtesy ResearchGate)
Paula was reading the Lethbridge game program and noticed an apparent pattern during that game. She found that most of the players’ birth dates, as listed, were in the first quarter of the year (January-March). Barnsley researched the matter and found that junior hockey is mainly represented by players whose birthdays are in the first three months.
The theory 40-30-20-10 was born: 40% Jan-March, 30% April-June, 20% July-Sept, and 10% Oct-Dec. Later, Malcolm Gladwell examined this theory in his 2008 book, Outliers. Kids born in January were typically much more mature than those born from October to December across physical stature, emotional development, and academic performance scales. That means kids born in the first quarter would be more skilled when competing with those born later in the year.
Standing out meant the opportunity to be selected to play on travel teams, which, in turn, meant more practice time and specialized coaching. Those children born earlier in the year have advantages but are not that scarily based on athletic skills but mainly chronology.
Is that still the case? Yes. Canadian junior hockey rosters show that the 40-30-20-10 is still in play, as does the U20 Argentina men’s soccer team. There are other examples of the practice, including my own.
As the parent of a 12-year-old December baby boy, I have become aware of and seen how Dr. Barsley’s theory plays out in real time. Learning skills apply to athletic ability and success in sports, and it seems that older kids gravitate toward acquiring these skills at a faster pace. Great coaches and astute parents can detect when they must step in (without being overzealous) to help close the self-efficacy gap and allow kids to believe in themselves in sports and competition.
Of course, what applies in one situation may not apply in another, and contingencies are always involved. A good example is the sport of baseball and the development of baseball superstar Bryce Harper, specifically. Barnsley’s RAE theory does not seem as applicable in baseball as in hockey. Also, Harper, born in mid-October, stood out early as an exceptionally talented player, enabling him to gain exposure and take advantage of opportunities.
But there’s more to the story. Harper’s older brother, Bryan, encouraged him to play with him and other older players, and that meant Bryce frequently played with competitors who were two to three years older than him.
The story shows how big brothers can help bridge the gap with siblings, enabling them to develop skills that might otherwise have developed more slowly. But does the same principle apply to so-called “helicopter parents”? The answer is generally no. History shows that the better option is to turn to others (older players, coaches) for help developing young athletes.
What’s more, overzealous parenting can hurt players. Eric Lindros is an example. His father was always present and vocal during Eric’s rise to early stardom. As Eric transitioned to the NHL, he remained a strong voice, which projected an image of Eric as a dependent and immature player. He had a target on his back.
Despite being one of the NHL’s most outstanding players from the mid-to-late 1990s, one might wonder what turn his career might have taken without excessive parental control. That’s because Eric was in the 40% category of Barnsley’s RAE model (he’s a February baby). However, he was not allowed to develop self-efficacy and, in turn, decision-making skills on his own.
As I watch my late-year son compete in his pursuits, I notice one element that escapes all standard measurement metrics: fun. A kid’s ability to have fun is what will endure and hopefully contribute to a lifetime of participation in sports. Even at the highest of levels and grandest of stages, the players who are having fun are the ones who stand out and ultimately succeed.
