• About
  • Best Baby Names
  • Celebrity Baby Names
  • Celebrity Baby Names – Current
  • Celebrity Baby Names – Past
  • Featured Boys Names
  • Featured Girls Names
  • Featured Unisex Names
  • Links to Name Data
  • Waltzing on the Web

Waltzing More Than Matilda

~ Names with an Australian Bias of Democratic Temper

Waltzing More Than Matilda

Category Archives: Baby Name Mythbusters

MYTH: A “Weird” Baby Name Can Ruin Your Child’s Life

18 Sunday Nov 2012

Posted by A.O. in Baby Name Mythbusters

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

African names, alphanumeric names, British Baby Names, celebrity baby names, created names, Dr Martin Ford, Herald Sun, Indian names, Irish names, name image, name popularity, name studies, parenting blogs, popular names, psychology of names, Radio National, rare names, US birth notices, US name data, variant spellings, Vietnamese names, Who's Who, William Shakespeare, Yiddish names

This is an idea you cannot help running across if you frequent baby name forums, attend a few parent group meetings, or just read the papers – that the bestowing of a name considered strange or highly unusual upon a child is a cruel thing to do, and has the potential to impact on their life in negative ways.

A short-lived parenting blog at the Herald Sun which was written by Cheryl Critchley asked, Are Weird Names Child Abuse? It might seem a bit extreme to suggest that calling your son Raiyybanzi is the equivalent of hitting him around the head or locking him in his room for three weeks without food, but Cheryl goes to the child psychologists for further information.

According to child psychologist Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, yes, an unusual name is a form of child abuse, as it will lead to non-stop teasing in the schoolyard. Another psychologist, Dr Janet Hall, said a poor choice of name could lead to the child developing self-esteem problems. A name that others constantly question and mock is a “constant attack on your self-esteem”. It’s all sounding pretty dire for poor little Raiyybanzi.

A dim ray of light shone through when an education psychologist named Dr Helen McGrath suggested that while shy children probably won’t appreciate an unusual name, an extroverted one might enjoy the attention that it brings. She noted that unusual names do tend to change people’s perceptions, and even self-perception. However, there was no research which suggested any negative impact, and that factors such as social skills and family relationships were far more important.

The interesting thing is that Cheryl got her inspiration for the article from the names of AFL footballers she had seen in the newspapers – names such as Ayce, Jarryn, Jarrhan, Cheynee and Sharrod. These horrified her, and yet it would seem that Ayce and friends hadn’t had their lives ruined, but embarked on potentially lucrative and rewarding sporting careers. The photo of Ayce used for the article showed him looking cheerful and confident, with his self-esteem firmly intact.

This article was published a few years ago, but journalistic opinion doesn’t seem to have moved forward very much in the meantime. There’s a good reason for that – if you’ve been following the ‘Twas Ever Thus series at Elea’s blog, British Baby Names, you will see that when it comes to getting worked up over “weird” baby names, the media is pretty much churning out the same stuff they produced in the 19th century. Only the names have been changed, as the saying goes.

On Radio National a few months ago, on their popular Life Matters show, presenter Natasha Mitchell had a programme called You’ve Named Your Baby What?!. Generally light-hearted in tone, the show discussed unusual celebrity baby names (Natasha confessed she rather liked Sparrow), old-fashioned names like Mavis and Alfie, little boys just called H, and little girls named Rach’elle.

Guest Mia Freedman, who runs the successful parenting website Mamamia, while not actually accusing anyone of child abuse, opined that a strange name, especially one spelled strangely, could be a “burden” for a child. A burden in so much as they would be constantly questioned about their name – perhaps not damaging to their self-esteem, but a downright nuisance to them nonetheless.

In these sort of shows/articles, everyone is very careful to explain that when they say “unusual names”, they don’t mean names from other cultures, which to our ears may be difficult to pronounce, or sound like rude words, or appear to be on the “wrong” sex. No, these names are a wonderful sign of our diversity, and people should be proud to possess them as part of their culture, and it would be very wrong indeed to poke fun of them.

To my mind, this is the downfall of their argument, because it’s never explained why it’s not a “burden” to be named Caoilfhionn, even though that must surely involve at least as many requests to explain spelling and pronunciation as Rach’elle does. If it’s not such a terrible burden to be named Caoilfhionn, then I don’t see how Rach’elle is any heavier for a child to bear.

And if we as a society should be able to cope with Caoilfhionn, Purushottama, Oluwakanyinsola, Dudel and Phuc as names, then I don’t see why we cannot also cope with Mavis, Alfie, Sparrow, Ayce, Jarryn, Rach’elle and H. For that matter, how could anyone be confused by the spelling of the name H? Surely the strange-names-as-a-burden club should be heaping praise on H for its unburdensome simplicity? However, for some reason that never happens.

Oddly enough, Mia, who has an extremely simple and popular name, says that she needs to often correct people on the spelling and pronunciation of it. And yet, this burden doesn’t seem to have really been much bother, or held her back in life. From this I deduce that almost everyone has to explain their name at some point (“No, it’s John – J-O-H-N, not Jon – J-O-N”), and that it’s just one of those little things you have to deal with.

To befuddle the argument even further, Mia poked mild fun at “cutesy pet names” for children, singling out Jools Oliver for naming her children Poppy, Daisy, Petal and Buddy. Fun fact: Mia’s daughter is named Coco. I know: go figure.

Although these examples are not the most convincing you’ll come across, and don’t even manage to present a cogent argument, there are no lack of studies which purport to reveal the dreadful consequences of giving your child a strange name.

They tell us that your child will do worse at school, be less popular with their classmates, drop out of tertiary education, and have their resumes ignored by prospective employers (although, after doing so badly at school and flunking university, you’d think a boss would have pretty good grounds for ignoring their resume).

Furthermore, they were more likely to be diagnosed as psychotic and to end up in prison – the bitter conclusion to a life of failure and misery. After reading this terribly sad story, which seems like the stuff of nightmare and soap opera, how could a parent be so heartless as to inflict on their child any name other than one selected by the Chamber of Commerce, heads of all major universities, and a panel of psychiatrists?

However, other researchers crunched the numbers and came up with opposing results. It was noted that men with rare names were over-represented in Who’s Who, suggesting that a life of success was just as possible as one of failure for those with less common names. Other researchers noted that many children with uncommon names came from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and that once this was allowed for, there was no difference in academic outcomes that could be attributed to the person’s name.

One interesting finding by development psychologist Dr. Martin Ford is that everyone tends to attach a particular image or set of expectations to a name – up and until they confronted with a person with that name. People might say that they think of Berthas as being unattractive, but if shown the photo of a beautiful woman and told she is named Bertha, they rate the photo more or less the same as someone told the lovely woman is called Jacqueline or Christine.

In other words, Shakespeare was clearly on the money in regard to roses smelling just as sweet.

So here we have two competing theories: one is that unusual names are little more than child abuse, will damage self-esteem, prove an unnecessary burden, and be a severe handicap in regards to academic and social success. At worst, they may even send your child mad, or force them into a life of crime.

The other is that names, once attached to a real person, become almost meaningless – that what we are judged on is not our names, but our appearance, voice, grooming, hygiene, mannerisms, personality, social skills, motivations, abilities, intelligence, beliefs, income, education, job, family, friends, hobbies, home, influences, aspirations, and indeed the whole “package” that is ourselves.

I’m not sure I am completely convinced by either side – mostly because I am sceptical as to whether any of them have considered genuinely “weird” names. I feel as if they have looked at unpopular or uncommon names, or names judged to be undesirable by others, but that’s not really the same thing.

I mean come on, how sheltered must your life be to think that Ayce and Rach’elle are weird!

From what can I gather, Dr. Ford’s photo experiment was just using “outdated” names of the time like Hazel and Harriet – not only in no way weird, but by now very much back in fashion.

His original name study was done in 1984, on children who would have been born in the early 1970s. Very rare names of people born in 1972 include Atticus, Briar, Bristol, Coco, Darcey, Denzel, Emmeline, Fallon, Heaven, Jaxon, Jorja, Kourtney, Larkin, Lourdes, Marigold, Reeve, Rosamond, Sonnet, Star, Theodoric, and Wilder.

These names aren’t weird any more – some of them look pretty hip, and others seem unsurprising; a couple are even quite dull. In just forty years, a name can go from Woah, what the heck? to Meh. Maybe the rare names of today, such as Cameo and Twain, will seem equally familiar by the early 2050s.

That’s looking at US data of course, but in Australia we know that just twenty years ago Olive was a strange and awkward name to give a baby, and it is now Top 100 in Victoria, and getting there in New South Wales.

If name-weirdness is dependent on time, it is equally so on space. I know that when I look at some names on the American charts, or in American birth notices, they seem odd to me because names such as Legend, Princess, Race, Tinsley,  and Dutch are rarely or never used in Australia. Likewise, Americans look at Australian-used names like Lachlan, Jacinta, Hamish, Bronte and Zali, and think What the dealio?

A normal name can become weird just by crossing the Pacific; conversely, an American boy named Hamish who moves to Australia will blend in instantly. Fun fact: in the US, 8 baby boys were named Hamish last year.

What an individual person believes is weird seems to be almost entirely subjective. To Cheryl it’s Jarryn. To Natasha it’s Apple. To me it’s Race. To 1972 it’s Coco. To a commenter I saw on Mamamia it’s Felix (in the Top 100). To this journalist it’s Becket. To my mother it’s Madison. To you maybe it’s Hamish. Or Metallica. Or Banjo. Or Justus. Or Crew. Or Dudel.

I genuinely thought that this myth would be either BUSTED or CONFIRMED by the time I finished the blog entry, but not only has it not been answered, the very myth itself seems to be retreating over the horizon the closer we get to it, like heat shimmering on a bitumen road in January.

I am becoming less and less convinced that a weird name will ruin anyone’s life, and moreover, I am becoming less and less certain that weird names even exist, in any useful sense of the word “weird”.

Even Raiyybanzi isn’t that strange once you get used to it – it’s really just a juiced-up Raymond.

MYTH: Australian Baby Names Follow English Trends More Closely Than American Ones

09 Sunday Sep 2012

Posted by A.O. in Baby Name Mythbusters

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Arabic names, British Baby Names, Gone With The Wind, Greek names, international name trends, Italian names, Legitimate Baby Names, name data, name poopularity, name trends, popular names, Southern names, UK name trends, US name trends, Welsh names

Last time we went mythbusting, we looked at whether Australian names are becoming increasingly Americanised, and didn’t find a lot of evidence. This is the flip side to that myth – the one that comforts us that we are essentially more British in our ways than American, and so are our baby names. That despite an increasing tendency to call our children Jett and Harlow, most of us will trustingly follow dear old Mother England, and choose something like Archie, Evie, Callum or Isla.

Again, this myth sounded quite plausible to me. But we have to look and make sure, so once more I prepared myself to examine the Top 100 from each nation. The first hurdle is that both of us are slightly data-challenged, so I was forced to rely on data from Victoria only (the only state with stats going back to 1929), while the data from the UK would include both England and Wales, but not Scotland or Northern Ireland. I did feel that already the waters were getting slightly muddied, only to find that England/Wales doesn’t publicise historical Top 100s.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to Elea at British Baby Names, who has provided on her blog, through her own labours, Top 100s for England/Wales for each decade from 1904 to 1984. Upon e-mailing her to enquire where I might find the one for 1994, she very kindly sent me a copy of her own personal spreadsheets so I could have that one as well.

Now I acknowledge this leaves me with some flaws in my methodology before even starting. I only had data from one state of Australia; furthermore this state has a reputation of being slightly more “English” than average. I only had data from England/Wales, and only had access to years ending in a 4. As I had already examined the earlier myth using data from the United States in years ending with a 0, it was possible I wasn’t going to be comparing apples to oranges so much as bananas to hedgehogs to timeshare villas in Spain.

However, we won’t get too gloomy, but show a bit of British pluck and press on. No, this won’t be the most statistically persuasive thing you’ll read all year, but we’re not doing a study, not trying to prove anything, just having a keen yet amateurish look around us to see if anything obvious shows up. And after all, if the myth is clearly and inarguably true, then broad trends should be pretty obvious even through a fog of slightly dodgy data.

1934

Boys – 82% the same (17% higher than US)

Girls – 69% the same (18% higher than US)

1954

Boys – 75% the same (16% higher than US) – down 7% overall, down 1% relative to US

Girls – 68% the same (21% higher than US) – down 1% overall, up 3% relative to US

1974

Boys – 72% the same (16% higher than US) – down 3% overall, no change relative to US

Girls – 62% the same (11% higher than US) – down 6% overall, down 10% relative to US

1994

Boys – 67% the same (11% higher than US) – down 10% overall, down 3% relative to US

Girls – 61% the same (5% higher than US) – down 1% overall, down 6% relative to US

2011

Boys – 63% the same (4% higher than US) – down 4% overall, down 7% relative to US

Girls – 63% the same (16% higher than US) – up 2% overall, up 11% relative to US

Based on these numbers, I would say that’s a MYTH CONFIRMED – at no time in history did the the amount of popular names shared with the US overtake the amount of popular names shared with England/Wales.

However, you can clearly see that while the number of shared girls names went down only very slightly between 1934 and 2011, the number of shared boys names sunk by almost 20%. In fact, yes, we still share more boys names with England/Wales than with the United States, but only by 4% – four names! Statistically, that’s what I call a big-whooping-deal difference, and if this trend continues, future Australian boy’s names are going to look much more like those in the US than the Top 100 for England/Wales.

Girl’s name did not show this steady decline, and in fact last year had a slight increase since the 1990s, while also showing a significant gain relative to the US data. This makes me think that when we say that our names are more English than American, we are primarily thinking of our names for girls.

GENTLE MUSINGS

Last time I ended the article with “conclusions”; this now seems far too definite and perhaps arrogant considering that we are left with far more questions than answers. So I will not reach any conclusions, but merely gently muse on some of the issues that have been raised.

Questions

  • Many names are shared by the Top 100s of all three countries. Therefore, can you really label names such as Olivia, Jacob, Ella and Liam as “English” or “American”, or are they more properly “international trends”?
  • If determined to designate a name as “English” or “American”, do you rely upon the place which provided the cultural impetus for the name, or the place where it became popular first, or the place where it reached the highest levels of popularity? If the first, then many popular names could be classed as American; if the second or third, a large number would be classed as Australian more than anything else.
  • I used the example of Scarlett as an “American-style” name in the preceding article (I admit without much forethought), and Sebastiane from Legitimate Baby Names quite correctly pointed out that Scarlett was more popular in England than in the United States. Now, it cannot be disputed that Scarlett hails from the United States, because the name became known through Margaret Mitchell’s novel, Gone with the Wind, and was popularised by American actress, Scarlett Johansson. However, the name is #19 in Victoria, #25 in England/Wales, and #80 in the USA. It reached the Top 100 of both Victoria and England/Wales in the same year, 2004, New South Wales in 2005, but only became Top 100 in the USA last year. So which country, if any, claims it?
  • Sometimes my blog entries end up being copied and discussed in some odd places, so my Referrer stats tell me; occasionally they end up somewhere rather disturbing. I found the Mythbuster on Australian and US trends on a not-very-nice forum (not baby name or parenting related), where the poster claimed that supposedly “trashy” American names that were popular in Australia but not the USA (eg Beau) were in fact, not American, but “Southern” names. Did the Civil War not end? I wondered. Is the lower portion of America not part of the United States, but a separate nation? It does raise the issue, what qualifies as an “American” name? Must it be in the Top 100 of every state in the USA to be called American? In which case, I have a feeling that “American” names would end up being those that are popular internationally, like Michael and Emily.

Observations

  • Immigration made a difference between the Top 100s of England/Wales and Victoria. Mohammed and Abdul have been popular names since the 1930s in the UK, while post-war immigration saw names such as Antonio and Ioannis reach the Top 100 in Victoria during the 1970s.
  • Although Australia has a history of being very keen on Welsh-inspired names such as Mervyn and Gweneth, I was amused to notice that not only were these not popular in England/Wales, but they had Welsh names, presumably used by actual Welsh people, which we didn’t, such as Ivor and Glynis.
  • While we all are influenced by each other’s name trends, each country had its names that the others were seemingly oblivious to. The name Gillian seems to be a quintessentially English name, appearing decade after decade on their Top 100, whilst never making the Top 100 in Australia, or the Top 1000 of the US. Meanwhile the US had quite a thing for Melvin – a name which still ranks on their Top 1000. In turn, we had a long-standing fascination with the name Bronwyn.
  • Each country also had their own favourite names. Adrian was a name we took to early – it was Top 100 by the 1930s and stayed there until quite recently. In England/Wales, it took a bit longer to reach the Top 100 and they tired of it sooner. In the US, Adrian only reached the Top 100 in 1989. England/Wales had an inordinate passion for the name Derek, which continued for decades – a name that has never been Top 100 in Australia, and only reached the Top 100 of the USA in 1970, a good half-century after England/Wales. In the US, Douglas seemed to enjoy favour much longer than elsewhere, being still Top 100 as late as the 1980s.
  • In other words, we might all be influenced by international trends, but we also have our own tastes in names, and don’t necessarily abandon a favoured name just because everyone else is doing so.
  • I have noticed that some people, amongst them many Australians I’m sorry to say, assume that a name which becomes popular in England/Wales is somehow more “classy” or “stylish” that one whose popularity originated in the United States or Australia. Granted, whether a name is stylish or not is completely subjective, but I did not feel that this assumption stood up to even casual investigation. From my perusal of popular names from three places across seven decades, it seemed to me that all were capable of being inspired by names that have been considered stylish, and its opposite.
  • For example, the name Isabella became popular in Australia much earlier than elsewhere, and I think most people would say Isabella is a pretty, stylish name. Yet we were also the first (by many years) to jump aboard the Hayden/Aidan/Jayden/Brayden craze. While I don’t consider this the black hole of name taste that others do, I acknowledge it’s not generally thought of as a stylish trend. While England has some lovely aristocratic names on its Top 100s, such as Constance and Daphne, can a land which adored the name Derek really take the title of Stylemeister? America has brought us no end of cool names, from glamourpuss Marilyn to zippy Jett. There’s a freshness and vigour to American name trends which I love, and a world without their names would be a far less interesting one. However, sometimes they’re a trifle overenthusiastic – and besides, Derek was on their Top 100 for 15 years, so they forfeit the style crown too.
  • Oh, and Barry and Sheila? Barry was Top 100 in England/Wales for longer than it was here, and Sheila, although popular in both England/Wales and the United States, didn’t show up in the Australian data, because by the 1930s it had already peaked and dropped off our Top 100. Who’d have thunk it?

MYTH: Australian Baby Names are Becoming Increasingly Influenced by American Trends

01 Sunday Jul 2012

Posted by A.O. in Baby Name Mythbusters

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

Australian names, Biblical names, classic names, created names, famous namesakes, fictional namesakes, flower names, French names, germanic names, Greek names, Irish names, Italian names, Mer de Noms, name data, name popularity, name trends, nicknames, Old English names, popular names, saints names, Scottish names, Spanish names, surname names, unisex names, US name trends, US popularity, Welsh names

Since I last went mythbusting, the 2011 name data from the United States has been released, and this week it’s American Independence Day. To celebrate both events, I decided to compare Australian and US name data. (Lou at Mer de Noms brought out her own comparison of the data for the United States and England/Wales in May, and did something pretty interesting with it.)

That Australians are becoming increasingly Americanised, including their choice of baby names, is something not debated, but accepted as a truism. It is often mourned by older generations that Australians used to call their children good solid Aussie names like Barry and Sheila, and now give them sleek American-style names like Logan and Scarlett.

It’s a myth which sounds very plausible – I certainly know far more children named Logan and Scarlett than I do Barry and Sheila (actually I don’t know any children called Barry or Sheila). But I thought we should try to get some numbers to back the myth up.

So I decided to look at the Top 100 names from both countries, in the years 1930, 1950, 1970, 1990 and 2011. If the number of names shared by both countries went steadily up, that could help support the theory that Australian names were becoming increasingly “American”. By no means conclusive proof, but it would be a start, and frankly I couldn’t think of any other way of doing it.

As I went through calculating the number of shared names, I also took note of those trends at work in Australia and the United States, where they were the same and where they differed. This gave me a picture of changing trends through the years. (The data is from Victoria, because theirs go back to 1929).

1930

MALE – 65% shared with US Top 100

1930 marked the highest percentage of shared names between the countries. This wasn’t because Australians were more “American” in 1930, but because in every year, the common denominator for both countries were classic names like John, Thomas and William, and these sort of names took up more space of both countries’ Top 100.

Trends noticeable on the Australian Top 100 were names from Ireland, Scotland and Wales, such as Kevin, Malcolm and Trevor, and aristocratic English surnames, such as Neville. Americans preferred prominent surnames of their own citizens, such as Elmer and Lee. Popular names from America we didn’t share were “cowboy” names – Wayne, Earl and Jesse. In America, nicknames for boys were all the rage, including Billy, Bob and Jimmie.

FEMALE – 51% shared with US Top 100

Popular girls names in both countries were homespun names such as Margaret and Dorothy, as well as plant names like Hazel and Rose.

Australian trends for girls included names from Ireland and Wales, such as Sheila and Gweneth, saints names such as Carmel and Veronica, and literary inventions like Doreen and Mavis. American trends were for Germanic names such as Emma and Clara, and the clunky Old English Mildred and Bertha. America’s Hispanic population meant that Delores and Juanita were Top 100 there.

1950

MALE – 59% shared with US Top 100 (down 6%)

American trends for boys we had picked up by 1950 include Gary, after Hollywood star Gary Cooper, and that supposed Australian favourite, Bruce, also popular in the US.

America continued its love of nicknames, with Bobby, Joe and Fred all Top 100. Several of the Irish boys names such as Kevin and Barry were now on the US Top 100 as well, but new Irish-style names such as Shane were still to gain American acceptance. Already in the US you can see a reluctance to use “feminine sounding” or unisex names such as Lindsay and Noel, which were Top 100 in Australia. In Australia, that same 1950s gender-anxiety produced the opposite result, with some unisex names like Leslie becoming male-only.

FEMALE – 47% shared with US Top 100 (down 4%)

The most noticeable shared trends for girls were those glamorous Hollywood names such as Marilyn (Monroe) and Rita (Hayworth). Even when Australians did take a name from America, such as Jennifer from Hollywood star Jennifer Jones, it didn’t always follow that Americans would embrace it as rapidly themselves. Jennifer was a 1950s name in Australia, but didn’t peak in the US until the 1970s.

Australian girls were being given French names like Annette and Jeanette, while Americans girls had Jacqueline. Another popular Australian “French” name was Lorraine, given in honour of St Joan of Arc, sometimes called The Maid of Lorraine. The American love of the nickname meant that names such as Judy and Peggy were Top 100 for girls.

1970

MALE – 56% shared with US Top 100 (down 3%)

Popular 1970 names which we think of as “American style” were in evidence on both charts, such as Bradley, Jason, Glenn, Darren and Craig.

Australian boys names not picked up in the US included Scottish-style names such as Ross, Graham, Stuart and Gavin, and the “feminine sounding” Ashley and Jamie. Differing ethnicities also made their mark, with Spanish Carlos in the US Top 100, and Italian and Greek names like Giovanni and Giorgio in the Australian Top 100. American nicknames powered on, with Larry, Terry and Jerry amongst them.

FEMALE – 51% shared with US Top 100 (up 4%, return to 1930 level)

It was the decade of those 1970s names Sharon and Tracey, although Sharon in particular had been popular in America for some time and we’d only just caught up.

Names such as Samantha and Amanda were already popular in Australia in 1970, but would have to wait until the 1980s to make it big in the US. Conversely, Amy was popular in the US, but wouldn’t be here until the 1980s. French Nicole was in vogue in both countries, and we’d caught up with Jacqueline; however Australia also had Danielle, Louise, Justine, Natalie, Simone and Josephine – typical 1970s girls names that were underused in the US. Scottish and Welsh names like Fiona, Megan and Bronwyn were popular here but didn’t get a look-in in the US. We were proudly using names of Australian origin, like Kylie and Narelle; naturally these were unknown in the US.

1990

MALE – 56% shared with US Top 100 (no change)

Trends from the US we were embracing were Old Testament names, such as Jacob and Zachary; and the new surname names, such as Ryan and Mitchell.

A new generation of “too feminine” boys names that were popular in Australia were ignored in the US, such as Shannon, Tristan and Leigh, as were more Scottish, Welsh and Irish-ish names, such as Lachlan, Rhys and Kane. Hayden and Jayden were already Top 100 in Australia, but not in the US. America had finally gone off nickname names, while Australia now had Jack, Jake and Ricky. American names Beau, Jackson and Tyson were popular then, as now, in Australia; of the three, only Jackson has hit the US Top 100 so far.

FEMALE – 56% the same as the US Top 100 (up 5%)

Names that both countries had in common were those typical 1990s names, like Tiffany, Brittany, Kayla and Caitlin.

Americana we were still to discover included unisex names for girls like Ariel, Shelby and Paige. Although the US had Danielle and Natalie by now, French names such as Monique, Elise, Renee and Madeleine which were popular here had apparently failed to make an impression. Although Welsh Caitlin was all the rage, the US were not on board with Tegan and Rhiannon, as we were. Most notably, Emma, Amelia, Charlotte, Sophie, Chloe and Zoe were missing from the US Top 100 – while American parents who chose these names in 1990 were ahead of the trends, in Australia, parents choosing these names in 1990 were just following the trends.

2011

MALE – 59% shared with US Top 100 (up 3%, return to 1950 level)

Congruence in popularity between the two nations has risen to 1950 levels, with many name trends in common, mostly a fresh crop of Biblical names, such as Elijah, and surname names, such as Mason.

American parents are now avoiding a new generation of Scottish names, such as Angus and Hamish, while Irish names like Declan and Flynn are also neglected in the US. Oddly enough, Kevin is still Top 100 in the US, while it’s considered a bit dated here. The scunner against nicknames continues as Americans shun Australian populars Charlie, Harry, Archie, Sam and Nate. No longer merely  shying away from “feminine sounding” names for boys like Bailey and Riley, parents in the US have actually given these names to their daughters in such numbers that they are now Top 100 for girls, while Top 100 for boys here. Several names we have taken from the US, such as Jett, Hudson and Jasper, are still not popular in America.

FEMALE – 47% shared with US Top 100 (down 9%, return to 1950 level)

Girls names have also returned to 1950s levels. Many names are shared because America has caught up with our popular names from 1990, but Australian parents have also begun to use unisex names for girls like Madison and Addison.

America has abandoned many names as “outdated” such as Amy, Jessica, Holly and Amber that have taken on “modern classic” status here. While America has accepted Lily, it is less keen on our popular plant names Daisy, Ivy, Violet, Willow, Olive and Rose. British-style names such as Isla and Imogen cut no mustard in the States. Meanwhile, popular American virtue names like Genesis, Serenity, Trinity, Nevaeh and Destiny do not resonate here. Perhaps they will in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

I did not manage to bust this myth, but neither did I find much evidence to support it, so I will give its status as MYTH UNCONFIRMED.

As I compared popularity charts from the two countries, I realised more and more that it was a case of apples and oranges. Names took longer to gain popularity in the US, and it was harder for them to stay in the Top 100; name popularity was a competitive environment there. Australia has a much smaller population size, which means that name trends show up faster here. We’re also more likely to hold onto our favourite names once we’ve found them, sometimes for generations.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that American parents are absolutely obsessed with getting ahead of the current trends, and can watch the slowly rising popularity of their chosen names with almost comical anxiety. This makes some sense, because trending names can take so long to reach the Top 100 that they have a good chance of having ten to twenty years before that happens. In Australia, this behaviour makes no sense at all, because as soon as a name begins to show up in the data, it’s basically already quite popular. As we keep names around for longer, there’s no real rush to “catch” a name on the way up either; we can always wait until it’s a cosy, familiar “classic”.

In any given year, Australia and the US will share around half the names on their respective Tops 100s, and this has not changed across time. We share many name trends, and since at least 1950, Australia has been drawn to names from America. Sometimes it took us a long time to get onto a particular trend from America, and other times we took to it with greater enthusiasm than Americans did themselves.

Both countries also have their own styles of naming. Australia has always been fond of Irish-inspired names, and although Barry and Sheila have fallen by the wayside, we now have Finn and Molly. Scottish names continue to be a growth area, with Angus, Hamish, Callum and Isla seeming rather stylish to us. Through the years, there were many names unique to the Australian popularity charts. Names that I thought of as typical of their period, such as Dulcie in 1930, Glenys in 1950, and Jacinta in 1970 seemed to be unknown in the US.

Americans are slow to adopt Irish names, but often touchingly faithful to them, and are wary of Scottish and Welsh names. They have a deep suspicion of unisex names for boys or anything that even sounds remotely feminine, while comfortable with briskly masculine names for girls. Flower names are not popular there; perhaps they seem too girlish even for girls.

Due to going overboard on nicknames in the past, America has developed almost a horror of them, much in the same way I can no longer stomach gingerbread after overindulging on it a few Christmases ago. As nicknames are currently internationally popular, this has seen them unfairly branded as a bit stuffy on the issue, when they’re really just over the whole thing.

We don’t have to try to follow American trends, and in fact a couple of them would be downright foolish for us to imitate. But the United States has proved a rich source of name inspiration for many decades, and I know it will continue to be so for many decades to come.

MYTH: Your Child is More Likely to be Successful if They Have a Name Similar to That of Successful People

22 Sunday Apr 2012

Posted by A.O. in Baby Name Mythbusters

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

famous namesakes, name data, name popularity, name trends, popular names

Several months ago, I read a baby name blog (can’t recall where) which had re-posted a list of names of the most common names of CEOs around the world. As it often takes a long time to become a CEO, these tended to be slightly dated sounding names such as Don, Janet, Bill and Cheryl.

This particular blogger went on to say that it showed successful people all had “regular” names. Their suggestion was that you utilise this list to give your children solid citizen names like Bruce and Sally to ensure their future worldly success. (The original report made no such claim, I should point out).

Now I’m not going to try to bust this myth, but I did think I might give it a little tweak of my own. It occurred to me that the successful people of the future probably won’t all be named Debra and Ron, but will have names that were current in the year they happened to be born. It also occurred to me that while being a CEO is one measure of success, it isn’t the only one, and that it would really be more interesting to look at people who had gained fame, wealth, and success in a range of careers.

So I took ten Australian men and women who are successful in their chosen fields, noted how popular their name was when they were born, and then looked up what the popularity equivalent was for 2011. To make it slightly more fun, I decided to choose famous Australians who had been mentioned on my blog, and for data gathering purposes, restricted it to Australians born in this country after 1928, but before 1982, who are still living.

And so, just for laughs if you will, here are the names of the famous Australians of the future; the babies born last year who will become celebrities, gain awards, win hearts, and reach the top.

MEN

Father Robert “Bob” Maguire b. 1934 Victoria

  • Claim to fame: Retired Catholic priest with his own charity, also a popular media personality
  • Honours: The Order of Australia, Victorian of the Year
  • Popularity of name when born: #2
  • Current popularity: Stable in the mid 100s
  • Today’s equivalent: ETHAN or “Father Eeth”

Albert “Bert” Newton b. 1938 Victoria

  • Claim to fame: Showbiz icon with a lifetime entertaining people on stage, radio and TV.
  • Honours: Order of Australia, Order of the British Empire, Hall of Fame, four Gold Logies
  • Popularity of name when born: #46
  • Current popularity: Stable in the low 300s
  • Today’s equivalent: MICHAEL or “Mick”

Russell Morris b. 1948 Victoria

  • Claim to fame: Rock musician with ground-breaking hit The Real Thing (1969)
  • Honours: Hall of Fame
  • Popularity of name when born: #29
  • Current popularity: In rare use
  • Today’s equivalent: HARRISON

Kevin Rudd b. 1957 Queensland

  • Claim to fame: Politician for the Australian Labor Party
  • Honours: Elected 26th Prime Minister of Australia in 2007
  • Popularity of name when born: #22
  • Current popularity: Stable in the mid 100s
  • Today’s equivalent: HARRISON or “The Honourable Harrison”

Glenn Stevens b. 1958 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Economist who has held many important government positions
  • Honours: Currently the Governor of the Reserve Bank
  • Popularity of name when born: #40
  • Current popularity: In rare use
  • Today’s equivalent: JACKSON

Hugh Jackman b. 1968 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Singer, dancer and actor on stage and screen
  • Honours: Hollywood Walk of Fame, Tony, Emmy, voted Sexiest Man Alive
  • Popularity of name when born: #175 for that decade
  • Current popularity: Stable in the mid 100s
  • Today’s equivalent: VINCENT (also a classic in the 100s, although I could have used Hugh again)

Anthony Bell b. 1972 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Known as the “accountant to the stars”
  • Honours: Net worth of $70 million, BRW Young Rich List
  • Popularity of name when born: #15
  • Current popularity: #66 and gently declining
  • Today’s equivalent: LIAM

Darren Lockyer b. 1977 Queensland

  • Claim to fame: Former rugby league player, considered the greatest player of all time
  • Honours: Team of the Century, life-sized bronze statue, road named after him
  • Popularity of name when born: #37
  • Current popularity: Gently declining in the low 400s
  • Today’s equivalent: AIDEN

Harold “Harry” Kewell b. 1978 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: International soccer star
  • Honours: UEFA Champions League, Oceania Footballer of the Year
  • Popularity of name when born: #482 for the decade
  • Current popularity: In rare use.
  • Today’s equivalent: WESLEY or “Wes” (also in low 400s)

Hamish Blake b. 1981 Victoria

  • Claim to fame: Popular comedian on radio and television
  • Honours: Logie, Gold Logie, Comedian of the Year, Most Powerful Celebrity, Who’s Who
  • Popularity of name when born: #187 for the decade
  • Current popularity: #50 and rising
  • Today’s equivalent: RORY (also a British-style name in the 100s)

Future famous trends: We can expect to see today’s Irish-influenced boy’s names, such as Liam and Aiden, on tomorrow’s celebrities. Old Testament names for boys are very “in”, but to my surprise Ethan was the only one which turned up on a future famous person. Hugh is apparently evergreen, and romantic Vincent seems like a worthy successor for a Hollywood heartthrob. Harrison was the surprise celebrity success, being used on both a rock star and a Prime Minister. If you named your baby son Harrison last year, you may well see him leading the country one day.

WOMEN

Hazel Hawke b. 1929 Western Australia

  • Claim to fame: Former Prime Minister’s former wife, social advocate, and patron of the arts
  • Honours: Order of Australia
  • Popularity of name when born: #41
  • Current popularity: Rising steeply in the low 300s
  • Today’s equivalent: ADDISON OR MIKAYLA

Barbara Thiering b. 1930 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Historian and scholar who wrote the bestseller Jesus the Man (1993)
  • Honours: Professorship, many government positions, Jesus Seminar fellowship
  • Popularity of name when born: #21
  • Current popularity: In rare use
  • Today’s equivalent: EVA

Ita Buttrose b. 1942 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Journalist, former editor of Cleo and The Australian Woman’s Weekly
  • Honours: Order of the British Empire, Order of Australia, Centenary Medal
  • Popularity of name when born: Not on the charts
  • Current popularity: Not on the charts.
  • Today’s equivalent: AOIFE (a similar-sounding Irish name that is unranked)

Maureen Caird Jones b. 1951 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Olympic athlete specialising in sprint hurdles
  • Honours: World record, Olympic gold medal
  • Popularity of name when born: #29
  • Current popularity: Unranked since the 1980s
  • Today’s equivalent: JASMINE

Eleanor “Elle” Macpherson b. 1964 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Supermodel, actress, producer and businesswoman
  • Honours: Listed by Forbes as having assets of over $60 million
  • Popularity of name when born: #456 for the decade
  • Current popularity: Rising sharply in the mid to low 100s
  • Today’s equivalent: ROSEMARY or “Romy” (another retro-style name in the mid 400s)

Kylie Minogue b. 1968 Victoria

  • Claim to fame: Pop diva and actress
  • Honours: Ordre de Arts et des Lettres, Order of the British Empire, Hall of Fame, numerous awards
  • Popularity of name when born: #48
  • Current popularity: In rare use
  • Today’s equivalent: LAYLA

Mary Donaldson b. 1972 Tasmania

  • Claim to fame: Crown Princess of Denmark and Duchess of Monpezat
  • Honours: Order of the Elephant, Order of Saint Olav, Order of the Polar Star
  • Popularity of name when born: #70
  • Current popularity: Stable in the low 100s
  • Today’s equivalent: INDIANNA or “Her Royal Highess Indianna”

Lucinda Dunn b. 1974 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Principal artist with The Australian Ballet, the company’s longest-serving ballerina
  • Honours: Australian Dance Award, Green Room Award, multiple scholarships
  • Popularity of name when born: #264 for the decade
  • Current popularity: Stable in the low 100s
  • Today’s equivalent: KATHERINE (also in the 260s)

Amelia Farrugia b. 1977 Victoria

  • Claim to fame: Opera singer with the Metropolitan Opera of New York
  • Honours: NSW Young Achiever of the Year, numerous awards
  • Popularity of name when born: #249 for the decade
  • Current popularity: #8 and rising gently
  • Today’s equivalent: SERENA (also in the mid 200s)

Roxanne “Roxy” Jacenko b. 1980 New South Wales

  • Claim to fame: Started her own PR company at the age of 24
  • Honours: Business now worth many millions
  • Popularity of name when born: #270 for the decade
  • Current popularity: In rare use
  • Today’s equivalent: JESSIE or “Jess” (also in the high 200s)

Future famous trends: Much more variety with the names of famous women of tomorrow, but the current trend for plant and flower names will be evident, as well as short forms and the -ayla names. Although there were one or two unisex names, in general the future famous women will have quite feminine names, and you don’t need to fear that the pretty name you have chosen for your daughter will hinder her success. Famous women seemed to be more likely than famous men to have a non-popular name, so you may be better off choosing a name in the 200s to 400s.

In fact, very popular names were rare on the famous of both sexes – bad news for the Jacks and Mias of today. Equally rare were names in the second half of the Top 100 – the #15-#50 bracket seemed to be where the bulk of names of famous people came from.

Now you may be sceptical of a Prime Minister named Harrison, a Governor of the Reserve Bank named Jackson, or a European princess named Indianna. But consider this: it is just as likely as a Prime Minister named Kevin, a Governor of the Reserve Bank named Glenn, and a Tasmanian princess named Mary – and they all happened!

You may also think this whole entry is rather silly – in which case, that means the original theory of using successful people’s names as a guide is too, which possibly means that this myth is … BUSTED.

On the other hand, I can’t refute the blogger’s assertion that all these famous people’s names, past and present, are “regular” names – nearly all of them are on the popularity charts, for example. In that case, you may decide that the blogger’s theory is PLAUSIBLE.

So what do you think? Busted or plausible?

Note: For reasons of space I could only show ten names of each sex, but I did examine perhaps 30-50 famous men and women from my blog, and found the same patterns existing. In other words, I chose typical rather than extraordinary examples. Harrison actually turned up a third time, and I edited it out in case it should stretch credulity. I suggest keeping your eye on that name!

DISCLAIMER: Results entirely for entertainment purposes; has not been tested under lab conditions; giving your child a name which conforms to popularity of famous people’s names may or may not have desired effect. There is no connection between Baby Name Mythbusters and the TV show “Mythbusters”.

MYTH: Very Popular Names Should be Avoided, Because in Thirty Years They Will Sound Dated and Embarassing

18 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by A.O. in Baby Name Mythbusters

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

classic names, name popularity, name predictions, name trends, nicknames, popular names, retro names, Shakespearean names

Along with all the articles on popular names that came out with the 2011 name data, there were several which warned parents not to give their baby a name from the Top 10 , because in thirty years it will sound old and frumpy.

I don’t know why they all decided thirty years was the point at which this would occur – I would have thought by the age of thirty, you would be too mature to care if you had a fashionable name or not anyway. Seriously, if you are over the age of thirty, and thinking ZOMG my name is like totally lame and uncool now! all I can tell you is Get a grip! You’re not in high school any more. Also, nobody has used ZOMG since 2007.

Of course, it’s kind of silly, because if everyone stopped using the Top 10 names because they were too popular, then they wouldn’t be Top 10 any more, ten other names would be. The only way you can avoid some names being at the top of the popularity lists is to have a law that each name can only be used once per year. In which case, pity the kids born in December, who will be named Farqui-Neemehoor or Exmayhemaliah.

However, putting that rather obvious objection aside, I decided to take a look at the Top 10 of 1982, to see if those names really had dated as badly as the Commodore 64, Bucks Fizz, and puffed shoulders, or were still going strong, like Angelina Jolie, environmental activism, and deely bobbers.

GIRLS

1. Sarah: Classic name which has never left the rankings. Has been Top 100 since the 1960s. Currently gently declining at #31.

2. Rebecca: Almost continually in the rankings, only dropping off in the 1930s. Was Top 100 from the 1960s until the late 2000s. Currently gently declining in the mid 100s.

3. Melissa: Has charted since the 1950s, and was Top 100 from the 1960s to the 2000s. Currently stable in the mid-300s.

4. Jessica: Has charted since the 1960s, and was Top 10 by the 1980s. It kept climbing, and became the #1 name of the 1990s. Currently stable at #20.

5. Nicole: Has charted since the 1950s, and was Top 100 from the 1960s until the late 2000s. Currently stable in the low 200s.

6. Lauren: Has charted since the 1940s, and was Top 10 by the 1980s. It continued to climb, and peaked in the 1990s. Lauren has only just left the Top 100, and is probably in the very low 100s.

7. Michelle: Has charted since the 1940s, and was Top 100 from the 1950s to the 2000s. Currently stable in the mid-100s.

8. Kate: Ranked in the 1900s, but dropped off the charts from the 1930s to the 1950s. Was Top 100 from the 1970s until the very end of the 2000s. Currently stable in the low 100s; however I believe this name is not finished, and may rejoin the Top 100.

9. Emma: Almost continuously in the rankings, only dropping off in the 1940s. Has been Top 100 since the 1970s. Currently #17 and on a slight rise.

10. Lisa: Has charted since the 1940s, and was Top 100 from the 1960s to the 2000s. Currently declining in the mid-500s.

BOYS

1. Michael: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from 1940 to the 2000s. Currently stable at #35.

2. Mathew: Classic name that has never left the rankings, and has been Top 100 since the 1950s. Currently gently declining at #32.

3. Andrew: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from the 1960s to the 1990s. Currently stable at #70.

4. David: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from the 1940s to the 1990s. Currently stable at #78.

5. Daniel: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from the 1970s to the late 2000s. Currently gently declining at #24.

6. Christopher: Classic name that has never left the rankings. It was Top 100 in the 1900s, and returned to it in the 1940s. Currently stable at #84.

7. Benjamin: Classic name that has never left the rankings, and has been Top 100 since the 1970s. Currently on a decline at #11.

8. James: Solid, enduring classic that has never left the Top 20. It was Top 10 from the 1900s to the 1940s, and then again from the 1980s to the late 2000s. Currently on a slight decline at #12.

9. Mark: Classic name that has never left the rankings, and was Top 100 from the 1940s to the late 2000s. Currently stable in the low 200s.

10. Luke: Has charted since the 1940s, and been Top 100 since the 1970s. Currently declining at #33.

From the girls’ list, three of them are still in the Top 100, and from the boys’ list nine of them are still Top 100. Of the names that have left the Top 100, most of them are stable, rather than becoming ever less popular. Michelle and Nicole may not sound the freshest, but the 100s and 200s are not the dim backwoods of the popularity charts (they are where where Mary and Clara live). Melissa and Lisa are probably the most dated-sounding of the names, but they are on the charts, which means that parents are still using them. Based on the data above, I think that’s pretty much a BUSTED.

However, another theory I’ve seen on baby name forums is that the names of thirty years ago have become so firmly entrenched that they now seem a little … well, boring. This idea does have some merit, because although names such as Emma and Andrew are absolutely great, and nobody will criticise you for using them, nobody is going to say, “Oh what a stunningly beautiful and unusual name; I’m sure there’s a fascinating story behind your choice of it,” either. Which is fine, not everyone wants their child’s name to be a constant source of comments and questions. But I’d be edging towards a PLAUSIBLE on that one.

So where will our current Top 10 be in thirty years? Some would say it’s foolish to speculate, but on the basis that the best predictor of the future is the past, I’ll have a stab at it. That’s how I do my footy tipping anyway.

The average time that a popular girl’s name spent in the Top 100 was 46 years, which means about half the girls’ names from the current Top 10 are contenders for staying in the Top 100 until 2042. Of the names from 1982 which have lasted, Sarah and Emma had a long history of being on the charts, while Jessica was still gaining in popularity. Based on that, I’d say classics Charlotte and Amelia have the best chance for being stayers, while another Shakespearean coinage, Olivia, could keep going and going.

Chloe, Isabella and Sophie seem as if they will at the very least remain relatively stable in the 100s, like Rebecca, Michelle and Lauren. I’m picking Ava to be the Nicole of our times (200s), and Sienna to be another Melissa (300s). Because Lisa was the least successful name, and a cute nickname form of a longer name, perhaps Mia will also not fare so well long term. Ruby and Kate are retro names that have gone in and out of fashion, and I think both are quite unpredictable.

As far as the boys names go, chances are that 90% of them will still be in the Top 100 by 2042. I’m picking Joshua to be the name that doesn’t go the distance, as it is currently in the same decline that Mark was in 1982. Two of the names from 1982, Benjamin and James, are barely outside the Top 10 today, and I would back Ethan and Lucas as the most likely to mimic that success.

Results are unscientific and for entertainment purposes only. Baby Name Mythbusters is not affiliated with the television show, “Mythbusters”.

MYTH: Certain Baby Names Must Be Avoided Because They Are “Dog Names”

12 Sunday Feb 2012

Posted by A.O. in Baby Name Mythbusters

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

dog names, name forums, name perceptions, name popularity

toddler__dogBaby Name Mythbusters is a new Category I dreamed up to replace Celebrity Baby Names, which seems redundant now that we have Celebrity Baby News. I thought it would be a fun way to examine some of the myths prevalent amongst the baby naming community, and see whether they stack up.

I was in an Australian parenting forum where someone was looking for opinions on a baby name they were considering – Sailor, for a girl. One of the responses was ewww not sailor i had a dog called that. This struck me as one of the least useful or helpful things you could say in this situation – I mean I had a horse named Caroline; I don’t expect that name to be forever off limits for babies because I claimed it as a “horse name”. (I also had a dog named Judith, same deal).

It got me thinking about how often “That’s a dog’s name” comes up in discussions on baby names, and how it is designed to end all debate. That’s a dog’s name: a good parent would never give their baby a name suitable for a dog : discussion over, seems to be pretty much how it is supposed to work.

I decided to search through baby name forums to see what names were perceived as “dog names”, and then see how popular they really were for dogs, based on the popularity charts put out by a major dog tag corporation, which is the only national database for pet names that I know. Then I could compare them to the latest available data for baby name popularity.

I hit upon this method because it’s common for people to use popularity charts to decide how a name’s popularity reflects its usage for each gender. So if Matthew has continually charted for males, and never for females, it’s usually decided that makes it a “boy name”, and if there are more girl babies named Harper than boy babies, some would argue that Harper is more of a female name than a male one.

I didn’t see any reason why that method couldn’t be applied to see whether a name was more dog than human. Here is what I discovered:

NAMES THAT PEOPLE THINK ARE DOG NAMES THAT ARE MORE POPULAR FOR DOGS THAN HUMANS

  • Bailey (#36 dog, #47 human)
  • Barney (#28 dog, unranked human)
  • Bear (#21 dog, unranked human)
  • Beau (#17 dog, #71 human)
  • Billy (#30 dog, #112 human)
  • Buddy (#12 dog, unranked human)
  • Buster (#14 dog, unranked human)
  • Charlie (#7 dog name, #22 human)
  • Duke (#48 dog, unranked human)
  • Harley (#25 dog, #126 human)
  • Harry (#15 dog, #27 human)
  • Jake (#4 dog, #25 human)
  • Lucky (#23 dog, unranked human)
  • Max (#1 dog, #17 human)
  • Milo (#22 dog, unranked human)
  • Monty (#10 dog, unranked human)
  • Rex (#24 dog, #472 human)
  • Rusty (#18 dog, unranked human)
  • Sam (#2 dog, #97 human)
  • Shadow (#19 dog, unranked human)
  • Toby (#5 dog, #56 human)
  • Zeus (#50 dog, unranked human)
  • Bella (#15 dog, #41 human)
  • Belle (#41 dog, unranked human)
  • Buffy (#47 dog, unranked human)
  • Cassie (#23 dog, unranked human)
  • Cleo (#55 dog, unranked human)
  • Coco (#11, unranked human)
  • Daisy (#9 dog, #149 human)
  • Gypsy (#42 dog, unranked human)
  • Holly (#13 dog, #42 human)
  • Honey (#25 dog, unranked human)
  • Lucy (#5 dog, #21 human)
  • Maggie (#18 dog, #204 human)
  • Millie (#34 dog, #202 human)
  • Misty (#27 dog, unranked human)
  • Molly (#2 dog, #55 human)
  • Poppy (#57 dog, #68 human)
  • Sally (#7 dog, #306 human)
  • Sasha (# 6 dog, #167 human)
  • Sheba (#32, unranked human)
  • Tara (#31 dog, #153 human)
  • Tess (#8 dog, #260 human)
  • Zoe (#10 dog, #15 human)

NAMES THAT PEOPLE THINK ARE DOG NAMES THAT ARE MORE POPULAR FOR HUMANS THAN DOGS

  • Cooper (unranked dog, #7 human)
  • Jack (#3 dog, #2 human)
  • Riley (unranked dog, #20 human)
  • Annabelle (unranked dog, #38)
  • Emily (unranked dog, #8 human)
  • Maya (unranked dog, #46 human)
  • Sophie (#16 dog, #11 human)

A NAME THAT PEOPLE THINK IS A DOG NAME THAT’S EQUALLY POPULAR FOR DOGS AND HUMANS

  • Chloe (#3 dog, #3 human)

NAMES THAT PEOPLE THINK ARE DOG NAMES, BUT ARE NOT ACTUALLY COMMONLY GIVEN TO DOGS

  • Alfie
  • Andy
  • Akira
  • Bandit
  • Barclay
  • Baxter
  • Bernie
  • Bran
  • Brindley
  • Brock
  • Brody
  • Bruno
  • Buck
  • Champ
  • Chance
  • Colby
  • Cosmo
  • Dash
  • Dexter
  • Digby
  • Earl
  • Eddie
  • Elliot
  • Elvis
  • Gage
  • Gunner
  • Hunter
  • Nico
  • Otis
  • Pete
  • Prince
  • Remy
  • Rocco
  • Roscoe
  • Rufus
  • Samson
  • Shiloh
  • Sonny
  • Spike
  • Winston
  • Wyatt
  • Zane
  • Zeke
  • Ziggy
  • Abby
  • Apple
  • Bess
  • Betsy
  • Bindi
  • Bluebell
  • Dakota
  • Dixie
  • Fifi
  • Fran
  • Gigi
  • Ginger
  • Jenna
  • Josie
  • Kiki
  • Libby
  • Lola
  • Lulu
  • Luna
  • Macy
  • Maddie
  • Madison
  • Madeline
  • Maisie
  • Mia
  • Olga
  • Piper
  • Raven
  • Reba
  • Sadie
  • Sailor
  • Skipper
  • Sophia
  • Star
  • Zuzu

NAMES THAT ARE POPULAR FOR DOGS, BUT PEOPLE DON’T SEEM TO THINK OF THEM AS DOG NAMES

  • Oscar #6
  • Zac #9
  • Tyson #11
  • Ben #13
  • Jasper #26
  • Jackson #29
  • George #34
  • Casper #38
  • Angus #39
  • Jesse #40
  • Cody #42
  • Basil #45
  • Gus #47
  • Jock #49
  • Bronson #51
  • Henry #53
  • Casey #54
  • Clyde #60
  • Ralph #58
  • Bonnie #4
  • Rosie #14
  • Ruby #17
  • Penny #24
  • Gemma #28
  • Jasmine #32
  • Roxy #33
  • Kelly #38
  • Tessa #35
  • Emma #48
  • Chelsea #51
  • Ellie #52
  • Amber #53
  • Jedda #58
  • Heidi #60

From this we can see that although people were able to correctly identify some names as “dog names” that had greater popularity for dogs than humans, there were many more names that they were wrong about. Much as people might imagine that dog owners call their pets Spike and Fifi, these names did not even make the Top 60.

Even more revealingly, there were a number of names that were very popular for dogs that didn’t seem to earn them the title of “dog name”. Henry and Emma are both names commonly given to dogs, and yet I couldn’t find any examples of parents being warned off these names as “too doggy”.

You might argue that’s because these names are so popular for humans, and yet you can see from the first list that very popular baby names like Charlie and Zoe were correctly identified as names commonly given to dogs. You can also see from the second list that popular baby names like Cooper and Emily were incorrectly identified as “dog names”. Moreover, names such as Bonnie and Basil are many times more often given to dogs than humans, yet they were not perceived as dog names.

Because people seemed to do so poorly at correlating baby names perceived as “dog names” with names that were actually given to dogs, I am calling this

MYTH BUSTED

Disclaimer: Information for entertainment purposes only; results may not be scientifically accurate and further studies need to be done with better data. There is no connection between Baby Name Mythbusters and the television show “Mythbusters”, so nobody needs to sue me or anything.

Enter your email address to follow this blog

Categories

Archives

Recent Comments

waltzingmorethanmati… on Zarah Zaynab and Wolfgang…
Madelyn on Zarah Zaynab and Wolfgang…
drperegrine on Can Phoebe Complete This …
waltzingmorethanmati… on Rua and Rhoa
redrover23 on Rua and Rhoa

Blogroll

  • Appellation Mountain
  • Baby Name Pondering
  • Babynamelover's Blog
  • British Baby Names
  • Clare's Name News
  • For Real Baby Names
  • Geek Baby Names
  • Name Candy
  • Nameberry
  • Nancy's Baby Names
  • Ren's Baby Name Blog
  • Sancta Nomina
  • Swistle: Baby Names
  • The Art of Naming
  • The Baby Name Wizard
  • The Beauty of Names
  • Tulip By Any Name

RSS Feed

  • RSS - Posts

RSS Posts

  • Celebrity Baby News: Melanie Vallejo and Matt Kingston
  • Names from the TV Show “Cleverman”
  • Can Phoebe Complete This Sibset?
  • Zarah Zaynab and Wolfgang Winter
  • Baby, How Did You Get That Name?

Currently Popular

  • Celebrity Baby News: Michelle Rowland and Michael Chaaya
  • The Top 100 Names of the 1940s in New South Wales
  • Celebrity Baby News: David and Eleanor Armstrong
  • Girls Names From Stars and Constellations
  • Celebrity Baby News: Grandsons of Peter Harvey

Tags

celebrity baby names celebrity sibsets english names famous namesakes fictional namesakes honouring locational names middle names name combinations name history name meaning name popularity name trends nicknames popular names saints names sibsets surname names twin sets unisex names

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Waltzing More Than Matilda
    • Join 514 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Waltzing More Than Matilda
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...