Only children: what is the impact of growing up without siblings – 10/05/2023 – Science

Selfish, bossy, socially awkward, jealous, used to getting what he wants and, if all that wasn’t enough, quite bad-tempered.

Their reputation is not the best. However, many studies show that these characteristics are not necessarily associated with only children. What’s more, only children, in many ways, are not particularly different from children who have siblings.

“The evidence generally does not support the idea that children who grow up as only children have some kind of deficit in social skills compared to children who grow up with siblings,” says Alice Goisis, associate professor of Demography at the University College London.

These children are “comparable, in terms of personality, relationship with parents, achievements, motivations and personal adaptation, with children who have siblings”, adds the researcher.

A study by Goisis and his colleagues shows that other, more important factors influence children’s development, such as the family’s socioeconomic situation or the emotional resources available to parents.

Although some research shows differences, Goisis highlights that the reasons behind the discrepancies are due to context and not being an only child per se.

“We found, for example, that in the United Kingdom, where being an only child is an indicator of having grown up in a relatively advantaged family, these children had equal or better health later in life compared to children who had siblings.”

“While in Sweden, where it is common to have two children and only children tend to come from families in a worse economic situation, the latter have worse health later in life,” says Goisis.

In other words, the importance of context and the enormous variety that exists among only children means that this cannot be considered a category in itself.

Benefits

Although the impact in cognitive or sociability terms may not be significant, and is largely due to the context in which the child grows up, this does not mean that there are no differences.

Each position within the family — whether as the oldest, middle or youngest child — has its advantages and disadvantages, explains Linda Blair, a clinical psychologist based in the United Kingdom.

And this more or less advantageous situation is no different in the case of the only child, although “this is the family group that has changed the most in the last 40 or 50 years” (and has become more common).

One of the advantages observed by Blair in more than 40 years of experience is the linguistic excellence that only children tend to have.

“This occurs due to the linguistic contribution of parents, which is not interrupted by that of other children, and which is necessary for brain development in the first 24 or 36 months of life.”

This gives children a huge academic advantage, he adds.

On the other hand, they are usually very good at organizing and making the most of their free time, as they have no brothers or sisters, so they have to find and decide what to do with it.

Finally, Blair notes, “they relate more easily to older people because they do it all the time.”

Disadvantages

On the other hand, not having siblings can put the child in a less favored situation.

“There is research that shows that siblings can have a protective effect when there is a dysfunctional parental relationship in the home, in which case this situation tends to dilute the negative impact of these stress elements”, explains American psychologist Adriean Mancillas, author of “Challenging the Stereotypes About Only Children: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice” (“Challenging Stereotypes About Only Children: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice”, in direct translation into Portuguese).

Therefore, Mancillas highlights the importance of, in these cases, considering seeking support beyond parental figures, such as close friends or extended family.

One deficiency noted by Blair is the lack of so-called “street smarts” in only children. Blair refers to this type of intuitive and practical intelligence, “which allows you to quickly recognize what someone is going to do and which you really can’t learn if you don’t live with people of the same age.”

Another characteristic, he adds, is that, as they spend most of their time alone or with adults, they do not feel as comfortable in more chaotic situations.

Blair insists that these are general characteristics and that, as we mentioned at the beginning, there are no rules that allow us to describe an only child.

But if science unmasks the prejudices that surround only children and paint them in unflattering colors, why is this notion so difficult to eradicate and how did it come about?

‘A disease in itself’

Negative stereotypes surrounding the only child date back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when child psychology was strengthening its foundations as an academic field of study.

G. Stanley Hall, an American psychologist and pioneer in this area of ​​study, published a series of texts in which he describes children without siblings with many of the characteristics that popular culture attributes to them today.

Hall went so far as to describe her only child as “a disease in itself.”

Shortly afterwards, American psychologist Eugene Bohannon contributed his opinion: according to him, parents’ exclusive attention to their only child made them “highly sensitive”, “less daring”, “precocious” and “reckless”.

However, another psychologist, much better known than Hall, had a greater influence on perpetuating negative stereotypes surrounding only children: Austrian Alfred Adler, argues Mancillas.

“Adler was the first psychologist to examine and write in depth about birth order and how family structure affects children’s development,” he says.

“In Adler’s writings on his own case studies, he described the only children he treated clinically in an extremely negative light, asserting that they were not just spoiled children, but that parents who chose not to have more children were inflicting psychological harm to their only children”, he adds.

Airs of change

Although these researchers’ research methods were later questioned and their theories refuted by numerous subsequent studies, it is a myth that is difficult to eradicate.

Goisis believes that this happens because the family consisting of two children still prevails as typical, in which the only child continues to be something outside the norm and, therefore, is considered different (and questionable).

Still, attitudes toward only children are changing dramatically thanks to changes in today’s family model, Blair says.

If in the past being an only child was an anomaly, “today the situation is very different. In the United Kingdom, for example, 40% of families have only one child and it is estimated that by 2030 this group will make up half of families”, says Blair .

For Mancillas, discussing these issues and providing the public with accurate research and information is the way to change views.

“This applies to any prejudice or stereotype,” he says.

“When implicit biases become explicit, we can change them to correct biased and stereotypical thoughts that would otherwise harm another individual or group.”

“When we apply this to only children and parents, it means ensuring that information is widely available so that parents can feel confident in their decision to have only one child,” concludes Mancillas.