Only children not so lonely
Image:
By Zoë Corbyn
It is a widely held stereotype that children who grow up without brothers or sisters may be "oddballs" or "misfits." But new research undermines that notion--suggesting that any deficiency that does exist in only children's social skills when they are young has disappeared by their teens.
The results of the new study also put social-science research under the spotlight. Just what is the right methodology to study such an emotive topic? And how are parents supposed to make head or tail of the conflicting messages they get from such studies?
It has long been established that only children tend to have greater cognitive ability than those with many siblings, but some researchers have regarded that as counterbalanced by weaker social skills--which could potentially pose a problem for only children as they mature. Some of the most persuasive evidence for that view up till now comes from a 2004 study of more than 20,000 kindergarten children in the United States, which showed that teachers rated only children as having poorer social skills than their peers who had at least one sibling--reporting less self-control, fewer interpersonal skills and more behavioral problems.
To study the phenomenon into adolescence, sociologists Donna Bobbitt-Zeher and Douglas Downey from Ohio State University in Columbus drew on existing data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. At the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Atlanta this week, they presented an analysis of responses of 13,466 middle- and high-school students from grades 7-12 who were asked to select five friends from among the students at their school. The researchers found that children without siblings are just as likely to be selected as friends by their classmates as those who grew up with brothers and sisters.
"In every combination we tested, siblings had no impact on how popular a student was among peers," says Bobbitt-Zeher. "I don't think anyone has to be concerned that if you don't have siblings, you won't learn the social skills you need to get along with other students in high school."
Mixed messages?
But the differing results from the two studies raise a number of questions. The adolescent study relies on peer nominations of friendship to assess social skills, whereas the 2004 study--also carried out by Downey--asked teachers to rate the children's social skills. Are the only children becoming more socially aware as they mature and spend time among their peers? Or are the different results simply due to the two different evaluation methods?
The answer, says Downey, is the former, and in evidence he cites a follow-up analysis of the kindergarten children, which he plans to publish soon. On reaching fifth grade, the social skills of the 2004 cohort were again assessed by their teachers--and revealed the same result as the adolescent study based on friendship: there was no difference in social skills between those with and without siblings.
"That the disadvantage of lacking siblings is not there in fifth grade using the same measure gives us more confidence that, while there is a non-trivial difference in the way we are measuring social skills, the story is really about the children's age," says Downey.
"In 2004 I would have said, 'We are seeing modest evidence that there might be some social-skills deficits among only children and we don't know what happens to those later on in life' ...Now I would say, 'It looks like the original deficit that we saw in kindergarten doesn't bear out for very long and is overcome probably through greater peer interaction.'"
Guang Guo, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, is familiar with the data set used in the adolescent study. He describes the new findings as "reasonable" and agrees there is "not necessarily" a conflict with the earlier studies. "People adapt to situations and that is not surprising," he says.
Downey also denies that the differing results present conflicting messages to parents. "We follow the evidence where it takes us, and are evaluating this as carefully as we can. The 2004 study is one of the few to find something that suggested, 'Hey, maybe there is a little something going on with only children'. And now the evidence is leading more back towards what the general consensus is amongst sociologists."
He adds that when he and his colleagues found the small deficit in socialization among the kindergarten children, they didn't recommended that parents have a second child to "improve their first child's social skills." "The differences just weren't large enough for parents to make fertility decisions based on them," he says.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentWe "only children" have always know we're not so lonely or awkward - it's the rest of the society that decided we must be, since we didn't grow up in a whirlwind of children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one stretches the imagination to it's limit, they might imagine there are other charateristics of children that might be negatively or positively impacted over the long term by being an only child... not just ratings (by whomever) of the number of friends one has.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy complaint isn't with the study or its findings, but that these things tend to be presented as if they are more comprehensive or tell a broader story than they actually do.
It is unlikely that spending all of one's formative years living with one or more siblings would have such a limited impact as to dissipate entirely by 5th grade... especially since the experience of being a sibling (or not)is still occuring at that time.... even if it is a smaller percentage of social interaction at that time. While the one metric tested appears to diminish, it seems strange to assume that is the whole story.
Just my 2 cents...
I don't think it was a good idea to have the teachers evaluate these children. When I taught pre-K in the early 80's, you really couldn't tell the 'only' child from the child with brothers or sisters when they were together. They were all in the me me me stage; they all shared and they all claimed 'mine' 'mine' 'mine'. The 'only' child quickly adapted and so did the sibling child. Children are survivors and more complex than this article noted. They become little squirrels, yet can live in the pack of wolves they run with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust last weekend was the first in a long time that we met with relatives. It was also a good time for my lone kid to meet her cousins. She had a great time, exploring relationships thru play even if it was just for a few hours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeft on our own and having dinner that day, I saw my kid, attentively looking at the table beside ours - not because they've got lots of food. Over at the other table was a big family, about 15 people and most of them kids.
Somehow, even without saying a word, I felt that my kid was wondering how different it would be to have playmates other than her dad at home. We both just sat there silently observing the group - the many exchanges and social activity we as a family of three don't have.
It was then that my wife interrupted us. "Believe me, you should be thankful you're an only child. ". I knew she was referring to the usual sibling rivalries, quarrels over toys that we subjected ourselves in our childhood.
... But then again, who knows what's happening in that little mind of hers.
My best friend is an "only" and I have worked with people who are "only" children. In the majority of social situations, I really see very little difference in only children, with the exception of the ability to compromise. That is clearly an issue with the ones I know personally. But when you grew up never having to compromise with siblings, why would you be expected to have the same skills as those who had to compromise growing up. Some of the worse situations I've been in at the office are when two only children need to work together. Trying to get two people who have to have their way work together....that's just asking for trouble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas a male growing up with three sisters, i rarely spent time with them...i always found friends outside the home...then again, comparing outside time from 40+ years ago to today is like apples and oranges....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONBjEEpKrH0&feature=channel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a short video capturing the feelings/thoughts of EVERY 'only child' at one time or another. Please post feedback. Thank you...........Jeff
I find this interesting because my four-year-old child, who is an "only," is so social that people are constantly commenting on it. Children have different personalities that aren't entirely determined by their circumstances; we all know children with siblings who have poor social skills. I do feel people make assumptions about only children and expect them to have social issues; this could even have affected the survey of kindergarten teachers, who may have projected their biases on the children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the blog "Old Mom, Young Child" (http://omyc.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/only/) for the perspective of a mom of an only child.
Being an only child it may be obvious that I am a bit shy as an adult outwardly. But I do not see that as a bad thing. I am a very private adult and do not think that others necessarily need to know about my private life. I do believe that my mother's big family and her outward personality has helped me in life as I had been able to spend much time with my cousins and neighbors and mother's friend's children as a child. I've never had any problems dealing with co-workers because I have a laid-back flexible personality. The greatest thing thus far is that I've been able to sustain my own friendships and thus made them my "sibling" family as we like to refer to it. I have turned out just fine with a wonderful husband, a surrogate "family" of friends, plus a true family. I have a beautiful life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this