"only child syndrome"

[izzium]

A friend of mine was telling me about some of the children in her DD's class and came out with "they are real prima donnas - of course, it's only child syndrome".

She has said something similar before and another friend has come out with comments like this too.

It's really starting to make me feel . I know only children sometimes get more attention but it doesn't always mean they turn into spoilt, prima donnas does it? IMO, they turn out like this because of bad parenting NOT because they are only children.

How do others cope with comments about this?

[wastwinsetandpearls]

GenevieveHawkings Sun 04-Apr-10 12:40:59

(* note coloquial definitions of the term "prima donna", variously someone who wishes to be treated with special deference, someone who is arrogant, vain, temperamental conceited, self-absorbed, bitchy, unreasonable, difficult to work with, someone who exhausts you with their constant need for affection to glorify their massive egos, a person who is vain and considers themselves too good to do certain tasks or live under conditions they consider beneath them, someone who has a far higher opinion of themselves than anyone else does)

I am temperamental, I wouldn't say dp treats me with deference but he treats me better than most of my friends are treated by their dps.

Dd is also temperamental and I can't imagine her putting up with a partner who does not treat her with the respect she deserves. She also has bag and bags of confidence.

[GenevieveHawkings]

Temperamental can cover a multitude of sins but usually I think it describes a person whose mood often changes very suddenly and that needn't necessarily mean you're generally obnoxious all the time. I thin a lot of people would call themselves temperamental - I'd even refer to myself as that at times but I wouldn't try it on anywhere outside of my immediate close family.

I think prima donnas go a little bit further than being a bit temperamental and are generally speaking obnixious wherever they go and don't modify their behaviour for anyone.

Going on that assumption wastwinsetandpearls I think that you might be being a little hard on yourself and your DD referring to you both as prima donnas. It's really not a nice label to hang on any decent female.

[wastwinsetandpearls]

I have just asked dp if I am a prima donna , he said maybe a little followed by "Is that thr right answer?"

[blueshoes]

If you believe in environmental influence, then surely being born in a family where you get all the attention, your parents can afford to lavish material things and you don't have to share their toys or living space with another child would be more likely to produce certain traits in a child ... but not always because of the influence of nature as well.

We can always argue the exceptions till the cows come home. But it has been observed ...

[TrowelAndError]

Yes, blueshoes, but it's selective observation, very often. Only children have got as much right or opportunity as other children to behave in a bratty and obnoxious way. If children with siblings behave in a bratty and obnoxious way, though, people just deal with it but, if only children do it, it's evidence' of a 'syndrome'. Hence my remark earlier about confirmation bias.

And it is by no means true that having only one child means that parents can lavish material things on them. Having one child isn't the preserve of the wealthy!

[blueshoes]

The key to onlies are that the environmental factors are more likely to be a certain way which in turn is more likely to produce certain traits in children that might not otherwise come to the fore under different conditions.

You don't have to be wealthy to lavish material things. But a family is more able to provide material things if they only had one child as opposed to two or more.

There are a lot of onlies in my dd's private school. Their parents are not wealthy but they can afford it because they only have the one.

But I get your point about selective observation.

[GenevieveHawkings]

"...surely being born in a family where you get all the attention, your parents can afford to lavish material things and you don't have to share their toys or living space with another child would be more likely to produce certain traits in a child ..."

Taht, in a nutshell, is the common misconception isn't it?

But turn that on it's head and my experience of children has often been that if being born in a family where your toys are often taken or commondered by your siblings, your parents have less time to lavish on you as a result of needing to split it with your siblings, having to share your space with your siblings is more likely to make children jealously guard their toys and be unwilling to give them up to siblings, resent the time their siblings get to spend with their parents and want to kick your siblings out of your space...

[blueshoes]

That would be more likely to be true of siblings too.

It is not necessarily a misconception. I would not deny it.

[notyummy]

DD is an only. I am an only. My mum is an only! We (well, more DH than me tbh....) have made an active decision to have an only. My mum wanted more kids, as did my grandma. I can see that my Mum and I have certain traits. I listened to a radio 4 prgarmme hosted by a psychologist once on the traits of only children and was shouting out at the radio 'Yes! That's me!!'.

The programme made the following (researched) points....Basically, the positive side of being an only (if you have half decent parents...) is that you are sure of your place in the world. You are loved and deserve to be loved. You are important; you matter; people have time for you. This can often translate itself to how you behave with partners (you don't put up with wrong 'uns because you are worth more than that) and in education/work - the confidence to believe you should be listened to/get the job.

The negative side of this is that inevitably you can be a bit blind to the fact that you are NOT the centre of the universe. You need to work at reminding yourself of this and questioning your own behaviour. Even if your parents didn't actively spoil you (which I don't think mine did - materially I got a lot less than many of my friends with siblings because they were determined that I shouldn't be a spoiled brat) they still focus more of their attention on YOU and only YOU. Having said that, most onlies learn the hard way at nursery/school that there are a lot of people out there competing for attention.

My DH comes from a large family and actively hated having a number of siblings. He can't see any positives in it, and it was one of the main reasons he wanted an only. And anecedotally.... the person in either DHs or my family who shows the classic 'spoiled only' traits is actually his youngest sibling.

Go figure?!

[TrowelAndError]

Notyummy - That sounds like a pretty accurate analysis. Was the radio 4 programme recent enough to still be available online?

[notyummy]

Afraid not - at least 3/4 years ago. I remember where I was driving to when listening, and it was a place a haven't worked at for some time...

[GenevieveHawkings]

Snap notyummy, my DH is also from a very large family and is another one who can't see any positives of having a large number of children. He too was keen to stop at one when the time came for him to have his on family.