Only children 'happier' according to this study...

[edam]

Interesting stuff for those of us with only children. Although I'm amazed apparently we make up half of all households - not in this neck of the woods or amongst my friends and family.

Also think it has to be balanced with what it's like to be an only child as an adult, especially coping with elderly parents and parents dying. I know my mother has felt desperately lonely at times - she has friends but no-one who shares her childhood memories.

(My strategy is to hope ds will remain very close to his cousins, who are fortunately very close in age - at least there's someone who will know who he's moaning about when he complains about me in later years!)

Telegraph 15 November

Only children happier than those with siblings
Only children are happier than those with brothers or sisters, according to new research which shows that sibling rivalry can have a serious effect on a child's emotional wellbeing.

More than half of the children surveyed said they had been bullied by a sibling, and one in three said they had been hit, kicked or pushed on regular occasions. Others complained of name-calling and having their belongings stolen.

The Understanding Society study run by the Institute for Social and Economic Research concluded that happiness declines the more siblings there are in a household.

Other reasons for only children being more contented include not having to compete for parental attention or to share a bedroom with a sibling, said Gundi Knies, a researcher on the project

Dr Ruth Koppard, a child psychologist, said: "In an average home, the more children, the less privacy for each child. Some love sharing a bedroom with a sibling but they would rather choose to do it than have to do it."

Homes with just one child make up nearly half of all families in Britain.

The study, to be published on Friday, questioned 2,500 young people. It also found that seven out of 10 teenagers are "very satisfied" with their lives and children from ethnic minorities are happier than their white counterparts.

I think some kicking, fighting etc IS normal among siblings (within reason). But it can cross a line where it becomes bullying, abusive and damaging. That line is far more likely to be crossed where parents are stressed, over-stretched or just too exhausted to keep monitoring and disciplining several children. And parents are more likely to be stressed and exhausted where they have lots of children. Some parents are unusually energetic and resilient. Some children are particularly good-natured and skilled at sibling relationships. But many aren't. Again, we're dealing with averages, not pointing the finger at the reproductive choices of anyone on this thread!

I was an 'only' and hated it.I told people I had a sister and showed a photo of my gran's neighbour.Her name was Sylvia and I made up stories where she really was my sister who had somehow been separated.My family had no idea how I felt but I lied to acquaintances for years [stopped aged 12].
having said that I had a very happy if over indulged early childhood and would say I was happy though I vowed never to have an 'only' myself if possible.My dad had MS which I was a singleton.

hate these kind of threads, having to justify how many children you have or haven't got

and the only stereotype gets on my wick too

they are just people, they haven't got 2 heads or anything

I find it so hard in these discussions. DS is my only but has a brother 10 years older than him from his fathers previous relationship. DSS is with us every weekend for the past 10 years and we never do big things like go on holiday or birthdays etc without him. But on a day to day basis ds is an only and dp has done the 'firsts' with ds along the way as dp and dss' mum split when dss was 10 months old.
Me and dp never considered having more than one together. Now that ds is 6 the "when are you having another" has stopped and if asked I usually answer with " if I do get pregnant now think dp may have some questions" - he has had the snip lol
I am one of three as is dp but our decision was based on finances and practicalities dp is registered blind.
I truely think that studies like this are usually skewed. As several people have said its what is right for that family. Though I do take offence at some posters that seem to think all onlys are spoiled brats.
I suppose what I am saying that each family has happier and sadder children has nothing to do with being an only or not IMHO

I'm one of many and didn't make friends easily because I was shy and weird and didn't like being around other people much

so go figure

"Within each family size (i) firstborns always scored better on the Raven than did later borns; and (ii) with few inconsistencies, there was a gradient of declining scores with rising birth order, so that firstborns scored better than secondborns, who in turn scored better than thirdborns, and so forth."

No idea what this Raven test is, but I certainly know that I always scored more highly than my elder brother on any school tests and my younger brother, once past the initial years scored higher than me. And it's been the same ever since: I (no 2) have been more academically successful than no 1, but less so than no 3. No 4 was so excessively brainy that he left university after the first term and started up his own successful company. Statistics do no determine the lives of individuals.

Absolutely, Cory - statistics say nothing about individual families nor individual people.

I am an only and didn't really like it (fine in early childhood, very tough after my father died when I was 8, partly because he was the moderating influence in the parenting in my household); DP is one of 6 and thinks that their large family size has had a very negative and ongoing impact on some of her siblings. Unsurprisingly, we don't quite agree on optimum family size

Honestly though, it is what it is: happy families and happy children are not defined by family size, although the lack of attention (if it applies) and other stresses on parents of many children probably do have an effect (money, parents' relationship, time), although there are lots of exceptions too. Being an only is actually pretty good, except for the unbelievably irritating stereotypes...

"happy families and happy children are not defined by family size"-totally agree !

I'm an only child of two only children. I would have loved brothers and sisters and that's why I persevered in spite of many many problems to have a second dc.

However, I'm pretty balanced and actually much less selfish, more generous and better at negotiating than DH and his sisters. Also much more confident and self assured than the sisters. Am much much more sensitive though.

Takver - One question that I think would be interesting, would be whether eldest children are equally statistically likely to report themselves more content.
I couldnt agree with you more. Whenever I have read or listened to discussions on all the benefits of siblings I would find that by far the majority of benefits listed only apply to younger siblings. I know it sounds heartless but as the eldest with a 3 year gap to sister and another 3 to brother I can honestly say that their being around was of no benefit` to me whatsoever. They grew up with the benefit of an elder sibling to fight all the battles with parents for them and show the ropes at school etc - none of that for the first born.

I think it's interesting to think of the impact of only children further down the line.

One of my friends is not an only child, but both her parents were and her Dad died fairly young. We were at a wedding a little while ago where they were taking the photos of the bride's side of the family and my friend turned to me and said, with some sadness, that the bride's family group shot at her wedding would only be her mum and brother.

but tyler your example reveals that you can't guarantee that a large family will all be around and getting on for the duration of their lives. Some families are small through the generations, some are large, some oscillate between the 2. More people doesn't necessarily mean happier families or better relationships -neither does fewer. It's a silly argument at the rational level, surely?

It also varies through history: my mother is now 76, an only child (she had older twin sisters who died in tragic circumstances before she was born; if they hadn't died, my gps would not have had another child). She says that well over half of her school class (all born in the mid-30s, so well before reliable contraception of any kind) were only children. My mother had 13 aunts and uncles, so her parents both came from biggish families. I was one of a small number of only children at primary school in the 70s. I live in Ireland which still has an above-average fertility rate compared to other European countries: in my circle/neighbourhood, I can think of a good number of only children (nearly all girls, oddly enough), but they are definitely in the minority - mostly due to delayed age of sprogging, which may well be the case for us :(

I'm one of three and if I'd been interviewed about having siblings when I was a child, I'd have agreed that we'd fight, I hated sharing a room etc etc but now, as an adult, we get on great and I'm very thankful that I had them around when I was growing up.

"but tyler your example reveals that you can't guarantee that a large family will all be around and getting on for the duration of their lives."

Does it? Not quite sure how it reveals that at all.

I just thought it was interesting, it'd never really occurred to me before that some people have no aunties/uncles/cousins. Despite not being particularly close to my wider family, I find the thought of not having any cousins, aunts and uncles more strange than not having siblings.

I was an only child until I was seven, and sad though it sounds to say it, life was better all round without a sibling. To this day, I'm not close to my sister. DH and I had endless discussions about this before going for a second DC, because he has a sister who is two years older and they are very close. Whoever said that younger siblings have the most to gain by having a sibling could be onto something. I also think it might have something to do with resources. In families that are short on time and money, the resources can be spread too thinly.

tyler maybe I misunderstood you - but the example you gave was of 2 only children and their 2 children - it seems unlikely that your friend's grandparents had only children by choice, so it's just a fact of life, surely? and what I meant was that large families don't guarantee this kind of togetherness because people die, move away, fall out. I'm an only with three first cousins that I haven't seen since I was 18 (for reasons that are too complex and ridiculous to go into here!). It is a bit odd not having a broader extended family, I suppose, but I know plenty of people with such families who never see any of them.

There is also something useful about knowing from a relatively young age that you just have to sort stuff out for yourself - this came as a shock to some of my sibling-rich friends!

I think it depends a great deal on how the children relate to their parents. Our parents were not parents we could go to about problems or talk about personal things with and they were very strict. So I do feel lucky to have my two brothers and two sisters to talk to and share things with.
If I had related better to my parents or had been closer I am sure I would have felt differently.
My dad was a singleton and he always resents it saying he 'didn't really have a childhood' but then his parents were of the opinion `children should be seen and not heard!'

I'd sooner have had the laptop,Melika. I'm a very content only child.

It's nonsense to say that every only child desires siblings. I think I thought it might be nice about three or four times throughout my life,and that was literally for only five minutes at a time before concluding that I love being an only and would prefer to remain one.

I only really got on with my siblings once we were old enough to live under separate roofs.

Damn, that ds's life screwed then. Dd is 7 wks old .

Seriously, who cares what a study says. if you're a happy only, great , ditto if you're A happy one of ten. I'm the youngest of three. I was happy. I'm also the most intelligent, and way most successful of my siblings career wise. That sounds big headed but they would agree with me. So that other study about birth order being relevant to intelligence and success is right then.... I also love the fact my children have cousins they are close to which wouldn't happen if I was an only. I come from an enormous extended family. Of my ten first cousins, only one was an only. He is lovely. He has chosen though to have three children, which suggests he doesn't want to reproduce his childhood. Or maybe the contraception failed twice .

Well I'm one of four, all born with 5 years.

We didn't all get on, some of us did, some of us really didn't. Just like real life really - just cos you're related don't mean you'll get on.

My parents seemed tired, stressed and most of all very distant. I don't remember being hugged or cuddled as a child, and I don't remember being 'parented' very much either. My parents always seemed to be somewhere else, busy with the youngest child, and us older kids left to 'play'. We were all expected to look after ourselves and each other from a very young age. I remember feeling scared, out of my depth, vunerable and needy. I remember liking it when I was ill in school because the teacher fussed and I got a hug - and this rarely happened at home :(

We were often considered to be the perfect family - large, happy, noisy, fun. I remember people saying how lucky we were etc. But the reality as a member of the family was very different.

Now of course I'm not saying all large families are like mine. But I hate the assumption that just because a child has siblings that automatically makes them well adjusted, happy, socially skilled and unselfish. Because that's bullshit.

It's obviously all to do with parenting - which takes effort and time. Maybe parents of onlies are aware of the stereotype and overcompensate to ensure their child has manners and are taught to share. And parents of more than one don't worry too much about teaching these things, because they assume just because they provided a sibling their children will automatically learn these things, which is obviously not the case.

Also re: the materially spoilt stereotype - surely this is down to the parents income? An only child of poor parents will not be materially spoilt, but rich parents can afford to have 6 children AND provide them with new laptops, ponies, private education etc.