No More 'lonely The Only' Parents Of Singletons Lose The Guilt As Kids, Society Adjust
USA TODAY
By Karen S. Peterson
February 22, 2000
Increasing numbers of families are experiencing a type of new math: One plus zero equals no guilt. They are finding that having an only child is just fine.The stereotype of the parents of an only child as selfish -- and of the singleton as lonely, spoiled, just this side of pathetic -- is changing dramatically, experts say.
Two factors are at play: exploding numbers of singletons and a changing image of them among child-development professionals. That makes it easier to live ''only'' in America.
Jane Annunziata and husband Gary VandenBos are psychologists with busy careers. They made a decision to have just one child, now 12, and they agree that ''our family is the right size for us.''
It is, she says, ''OK for parents to take care of themselves and to know their limits, to not feel guilty about not giving their child a brother or sister,'' says Annunziata, 44, of McLean, Va. ''Some parents only have the time and energy for one.''
Fran Lantz is an only child who adopted just one child and makes no apologies about it. ''With two children, I would be too scattered,'' says Lantz, 47, of Santa Barbara, Calif.
She grew up needing some personal space. Another child would mean ''I would not have time for my own activities, and my husband feels that way, too.''
The number of only children is soaring. The percentage of women ages 40-44 who had only one child rose from 9.6% in 1980 to 17.3% in 1998. That's an 85% increase, the U.S. Census Bureau says. ''The number is going up every year,'' the bureau's Amara Bachu says. That age group is used as a marker for family size because women are assumed to be nearing the end of their child-bearing years.
About 20% of children under age 18 are singletons, says Carolyn White, who runs a Web site (www.onlychild.com) designed to help ''only'' families and to reflect the changing times. ''There is such a substantial number that they no longer feel they are odd.''
As the number of onlies rises, researchers and professionals who study children increasingly find onlies are turning out just fine -- sometimes even with a bit of an edge over kids in larger families.
When she started studying singletons in the '70s, Toni Falbo could get attention in professional journals just by saying singletons are normal: ''It was so well believed that only children were a disaster.''
No longer, says Falbo, a professor of educational psychology and sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. ''You can't get attention that way anymore. The general (professional) view is that, by and large, they are ordinary folk.''
Falbo herself is an only child who has one child. ''Given all that I know, I adopted just one child. And I don't feel I have to apologize about it at all.''
In the public's perception, however, onlies are not home-free, White cautions. Parents still come to her Web site wondering if they have done the right thing. Still, the trend is to a more positive view.
That's partly the result of an expanding view of family in general, White says. Over the past decade ''there has been a great change in the perception of what a family is'' that includes single parents and couples living together, she says. The idea of ''family'' now easily includes just one child.
Also, the image of the only child as a lonely child is simply no longer valid. ''Virtually all kids go to preschool now. They are socialized at a much earlier age'' than in the past, White says. ''The image of the lonely only child with no playmates and minimal social skills just doesn't apply anymore.''
Her daughter, Alexis White, 20, is a junior at the University of California at Los Angeles and an only child who says it is no big deal. ''I just think children adjust,'' whether they are onlies, the oldest, the youngest or the middle child. ''Each group has its stereotypes. And I don't think it matters. Children are survivors, and they find what they need.''
Charles White, who runs the Only Child site with his wife, says he senses that the trend is somewhat urban. Manhattan is an oasis of only children, he says. ''People living in urban settings find the cost of living is high and the opportunities for space are not really there. Their lifestyles are more compressed,'' along with the size of their families.
Experts say there are several reasons for the ballooning numbers of only children. Susan Newman, author of Parenting an Only Child, sums up a major factor: ''Women who want to have it all can have more of it by having only one child. With one child, you can still be the president of the PTA and advance your career.'' Experts also cite other reasons:
* Later marriages. Women who marry when they are older tend to have fewer children. The corollary is ''women who bear children later experience an increased amount of secondary infertility,'' Newman says. They are more likely to be unable to conceive a second child at an advanced age.
* More two-career couples. More women are postponing having children in favor of establishing a career track. And the wife's income is more apt to be seen as significant, Falbo says. ''Having a second child is perceived as having a negative financial impact.''
* A high divorce rate. A divorce decreases a woman's chances of having another child. And as women marry divorced men, they may only have one child because their husbands already have families, Newman says.
* Increasing adoptions. ''More women are opting to have or adopt a baby on their own, and one tends to be the most they can manage,'' she says. And more ''international adoptions give couples the opportunity to have a family, and generally, although not always, they adopt one child.''
Often the decision to have an only child is a passive one, Falbo says. An older career woman has a child rather late. Time goes by as she continues to work, and either she subconsciously chooses not to have a second or learns she cannot.
Some also are making a conscious decision to have a singleton. In her parents' generation, Fran Lantz says, people assumed one child meant the parents couldn't have another. ''Now they assume it is a choice, which for me it is.''
The decision can be appealing financially and personally. ''When I see my friends with two kids, I get the feeling there are a lot of things they cannot do,'' Lantz says. ''We can go on a trip and all fit in one hotel room.''
Parents decide ''they don't have to divide up their time and attention, worry about being fair or dividing the goodies equally among the children,'' Falbo says.
Falbo is one of the most quoted experts in the field: She has examined 115 studies of only children. ''A lot of research results -- that of mine and others -- show that, by and large, only children are like others in terms of achievement, education, intelligence, sociability, age at marriage'' and other factors, Falbo says.
Indeed, some of the studies show that onlies are at a ''slight statistical advantage, perhaps 2%, in higher achievement, motivation and higher self-esteem. That gives only children a bit of a boost.''
That does not mean, she emphasizes, that an only ''is more likely to become president of the United States. This is a small factor, connected to the fact that only children tend to get more of their parents' attention. And their resources are not as diluted.''
Public opinion is slower to change than that of professionals. But Marc Nemiroff, a psychologist, father of an only child and co-author with Annunziata of Why Am I an Only Child?, sees hopeful signs. ''My impression, as I talk to people, is that being an only child is now simply seen as an alternative. It is not better. But it is certainly not worse.''
Copyright 2000 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
This news story is not produced by the American Psychological Association and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the association.