{"id":1567,"date":"2026-06-14T14:35:37","date_gmt":"2026-06-14T14:35:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/?page_id=1567"},"modified":"2026-06-14T17:20:49","modified_gmt":"2026-06-14T17:20:49","slug":"elementor-1567","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/?page_id=1567","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Winning With One: What Modern Science Really Says About Only Children and One-and-Done Families
By Nicolette Nappi-Franzone <\/span>(Mom of 1)<\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

[Skip all the way to the end for the spoiler]<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

I think we have all heard the stereotypes about only children…<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you don\u2019t have another one, they will be spoiled!\u201d
\u201cThat poor child is going to be so lonely.\u201d
\u201cThey\u2019ll be socially awkward without a sibling.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2026or the parents that raise them\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cThey have it easy.”
\u201cThey have so much free time compared to parents of multiples.\u201d
\u201cThey’re selfish.”
\u201cThey care more about their careers than family.”
\u201cThey don’t really like parenting.”<\/p>\n

The rise in the \u201cone and done\u201d trend has led to renewed discussion about the old \u201conly child syndrome\u201d stereotype (Pew Research Center, 2023). As a mother to one child who obviously has a lot of free time and nothing better to do, I decided to investigate what modern science actually says about \u201conlies\u201d and why families like mine are choosing to defy cultural expectations and stop at one child.<\/p>\n

Whether you are an expecting parent, already raising an only child, a grandparent urging for \u201cjust one more,\u201d or you simply want some tea on the trending triangle families, you\u2019ll find this information interesting and worth sharing. Birth rates around the world are declining for a variety of economic, social, and personal reasons (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2024; United Nations, 2024). Yet despite the growing prevalence of smaller families, the stereotypes surrounding only children and their parents remain persistent. It\u2019s about time we examine the stereotypes and compare them with what the research shows.<\/p>\n

The Origins of The \u201cOnly Child Syndrome\u201d Stereotype<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before examining what modern research says about only children today, it helps to understand where these stereotypes originated and why they became so widespread.<\/p>\n

The concept of \u201conly child syndrome\u201d emerged during the late nineteenth century from a combination of limited research methods, cultural assumptions, and personal biases. Early psychologists G. Stanley Hall and Edward Webb Bohannon helped popularize concerns about only children through survey-based studies that relied heavily on people\u2019s subjective impressions of the only children they knew (Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

Based on these anecdotal reports, early researchers often characterized only children as peculiar, lonely, selfish, or socially deficient. Although many of these conclusions were presented as scientific findings, they were not based on the rigorous research standards that psychologists use today (Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

Over time, these assumptions became deeply embedded in popular culture. The image of the lonely, selfish, maladjusted only child persisted for generations, despite a growing lack of evidence to support it.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, modern researchers have been able to test these assumptions using far more sophisticated methods than those available to Hall and Bohannon. Today, researchers generally regard \u201conly child syndrome\u201d as a cultural stereotype rather than a scientifically supported psychological condition (Falbo & Polit, 1986).<\/p>\n

One of the leading scholars in this area is Toni Falbo, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas and an internationally recognized expert on only children. For decades, Falbo has examined outcomes related to academic achievement, psychological adjustment, social development, self-esteem, and loneliness among only children and children with siblings (Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

Throughout her career, Falbo has repeatedly challenged claims that only children are inherently lonely, selfish, spoiled, or maladjusted. In fact, she has noted that she has never encountered credible evidence demonstrating that only children are systematically worse off than children who grow up with siblings (Falbo, 2012). Instead, the overwhelming body of research suggests that only children are generally comparable to children from larger families on measures of personality, social adjustment, emotional well-being, and overall psychological functioning (Falbo & Polit, 1986; Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

In other words, the \u201conly child syndrome\u201d is a bunch of bologna. <\/p>\n

Now that we understand the historical origins of the only-child stereotype and have examined the research challenging its validity, let\u2019s take a closer look at the three core myths that continue to shape public perceptions of only children today.<\/p>\n

Stereotype #1: \u201cIf You Don\u2019t Have Another One, They Will Be Spoiled!\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Truth: Research does not support the idea that only children are more selfish than children with siblings.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Perhaps the most common stereotype about only children is that they are spoiled, self-centered, and unwilling to share. However, decades of research have repeatedly failed to support this assumption.<\/p>\n

One of the strongest recent studies examining this stereotype was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science and was appropriately titled They Are Not Little Emperors: Only Children Are Just as Altruistic as Non-Only Children<\/em> (Zhang et al., 2021). Across three separate studies, the researchers found that only children were no less altruistic and no more selfish than children who grew up with siblings. Their findings directly challenged the long-standing belief that being raised without siblings leads to greater self-centeredness (Zhang et al., 2021).<\/p>\n

These findings are consistent with decades of earlier research conducted by educational psychologist Toni Falbo. In one of the most influential reviews of the only-child literature, Falbo and Denise Polit analyzed 115 studies published between 1925 and the mid-1980s that examined outcomes such as personality, social adjustment, achievement, intelligence, and character development (Falbo & Polit, 1986). The studies included participants from a wide range of socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.<\/p>\n

Falbo and Polit later expanded their work by reviewing more than 200 studies examining personality characteristics and developmental outcomes among only children (Falbo & Polit, 1986; Falbo, 2012). Across these investigations, they found that only children were generally indistinguishable from their peers with siblings on measures of personality, social adjustment, and emotional well-being.<\/p>\n

In fact, the one area where only children often performed slightly better was in measures of academic achievement and intelligence, where they frequently scored similarly to or higher than children from larger families (Falbo & Polit, 1986).<\/p>\n

Taken together, more than a century of research provides little evidence that selfishness is an \u201conly child trait.\u201d The stereotype may be common, but the science simply does not support it (Falbo & Polit, 1986; Falbo, 2012; Zhang et al., 2021).<\/p>\n

And let\u2019s be honest\u2014we all know someone who is selfish and has siblings.<\/i><\/p>\n

Next.<\/p>\n

Stereotype #2: \u201cThat Poor Child Is Going to Be So Lonely.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Truth: Research consistently shows that only children are no more lonely or less social than children with siblings.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If there is one stereotype that parents of only children hear almost as often as \u201cthey\u2019ll be spoiled,\u201d it\u2019s the prediction that their child will grow up lonely.<\/p>\n

The assumption seems logical at first glance. After all, siblings can provide built-in playmates, companions, and lifelong relationships. However, when researchers actually study loneliness, friendship, and social adjustment, the evidence tells a very different story.<\/p>\n

For decades, psychologist Toni Falbo has examined whether only children experience greater loneliness than children with siblings. In one of the most influential reviews of the only-child literature, Falbo and Denise Polit analyzed 115 studies and found no evidence that only children were less sociable, more maladjusted, or developmentally deprived because they lacked siblings (Falbo & Polit, 1986).<\/p>\n

Subsequent research has continued to support these findings. In fact, studies have found that only children typically have roughly the same number of close friends as children with siblings and hold similar numbers of leadership positions in extracurricular activities (Sandler, 2009; Falbo, 2012). Researchers have also found that only children are at least as cooperative as their peers during group activities and social interactions (Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

Some studies have reported that only children may have fewer casual acquaintances or participate in fewer clubs or social groups. However, these differences do not translate into fewer close friendships or greater loneliness (Falbo, 2012). In other words, having a smaller social circle is not the same thing as lacking meaningful relationships.<\/p>\n

Part of the confusion may stem from the fact that researchers distinguish between loneliness and solitude.<\/p>\n

Loneliness is the distressing feeling of being disconnected from others or lacking meaningful social relationships. Solitude, on the other hand, simply means being comfortable spending time alone.<\/p>\n

Research suggests that only children may become more accustomed to independent play and solitary activities because they spend less time interacting with siblings at home. However, being comfortable alone is not the same thing as being lonely (Sandler, 2009).<\/p>\n

Modern psychological reviews continue to reject the stereotype that only children are destined to grow up lonely. According to a 2024 summary of the evidence published by the American Psychological Association, common stereotypes portraying only children as selfish, lonely, or maladjusted are not supported by current research (American Psychological Association, 2024). Falbo has likewise noted that decades of research have consistently failed to support the idea that only children are inherently more lonely than their peers with siblings (American Psychological Association, 2024).<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most important finding is that loneliness has very little to do with sibling status. Researchers have found that loneliness is far more strongly influenced by factors such as the quality of friendships, parent-child relationships, social opportunities, temperament, school environment, and community involvement (American Psychological Association, 2024).<\/p>\n

Simply having a sibling does not guarantee companionship, just as growing up without one does not guarantee loneliness. (More on this later).<\/p>\n

At its core, loneliness is about connection\u2014not family size.<\/p>\n

Stereotype #3: \u201cThey\u2019ll Be Socially Awkward Without a Sibling.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Truth: Research shows no consistent evidence that only children are more socially awkward than children with siblings.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another common concern is that only children will struggle socially because they do not grow up with a sibling. The assumption is that without daily sibling interaction, children will somehow fail to develop normal social skills.<\/p>\n

However, this idea does not align with modern developmental research or the social environments in which most children are raised today.<\/p>\n

Only children in today\u2019s urban and suburban environments have extensive opportunities for social interaction from an early age. Many are exposed to peers through daycare or preschool settings, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, school environments, extracurricular activities, sports teams, and increasingly through supervised online social spaces. These experiences provide repeated opportunities to develop communication skills, cooperation, conflict resolution, and friendship-building\u2014skills that are not exclusive to sibling relationships.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the idea that siblings are required for healthy social development comes largely from historical assumptions made in a very different social context. Early psychologists such as G. Stanley Hall and other early developmental theorists formed conclusions about only children during a period when larger families were the norm and children\u2019s social worlds were more confined to the household. At that time, only children were more likely to experience relative isolation simply because structured peer environments like preschool, organized youth sports, and widespread childcare systems were far less common than they are today (Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

Modern research, however, suggests that social development depends far more on peer exposure and environmental opportunity than on sibling status. Studies summarized in the only-child literature consistently find that only children do not differ meaningfully from children with siblings in measures of sociability, peer relationships, or social adjustment (Falbo & Polit, 1986; Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

In other words, being socially skilled is not determined by whether a child has a sibling, but by the richness and consistency of their social environment.<\/p>\n

Contemporary findings also align with this perspective. As social opportunities for children have expanded through structured schooling, early childhood education, and organized activities, the potential disadvantage once assumed for only children has largely disappeared (OECD, 2024). In today\u2019s context, children\u2019s peer networks are built primarily outside the home (e.g. school, clubs, sports), meaning siblings are just one of many possible sources of social development\u2014not a requirement.<\/p>\n

It is also important to note that social awkwardness is not uniquely associated with only children in any consistent body of research. Personality traits such as introversion, social confidence, and communication style vary widely among both only children and children with siblings. These traits are shaped by a combination of temperament, parenting style, peer experiences, and school environment\u2014not family size alone (Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the stereotype that only children are socially awkward reflects an outdated understanding of childhood development. In modern society, children build social skills through multiple environments, and only children participate in those environments just as fully as their peers.<\/p>\n

The presence or absence of siblings may shape certain aspects of daily life, but it does not determine a child\u2019s ability to connect, communicate, or thrive socially.<\/p>\n

Moving<\/b> Beyond<\/b> The<\/b> Stereotypes<\/b><\/p>\n

There is a growing interest in, and continued need for, examining only-child outcomes. However, when looking at the full body of research, the overall picture is encouraging. Psychologists consistently emphasize that child development is shaped by a wide range of factors, including temperament, parenting style, social environment, and life experiences\u2014not simply the presence or absence of siblings.<\/p>\n

Some children are naturally shy, introverted, cautious, or prefer solitary activities. These personality traits are part of normal human variation and would likely appear regardless of family size. A child being more reserved is not, in itself, evidence of a developmental deficit or a consequence of being an only child.<\/p>\n

It is also important to recognize that when an only child exhibits challenges in social behavior or adjustment, these traits are often quickly attributed to \u201conly child syndrome.\u201d Yet similar behaviors are also common among children raised in larger families, highlighting that these traits are not unique to any single family structure. While researchers acknowledge that individual only children may experience certain social challenges in specific contexts, these patterns are not consistent enough to support broad stereotypes (Falbo & Polit, 1986; Falbo, 2012).<\/p>\n

In other words, variation in personality is normal across all family types. If a child seems shy or reserved, it is not automatically a sign that something is missing in their home environment. Often, it is simply a reflection of their natural temperament and individual personality development.<\/p>\n

Now that we\u2019ve examined and challenged some of the most common stereotypes about only children, it\u2019s worth asking a broader question: why are so many parents choosing to have just one child in the first place? To understand the rise of the \u201cone and done\u201d generation, we need to look at the social, economic, and cultural factors shaping modern family size today.<\/p>\n

The \u2018One and Done\u2019 Generation: Understanding the Social, Economic, and Personal Factors Behind Modern Family Size<\/strong><\/p>\n

Believing that having only one child is rare today is a stereotype in and of itself. Research shows that having one child is becoming increasingly common in developed countries around the world, not just in the United States (Pew Research Center, 2023). In addition to declining fertility rates (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2024), which can limit some parents\u2019 ability to expand their families, a wide range of social, economic, and personal factors are contributing to smaller family sizes.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a closer look at three of the most common reasons parents today are choosing to be \u201cone and done.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reason #1: The Growing Expense of Raising Children <\/strong><\/p>\n

Let me get a little nostalgic for a moment. I am 31 years old\u2014a 90s child\u2014born and raised on Long Island, New York. Growing up, life felt different in many ways. Many households were more likely to rely on a single income, housing costs were more manageable relative to wages in many areas, and larger families were more common than they are today.<\/p>\n

Fast forward to 2026, and the economic landscape looks very different. Families now face higher overall costs of living, including housing, food, childcare, healthcare, and education. In many regions\u2014especially high-cost areas like New York\u2014these combined expenses make raising multiple children financially difficult for a growing number of households.<\/p>\n

According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising a child to age 18 can exceed $300,000 in a middle-income household, depending on location and lifestyle factors (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2023). When childcare and housing costs are factored in\u2014particularly in urban and suburban areas\u2014those totals can be even higher.<\/p>\n

As a result, some parents are choosing to have fewer children, or just one child, not necessarily because of preference alone, but because of financial constraints. For many families, having one child allows them to allocate more resources toward education, childcare, healthcare, and overall quality of life, while also reducing financial stress within the household.<\/p>\n

While some people frame the decision to have fewer children as \u201cselfish,\u201d others argue that it is selfish to have more kids that you can\u2019t afford to nurture and feed in every possible way.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, decisions about family size are shaped by deeply personal values as well as broader economic realities. Financial pressure is only one of several factors influencing modern family planning, but it is an important one that cannot be ignored.<\/p>\n

Reason #2: Sibling Strain \u2014 More Children Doesn\u2019t Always Mean Built-In \u201cForever Friends\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The idea of having another child so your first child will have a \u201cforever friend\u201d is a deeply appealing cultural narrative. However, research on sibling relationships suggests that this outcome is far from guaranteed. While many siblings share close, lifelong bonds, sibling relationships are also among the most variable and complex family relationships across the lifespan.<\/p>\n

Large-scale developmental and family studies consistently show that sibling relationships are shaped by a wide range of factors, including temperament differences, age spacing, parenting style, perceived parental favoritism, life transitions, and socioeconomic stressors. These influences mean that sibling closeness is not automatic and can vary dramatically even within the same family (McHale et al., 2012; Conger & Conger, 2008).<\/p>\n

One important area of research in family science is sibling conflict and long-term relational distance. Studies indicate that sibling relationships often include higher levels of conflict in childhood than other peer relationships, and for many individuals, that tension can continue into adulthood. While some siblings maintain strong emotional bonds across the lifespan, others become emotionally distant or disengaged over time, particularly after major life transitions such as leaving home, marriage, or geographic separation (Cicirelli, 1995; White, 2001).<\/p>\n

Research on family estrangement further complicates the assumption that siblings automatically remain close. Although estrangement is often discussed in the context of parent-child relationships, studies show that sibling estrangement also occurs and may be underreported due to stigma and family expectations. Estrangement exists on a spectrum\u2014from minimal contact to complete cutoff\u2014and is influenced by long-term unresolved conflict, differing values, mental health challenges, and relational breakdowns accumulated over time (Agllias, 2017; Gilligan et al., 2015).<\/p>\n

Importantly, family sociologists emphasize that estrangement is not rare in modern societies, even if it is not openly discussed. Adult family relationships are increasingly recognized as voluntary rather than obligatory, meaning that biological connection alone does not guarantee emotional closeness or sustained contact (Blake, 2017). This research challenges the assumption that siblings naturally function as \u201cbuilt-in best friends\u201d throughout life.<\/p>\n

My husband and I\u2019s decision not to give our daughter a sibling was influenced, in part, by our own experiences with our siblings. Like many people, we have seen firsthand that sibling bonds can be deeply meaningful, but they can also be complicated, distant, or shaped by factors beyond family structure.<\/p>\n

Choosing to have one child, for some families, is not about limiting connection\u2014it is about being intentional about the quality, stability, and emotional health of the relationships within the family system.<\/p>\n

Reaso<\/b>n #3: We Already Know The Science And Our Limits: The Only Child Syndrome is A Stereotype and Healthy Happy Parents Raise A Healthy Happy Child<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a mother who has been told more times than I can count\u2014by family members and even strangers\u2014that I should have another baby because of stereotypes X, Y, and Z, I\u2019ve reached a point where I feel like dramatically shouting this from the rooftop of my NYC apartment. But since that would likely concern my neighbors, I\u2019ll say it here instead, loud and clear (with a very necessary exclamation point): the biggest predictors of child outcomes are parenting style and environment\u2014not whether a child has siblings!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Modern developmental psychology has consistently shown that a child\u2019s well-being is shaped far more by the quality of their home life than by family size. In other words, it is not the presence or absence of siblings that determines happiness, resilience, or long-term adjustment, but rather the emotional and structural environment in which a child is raised (McHale et al., 2012; Conger & Conger, 2008).<\/p>\n

Research highlights several key factors that have the strongest influence on child outcomes:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Emotional availability of caregivers<\/li>\n
  • Household stress levels<\/li>\n
  • Socioeconomic resources<\/li>\n
  • Parenting style (warmth, responsiveness, and consistency versus harshness or neglect)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Across decades of family research, these factors consistently predict emotional development, social competence, academic success, and mental health far more strongly than sibling status (McHale et al., 2012; Falbo & Polit, 1986).<\/p>\n

    For example, children raised in emotionally responsive and stable environments tend to show stronger self-regulation, healthier relationships, and better psychological adjustment\u2014regardless of whether they grow up with siblings. In contrast, high levels of household stress, inconsistent parenting, or economic strain can negatively affect children in any family structure, whether they are only children or part of a larger sibling group (Conger & Conger, 2008).<\/p>\n

    This research challenges the idea that choosing to have one child is inherently \u201cselfish\u201d or limiting. In reality, many parents who choose to stop at one child do so with intention: they are considering their emotional capacity, financial stability, and ability to provide a nurturing environment. From a psychological perspective, this is not neglectful\u2014it is often aligned with what research identifies as optimal conditions for healthy child development.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, studies on family structure consistently show that siblings themselves are not a primary determinant of well-being. Instead, it is the quality of relationships within the family\u2014parent-child attachment, emotional security, and household stability\u2014that matters most (McHale et al., 2012).<\/p>\n

    In this sense, a well-supported, emotionally healthy only child is not missing something essential. Rather, they are experiencing a family structure that prioritizes attention, stability, and intentional parenting\u2014factors that research repeatedly identifies as protective for child development.<\/p>\n

    Ultimately, science does not support the idea of \u201conly child syndrome,\u201d but what it does support is something much more universal: healthy, emotionally present parents tend to raise healthy, well-adjusted children\u2014regardless of family size.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion<\/b>: Leaving<\/b> the<\/b> Stereotypes<\/b> Behind<\/b><\/p>\n

    The idea that only children are lonely, selfish, and maladjusted has persisted for generations, but modern research paints a very different picture. Across decades of psychological and sociological studies, only children have been found to be, on average, just as socially capable, emotionally healthy, and well-adjusted as their peers with siblings (Falbo & Polit, 1986; Falbo, 2012; Zhang et al., 2021).<\/p>\n

    At the same time, the growing number of one-and-done families reminds us that there is no single blueprint for a happy, healthy childhood. Some children grow up with siblings, others without\u2014and both paths can lead to thriving, resilient, and successful adults. What matters most is not family size, but the quality of the environment in which a child is raised. Decades of research consistently point to the same factors: loving relationships, emotional availability, stability, and opportunities to learn and grow (McHale et al., 2012; Conger & Conger, 2008).<\/p>\n

    So, to all the parents of only children who are still being asked when the second one is making their debut, consider this your evidence-based reassurance: your child is not missing a \u201ccritical ingredient\u201d for a happy and successful life.<\/p>\n

    And if the research tells us anything, it\u2019s this:<\/p>\n

    Spoiler: the only child was fine all along.<\/strong>
    <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

    References<\/p>\n

    Agllias, K. (2017). Missing family: The adult sibling experience of estrangement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.<\/p>\n

    American Psychological Association. (2024). Only child syndrome: Characteristics and it\u2019s real.<\/p>\n

    Blake, L. (2017). Parents and adult children who are estranged in adulthood: A review and discussion of the literature. Journal of Family Theory & Review.<\/p>\n

    Brookings Institution. (n.d.). It\u2019s getting more expensive to raise children. And government isn\u2019t doing much to help.<\/p>\n

    Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. Springer.<\/p>\n

    Conger, K. J., & Conger, R. D. (2008). Understanding the processes through which economic hardship influences families and children. Journal of Marriage and Family.<\/p>\n

    Falbo, T. (2012). Only children: An updated review. Journal of Individual Psychology, 68(1), 38\u201349.<\/p>\n

    Falbo, T., & Polit, D. F. (1986). Quantitative review of the only child literature: Research evidence and theory development. Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 176\u2013189. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0033-2909.100.2.176<\/p>\n

    Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., & Pillemer, K. (2015). Estrangement in later life family relationships. The Gerontologist.<\/p>\n

    McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family.<\/p>\n

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Fertility rates (indicator). OECD Data. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1787\/8272fb01-en<\/p>\n

    Pew Research Center. (2023). Rising share of U.S. adults are living without a spouse or partner. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org<\/p>\n

    Sandler, L. (2009). Are \u2018onlies\u2019 lonely? Busting myths about only children. Psychology Today.<\/p>\n

    United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2024). World population prospects 2024. United Nations. https:\/\/population.un.org\/wpp\/<\/p>\n

    United States Department of Agriculture. (2023). Expenditures on children by families. https:\/\/www.fns.usda.gov<\/p>\n

    White, L. K. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course. Annual Review of Sociology.<\/p>\n

    Zhang, Y., Liu, M., Yang, Y., & Zhang, X. (2021). They are not little emperors: Only children are just as altruistic as non-only children. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(8), 1457\u20131466. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/19485506211007913<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Winning With One: What Modern Science Really Says About Only Children and One-and-Done FamiliesBy Nicolette Nappi-Franzone (Mom of 1) [Skip all the way to the end for the spoiler] I think we have all heard the stereotypes about only children… \u201cIf you don\u2019t have another one, they will be spoiled!\u201d\u201cThat poor child is going to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"no-sidebar","site-content-layout":"page-builder","ast-site-content-layout":"full-width-container","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"disabled","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1567","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1567","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1567"}],"version-history":[{"count":24,"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1567\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1598,"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1567\/revisions\/1598"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nicolettenappi.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}