What's Behind the Myths About Only Children Being Spoiled
Few labels attach themselves to a child as quickly and as unfairly as the one claiming that an only child is necessarily spoiled, selfish, and incapable of functioning in a group. Simply mention that a family has just one child, and people around you immediately launch into comments full of concern – "but won't they be lonely?", "what if they can't get used to other children?" or outright "they'll grow up to be selfish." But where does this prejudice actually come from, and what does science have to say about it?
The answer is surprisingly simple: the myth of the spoiled only child is largely a product of the Victorian era, not the result of serious research. The primary culprit behind its spread is American psychologist Granville Stanley Hall, who at the end of the 19th century declared that being an only child was a disease in itself. This view became so deeply embedded in the collective consciousness that society accepted it as fact – and has been passing it down from generation to generation without anyone truly questioning it. Yet modern psychology has long since moved beyond this perspective.
Try our natural products
What research says instead of prejudice
Since the 1980s, dozens of studies have attempted to determine whether only children genuinely have worse character traits than children from larger families. The results are at least surprising. American psychologist Toni Falbo from the University of Texas spent decades analysing data on only children and reached a conclusion that will surprise many: only children achieve, on average, comparable or even better results in the areas of self-esteem, motivation, and academic success than their peers with siblings. Spoiledness, aggression, and social incompetence simply do not appear in the data as typical traits of only children.
Large-scale research from China, where the one-child policy created a unique opportunity to study an entire generation of only children, points in a similar direction. Although Chinese media and the public spoke of "little emperors" who were unable to cooperate or compromise, studies published in journals such as Science showed that only children do exhibit certain behavioural differences, but these are not unambiguously negative traits – and these differences are moreover much smaller than originally assumed.
So why does the myth persist so tenaciously? Partly it comes down to so-called confirmation bias – people simply remember situations where an only child behaved selfishly more readily than the thousands of moments when they were kind, considerate, and cooperative. And partly it comes down to a deeply ingrained cultural norm that regards siblings as an indispensable school of life.
What life in a one-child family actually looks like
Consider a specific example. Jana and Tomáš have a daughter, Klárka, who is seven years old. Klárka attends primary school, goes to a ceramics club, and swims once a week. Neighbours and some relatives regularly remark that Klárka is "spoiled" because she receives a great deal of attention from her parents and lacks for nothing materially. Yet Jana and Tomáš notice something different: Klárka is popular at school, happily shares her snacks, knows how to wait her turn, and when elderly grandparents come to visit, she spontaneously offers to help. So where does this proverbial spoiledness come from?
The truth is that Klárka does receive a great deal from her parents – but not in a way that would corrupt her. She receives time, conversation, and genuine interest in her feelings and thoughts. And this is precisely what is most often mistaken for spoiling in only children. Parents of one child simply spend more time with that child because they have only one – and that is surely natural, not pathological.
Psychologists distinguish between two entirely different concepts: spoiling and appropriate care. A spoiled child – whether an only child or not – is one whose parents cannot say no, who has no boundaries, and whose every whim is immediately gratified. By contrast, a child who receives attention, love, and space to develop is not spoiled – they are simply loved and supported. These two things are fundamentally different, even though those around them not infrequently lump them together.
As psychologist Susan Newman, author of The Case for the Only Child, aptly observed: "The problem is not that the child has no siblings. The problem arises when parents are unable to set appropriate boundaries – and that can happen in any family, regardless of how many children there are."
Only children's social skills: myth versus reality
One of the most common concerns is that an only child will not be able to get along with other children because they have not learned at home how to share, compromise, or resolve conflicts. Yet this logic assumes that siblings are the only place where a child learns social skills – and that is, at the very least, an oversimplification.
Children socialise on many fronts simultaneously. Nursery school, primary school, clubs, playgrounds, sports teams, neighbourhood friends – all of these are environments where an only child practises daily the very skills that the myth denies them. And they often practise them more intensively than children with siblings, because parents of only children tend to be aware of this perceived risk and actively seek out opportunities to involve their child in group activities.
It also needs to be said plainly: siblings are no guarantee of good social skills. Many people grew up with brothers and sisters and yet struggle in adulthood with empathy, compromise, or managing conflict. Conversely, a great many only children are outstanding team players in adulthood, empathetic partners, and well-liked colleagues. The key is not the number of siblings, but the way in which parents raise the child.
Research repeatedly shows that the decisive variable is the quality of parenting, not the structure of the family. Parents who are emotionally available, set clear boundaries, and at the same time give their child space for independence, raise well-functioning individuals – regardless of whether they have one, two, or four children.
Only children also, thanks to their more intensive contact with adults, often tend to be more communicatively capable from an early age and better at navigating conversations with authority figures. They spend more time in direct interaction with parents, grandparents, and other adults, which naturally develops their language skills and social intelligence. According to data from studies included in a review article on Psychology Today, only children demonstrate above-average verbal abilities and creativity – qualities that are highly valued in today's world.
It would of course be wrong to claim that growing up without siblings presents no challenges. Only children may at certain stages of life feel greater pressure from parents who place all their hopes and expectations on them. They may also carry greater responsibility in adulthood for caring for ageing parents, without the possibility of sharing that burden. And yes, some only children may find an excess of attention more constraining than liberating. These real challenges, however, have nothing to do with being spoiled – they are simply different aspects of a different kind of family arrangement, one that has its advantages and disadvantages just like any other family constellation.
Parents who choose to have one child – whether for personal, health, economic, or ecological reasons – do not deserve reproach or the worries of those around them. They deserve the same support as any other family. And their children deserve to be seen without pre-prepared boxes and labels. An only child is not a project doomed to failure – they are a person whose character, values, and social skills depend above all on how we treat them, what we pass on to them, and what environment we create for them.
Next time someone automatically remarks that an only child will certainly be spoiled, it may be worth pausing for a moment and asking: what is this assumption actually based on? Science answers clearly – on very shaky foundations.
