Chinese Only Children and Loneliness: Stereotypes and Realities

Abstract

Popular media has aroused concern that Chinese only children are growing up lonely owing to their lack of sibling interaction Mu et al. (2007). However, little research has been directed at determining whether Chinese adults believe in the only-child-as-lonely stereotype and whether Chinese only children actually suffer more loneliness than their peers with siblings. Three studies were conducted to examine belief in the only-child-as-lonely stereotype and determine whether only children report greater loneliness than children with siblings. With the first study, the prevalence of the only-child-as-lonely stereotype among young adults from six cities (Study 1, N = 588) was examined. The results showed that belief in this stereotypical perception was common among young Chinese adults, particularly those who had siblings. We then examined the validity of this stereotype by analyzing data from three samples, consisting of Chinese emerging adults (Study 2, N = 699) and late adolescents (Studies 3.1 and 3.2, N = 345 and 210, respectively). Results from Studies 2 and 3 consistently showed that, contrary to the stereotype, Chinese only children reported lower levels of loneliness than their counterparts with siblings. Additionally, open-ended responses from the adolescent participants in Study 3 provided hints about the situations that provoke their loneliness. The results are explained in terms of the two theoretical approaches to loneliness. In sum, our research suggests that belief in the loneliness of only children is widespread in Chinese society, but the evidence indicates that reports of loneliness are greater for those who grew up with siblings.

The term only children refers to individuals who grew up without siblings (Falbo, 2019). Historically, only children have been viewed as deficient by researchers, professionals, and the general public alike (Blake, 1981; Mancillas, 2006). Granville Stanley Hall, the first president of the American Psychological Association (APA), claimed that “being an only child is a disease in itself’ (Fenton, 1928, p. 547). Decades later, in response to a national survey examining public views of only children, researchers found that 67% of the surveyed Americans indicated that only children were “disadvantaged” (Blake, 1981). More recently, a Gallup poll (Saad, 2004) revealed that only three percent of American adults believed that one-child families are ideal. These negative views of only children and the one-child family have not only been prevalent in the United States but also in Europe (Laybourn, 1990; Veenhoven & Verkuyten, 1989), Korea (Doh & Falbo, 1999), and China (Wang & Fong, 2009). The traditional Confucian ideology that “the more children, the more blessing for the family” has circulated widely in East Asia for centuries (Bao, 2012, p. 83). Despite the negative views of only children in China, little empirical research has been aimed at documenting this belief and determining whether it is grounded in evidence. The goal of the present study is to examine popular beliefs about the loneliness of only children and evaluate whether only children are lonelier than their peers with siblings.

Only Children in China: The Context and Stereotype

The abovementioned negative assumptions about only children in the U.S. and China have motivated birth order and family size researchers to evaluate the evidence about only children (Rodgers, 2001; Wichman et al., 2006). Generally, most of these studies have found only children to be indistinguishable from others, although a few studies showed that only children have better academic achievement than others (Falbo & Polit, 1986). Research about only children outside China is relatively underdeveloped due to the fact that the percentage of the one-child families is low in the U.S. However, research about only children received more attention when China adopted the One Child Policy (OCP) in 1979. The OCP limited young couples to a single child in order to reduce population growth and facilitate economic development (Falbo, 2012; Feng et al., 2013). This national policy, not strictly enforced in some rural areas and among ethnic minorities, resulted in high percentages of one-child families in China (Liu et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2009). Nationally, the OCP was framed as a trade-off between the quality and quantity of children produced since 1979 (Chen & Kols, 1982; Short et al., 2013). Specifically, the OCP promoted the idea of having only one child of high quality as being better than having two or more children. Four decades on, there is evidence suggesting that the implementation of the OCP resulted in Chinese only children being advantaged in many ways, compared to children with siblings. For example, two recent meta-analyses (Falbo & Hooper, 2015; Tang et al., 2019) found that only children manifest better mental health compared to their peers with siblings. Also, some studies have shown that Chinese only children have closer relationships with their parents than non-only children (Lao & Dong, 2019; Short et al., 2001). Moreover, only children have been shown to exhibit better cognitive abilities (e.g., memory, mathematics, and creativity; Falbo & Lin, 2020; Guo et al., 2018; Jiao et al., 1996), academic motivation (Lin et al., 2017), and greater physical development (Falbo & Poston, 1993; Short et al., 2013). Furthermore, one study conducted among secondary school students in Hong Kong, a jurisdiction not covered by the OCP, found that only children have higher satisfaction in family life, friendships, and school experiences than their counterparts with siblings (Kwan & Ip, 2009).

Despite the positive outcomes found by the majority of Chinese studies about only children, certain negative stereotypes about only children still appear to be widespread in Chinese society. Soon after the OCP was implemented, the public expressed worries of only children becoming “Little Emperors,” due to the overindulgence and overprotection of their two parents and four grandparents (i.e., “4-2-1 family”), thus, putting them at risk of developing undesirable personal characteristics (Falbo, 2012; Wang & Fong, 2009). According to Mu et al. (2007), the popular media in China portrayed only children as lonely, due to their lack of siblings. However, to date, only two studies have investigated whether such stereotypical perceptions are widespread among the general public. In a study of parents in Shanghai, Bao (2011) found that 60% indicated that loneliness was descriptive of only children. In contrast, only about 17% indicated that loneliness applied to children with siblings. Likewise, Wu et al. (2018) found that Chinese college students thought only children were lonely. However, both these studies simply used the term dushengzi (only child in Mandarin Chinese) to indicate sibling status, without specifying the developmental period of the only child. Furthermore, both these studies only explored the views of parents from one city (Bao, 2011) or students from one college (Wu et al., 2018), which may not have accurately represented the stereotypes held among a more diverse Chinese population. Thus, in order to address these limitations, we first aimed to investigate if the loneliness stereotype about only children at a specific developmental stage (i.e., late adolescence to emerging adulthood) is prevalent among contemporary young Chinese adults from six different cities.

Loneliness and Chinese Only Children

Loneliness, commonly described as a distressing and unpleasant feeling (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; Perlman & Peplau, 1982), affects multiple facets of mental and physical health (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018; Heinrich & Gullone, 2006). Although the feeling of loneliness can occur at any time in life, scholars have suggested that late adolescence and emerging adulthood are critical periods when loneliness is possibly the most salient (Lee & Goldstein, 2016; Qualter et al., 2015). In China, under the pressure of the competitive college entrance examination, many high schools are highly concerned with the academic achievement of students and pay less attention to their emotional needs (Li, 2017). In addition, given that most Chinese high school students enter college right after graduation, the transition to college may amplify the loneliness of emerging adults due to their need to adapt to a new environment (Arnett, 2015).

Deficit Perspectives on Loneliness.

The typical concern about only children and loneliness is based on the idea that only children have a sibling deficit, which leads to loneliness. As a leading proponent of the deficit perspective, Weiss (1973) posited that loneliness is a response to the absence of particular types of relationships within one’s social network. This argument is based on the assumption that different relationships present in one’s social network serve distinct and important roles. For example, only children’s need for sibling guidance, an essential aspect of social relationships in Weiss’s (1974) theory, may not be met, and this unique deficit may contribute to feelings of loneliness (DiTommaso & Spinner, 1997). Although some research suggests the experience of good sibling relationships is related to lower levels of loneliness among children (Conger & Little, 2010; Milevsky & Levitt, 2005; Ponzetti & James, 1997), little is known about the loneliness experiences of only children. Nonetheless, the deficit perspective on loneliness suggests that only children will express higher levels of loneliness than do their peers with siblings.

Alternately, recent research suggests that the parent–child relationships of only children may compensate for the lack of sibling interaction. A study conducted in China, using the nationally representative China Education Panel Survey, showed that only-child adolescents reported more time spent with parents and closer parent-child relationships than non-only children (Lao & Dong, 2019). This finding is similar to the findings of an American study, using the nationally representative American Time Use Survey among 15- to 18-year-old adolescents. Wikle et al. (2019) found that while American only children spent more time alone, they also spent more time with their mothers compared to children with siblings. Accordingly, this evidence suggests that more companionship from parents may compensate for the absence of siblings in the household, potentially protecting only children from feeling lonelier than their peers.

The OCP has been credited with shifting the focus of the Chinese family to be more child-centered, bringing more family members, including grandparents, to share in childrearing responsibilities (Goh & Kuczynski, 2010; Luo et al., 2020). While only 30% of American families receive child care from grandparents (Edwards et al., 2015), around 76% of Chinese families reported that grandparents are involved in childrearing (Cheng & Wu, 2013). Studies have found that Chinese grandparents have been actively engaged in providing affectionate connections (Xing et al., 2016), help with child care (Goh & Kuczynski, 2010), and experiences that promote language and other forms of cognitive development (Nyland et al., 2009) in their grandchildren. Furthermore, in an early study that focused on the first few cohorts of Chinese only children, Falbo (1991) found that more contact with grandparents was positively related to children’s desirable personality, as rated by mothers and teachers. More recently, several in-depth focus-groups and interviews revealed that Chinese only children’s social skills were enhanced through frequent communications with their grandparents (Goh, 2009).

Furthermore, researchers have noted that the frequent involvement of Chinese grandparents in childrearing also promoted close relationships among their grandchildren. In urban areas, where most of the families had only one child and both parents maintained full-time jobs, it has been common for grandparents to pick up their grandchildren from different schools and look after them until their parents returned from work (Falbo, 1991). These grandchildren are cousins, but they use sibling terms (e.g., brother and sister) to label each other and play together like siblings. Such sibling-like relationships among cousins have been fostered by grandparents when the extended families gather on holidays, family trips, and special events. Taken together, although only children lack time spent with siblings, several types of interactional activities with grandparents and cousins may facilitate their fulfillment of social needs and hence make them not feel lonely.

Cognitive Perspectives on Loneliness.

Contrary to the deficit perspective, Perlman and Peplau (1982) argued that a shortage of specific relationships does not necessarily result in loneliness. Perlman and Peplau (1982) defined loneliness as based on the individual’s perception of a discrepancy between desired and achieved social relationships. From this perspective, the absence of siblings does not inevitably lead to loneliness among only-children. For example, in their investigation involving participants across 22 European counties, Lykes and Kemmelmeier (2014) found that individuals in more collectivistic societies reported higher loneliness levels than those in individualistic societies. To interpret this cross-cultural difference in loneliness, they emphasized the role of expectations in one’s loneliness experiences, thus drawing upon Perlman and Peplau’s (1982) cognitive perspective of loneliness. Compared with individualistic societies, individuals in collectivistic societies place greater emphasis on interpersonal connectedness and concerns about “fitting in.” Thus, strong interpersonal ties are typically expected in such societies (Kim & Markus, 1999; Triandis, 1995). Therefore, given that expectations for strong interpersonal ties are normative, individuals in collectivistic societies are more likely to develop unfulfilled expectations of such interpersonal ties, which in turn may lead to increased feelings of loneliness. In other words, the threshold for feelings of loneliness is relatively lower for individuals in collectivistic societies.

A similar interpretation approach was adopted by Chen et al. (2014) to explain their results demonstrating higher scores for loneliness among Chinese rural children than peers from urban areas. Chen and his colleagues argued that because interpersonal connectedness and group affiliation are highly expected in rural China, individuals living in rural China are more likely to sense the unfulfilled expectation of close interpersonal ties, and thus develop a relatively lower threshold for the feelings of loneliness. Furthermore, Jylhä and Jokela (1990) found that although living alone usually elevates loneliness among the elderly, it was more pronounced in societies where elderly people have been expected to live with their families (e.g., Greece and Italy) and less so in societies without this normative expectation (e.g., Finland). In sum, these studies suggest, a society’s social norm—the communicated collective expectations among social members (Schmidt et al., 2016)—shapes individuals’ expectations or desires for social relationships, and consequently leads to variations in the feeling of loneliness.

In the case of Chinese only children, multiple scholars from diverse fields including psychology, sociology, demography, and anthropology have reached a consensus that growing up without a sibling became a social norm in China, at least in urban areas where the OCP was strictly implemented (Falbo, 2012, 2019; Feng et al., 2013; Gu et al., 2007; Whyte et al., 2015). Drawing from China’s latest mini-census in 2005, Feng and his associates reported that the OCP has resulted in almost 80% of families in China’s big urban centers having only one child, and thus proclaimed “a virtually universal one-child family world is already a reality” (p. 124).

The above fact, in conjunction with the argument that ones’ relationship expectations or standards are influenced by social norms, implies that only children in the contemporary Chinese society may not necessarily experience higher levels of loneliness. Specifically, as growing up without a sibling is regarded as a social norm in China, children from one-child families may not develop much desire for sibling interactions. In other words, only children may have relatively weak sensitivity to, and a high threshold for, loneliness experiences caused by the lack of siblings because being an only child is a common occurrence in China.

Overall, then, it seems most likely that Chinese only children themselves will report lower feelings of loneliness than their peers with siblings do. We make this prediction based on the evidence that Chinese only children may have closer and more frequent contact with their parents, as well as more frequent contact with their grandparents. Furthermore, given that growing up without siblings became normative among children born in cities after 1979, it is likely that urban only children did not expect sibling experiences, and therefore were unlikely to perceive a discrepancy between their expected and actual social relationships.

Chinese Only Children and Loneliness

Relatively few empirical studies about loneliness in Chinese populations have been published and only a few of these have reported results relevant to only-child effects. For example, Zhang et al.’s (2010) study aimed to explore the relationship between perceived parental childrearing behaviors and loneliness. Tucked away in a table was the finding that only children saw themselves as less lonely than their peers with siblings. In contrast, another study, aimed at investigating Internet addiction, reported that only children were lonelier than non-only children (Li et al., 2011), while a study of nursing undergraduates reported no significant difference between only children and their peers with siblings (Zhan & Hu, 2013). One reason for this mixture of findings is the fact that none of these studies included background characteristics, such as gender, urban or rural residence, or socioeconomic status, in their analyses. Such characteristics have been found to be related to loneliness and should be represented as covariates in analyses comparing the loneliness of only children and their peers with siblings (Chen et al., 2014; Ma, 2010; Zhang et al., 2006).

Overview of the Three Studies

In the first study, we intended to examine if the loneliness stereotype about only children is widespread among young Chinese adults with data from six cities. In the second and third studies, we aimed to investigate differences in self-reported loneliness between only children and non-only children that are either emerging adults or late adolescents. We focused on these periods of life because previous studies indicated that late adolescence and emerging adulthood may be associated with prolonged periods of loneliness (Arnett, 2000; Mund et al., 2020). The demographic information for three samples in the second and third studies is displayed in Table 1. In addition to testing the raw levels of loneliness for only children and their peers with siblings, we further examined if the results differed when covariates are entered into the equation. Moreover, in the third study, we compared the common situations that trigger loneliness by employing a mixed-method approach. Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The University of Texas at Austin for this research project (Study Number: 2016-01-0087) was obtained.

Table 1.

Demographic Information for All Studies

	Study 1	Study 2	Study 3.1	Study 3.2
Sample type	Working young adults	College students	High school students (Northeastern)	High school students (Southeastern)
Sample size	588	699	345	210
Female	49.66%	59.94%	55.94%	53.81%
Age
Mean and SD	24.85 (.13)	18.5 (.02)	15.61 (.03)	16.48 (.04)
Min.	16	17	14	15
Max.	31	21	17	17
SES
Mean and SD	3.49 (.07)	5.04 (.06)	3.26 (.68)	3.25 (.74)
Min.	1	1	1	1
Max.	9	10	5	5
Only child	41.84%	54.22%	69.28%	65.71%
Sibshipsize (non-only child)
Mean and SD	1.73 (.06)	2.13 (.06)	1.34 (.72)	1.25 (.55)
Min.	1	1	1	1
Max.	7	5	5	4

Note. SES = socioeconomic status; Sibsize: number of siblings in the family.

Study 1

The main goal of Study 1 was to address the only-as-lonely stereotype by examining if young Chinese adults view only children as lonelier than others. Because prior studies have suggested that the only-as-lonely stereotype applied to only children as primary school students (Bao, 2011), we wanted to investigate whether this stereotype extended to older only children, particularly those in late adolescence. In addition, according to social identity theory (Hogg, 2016; Stets & Burke, 2000), stereotyped perceptions towards a group are often enhanced if the participants themselves come from the out-group compared to in-group members. Thus, we further took participants’ own sibling status (i.e., only children vs. children with siblings) into account and investigated if non-only children held relatively stronger beliefs about this stereotype. Therefore, it was expected that the majority of the respondents would express agreement to some degree with the loneliness stereotype regarding only children. Furthermore, we hypothesized that raters with siblings would hold particularly strong views on the loneliness stereotype about only children compared to only-child raters. Furthermore, given that most of the young adults in the sample were of marriageable age, we examined whether this negative loneliness stereotype about only children became a consideration in their plans to have more than one child in the future. We hypothesized that the concern about their future child being lonely growing up would be a factor in the number of children they planned to have.

Method

Sample.

Study 1 is based on a secondary dataset named “Chinese Only Children and their Families” (Feng, 2013). The stratified random sampling process of this project incorporated two criteria including region/Location (eastern, central, and western regions of China) and population capacity of the city (less than half a million, half-to-one million, and above one million). These criteria resulted in the recruiting of 605 participants from six cities (An’Shun, Changchun, E’Zhou, Jinhua, Lanzhou, and Nanjing; approximately 100 participants per city). After excluding cases with missing values on key measures, this six-city sample consisted of 588 participants (M_age = 24.85, SD = .13; 49.66% female; 41.84% only children) remained. Among participants identified as non-only children, 56.14% had one sibling, 24.85% had two siblings, 12.57% had three siblings, 4.97% had four siblings, and 1.45% had more than four siblings.

Measures.

We obtained participants’ demographic information including age, gender, their city of residence, socioeconomic status (monthly salary), and sibship size from the six-city dataset. Aside from demographic information, Study 1 relied on two measures to examine the prevalence of the loneliness stereotype related to Chinese only children. First, to examine the general loneliness stereotype of only children, participants were asked “When compared with late adolescents growing up with siblings (i.e., the Chinese term ‘qing nian’), how much do the following characteristics describe only-child youths?” “Feeling lonely” was one of the descriptors presented to the participants. This measure was adopted from the single-item question in assessing individuals’ loneliness experiences (i.e., “Are you feeling lonely?”), which is known as the direct approach of tapping loneliness because the specific term lonely is included in the question (Shiovitz-Ezra & Ayalon, 2012; Thurston & Kubzansky, 2009). The direct operationalization of loneliness in measurement has been widely used in the past and has been shown to have good face validity in large sample studies (Savikko et al., 2005; von Soest et al., 2020). Several other popular positive and negative stereotypes associated with only children (e.g., strong communication skills, being spoiled) were also presented in this questionnaire. Prior research based on this six-city dataset showed the average ratings of the combined positive stereotype items about only children were correlated negatively with the average ratings of the combined negative stereotype items (Falbo & Tao, 2011), supporting the concurrent validity of the two types of items. The participants were instructed to rate each item on a scale of 1–4 (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = frequently, 4 = fully).

The second measure asked participants who planned to have more than one child in the future to choose one main reason for their decision. Specifically, they were presented with the following five choices: (a) the children will not feel lonely, (b) it would be ideal to have one son and one daughter, (c) the children will not be overindulged, (d) there will be more children to take care of me when I am old, (e) having more than one child is more secure, and (f) other reasons.

Results

In order to test the hypothesis that young Chinese adults believe that only children are lonely, we first evaluated the concurrent validity of the stereotype items as indicating positive or negative views of only children. Responses to the loneliness item were correlated with the combined positive and negative stereotype items. The results indicated that responses to the loneliness item were negatively correlated with the combined positive stereotype items (r = −.34, p < .001) and positively correlated with the combined negative stereotype items (r = .64, p < .001). Thus, responses to the loneliness item indicated a negative view of adolescent-only children.

In order to determine the extent of the belief in the only-as-lonely stereotype, the six-city respondents were asked to describe adolescent only children. We dummy coded “not at all” to 0 and all the other responses to 1 (“somewhat” to “fully”) to indicate whether the participant thought the item was descriptive of late adolescent only children. The results showed that 79.59% of the participants described adolescent only children as lonely, compared to their peers with siblings. However, 20.41% of participants indicated that loneliness did not describe only-child youths “at all.” The results were similar across six cities (χ²(5, 588) = 8.69, p = .122).

We then examined if the sibling status (i.e., only children vs. children with siblings) of the six-city respondents was correlated with their beliefs about the only-child loneliness stereotype. To test this hypothesis, we conducted t-tests between participants who had no siblings, compared to those who did. No significant differences were found through a simple t-test, t(586) = .66, p = .746, d = .02, 95% confidence interval (CI): [−.04, .09]. We further tested this hypothesis by including covariates (i.e., age, gender, city of residence, socioeconomic status, sibship size, and other stereotypes about only children) in our analyses. The logistic regression results showed that, after controlling for these covariates, the odds of believing the only-child-as-lonely stereotype was 2.18 times (p = .032; 95% CI: [1.07, 4.43]) as large for respondents who had siblings than for respondents who were only children.

Last, we examined participants’ responses about the reasons they intended to have more than one child. Two hundred and thirty-one participants (out of 588) expressed the intention to have more than one child. Among them, 61.57% indicated, their future children will not feel lonely growing up if they have at least one sibling. In comparison, 21.83% indicated that they wanted more than one child so that they could have a son and a daughter, 8.73% indicated that they wanted to avoid overindulging their children, and 7.86% indicated other reasons.

Study 2

Method

Sample.

Participants for Study 2 were recruited by an announcement sent out on a listserv to all college freshmen at a public university in northeastern China. Seven hundred and six individuals were recruited, and the final sample (excluding four cases with missing sibling status information and three cases with incomplete responses on key items) comprised 699 participants. We particularly sought freshmen in college for our emerging adult sample, because prior research shows, individuals often experience loneliness (Pressman et al., 2005; Weiss, 1973) during this transitional period of life. Participant age ranged from 17 to 21, with a mean of 18.5 (SD = .02); 419 participants identified as female (59.94%). Three hundred and seventy-nine (54.22%) were only children. Participants with siblings, reported having numbers of siblings ranging from 1 to 5, with an average of 2.13 (SD = .06). Only one participant reported being married and none reported having children.

Measures

Loneliness.

The self-assessment of loneliness was measured using the 8-item short-form of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8; Hays & DiMatteo, 1987). The UCLA Loneliness Scale was originally constructed as a unidimensional measure of the feeling of loneliness, and represented the cognitive perspective of loneliness (Gierveld et al., 2018; Russell et al., 1980). Subsequent studies, however, have indicated that the scale also measures aspects of Weiss’s deficit perspective (Hawkley et al., 2005; von Soest et al., 2020). This measure has been demonstrated to have good psychometric properties among Chinese emerging adults (Ma & Lai, 2018; Wu & Yao, 2008; Wu et al., 2013). The Chinese translation of this measure was obtained from the authors of a previous study (Liu & Gu, 2012). One sample item on the instrument states: “People are around me but not with me.” Participants were instructed to indicate how often they experienced the state conveyed by each item (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = very often). Two of the eight items were reverse scored. Higher scores represented stronger feelings of loneliness. Wu and Yao (2008) reported a coefficient alpha of .84 for the measure’s internal reliability in their validation study of ULS-8 within the Chinese cultural context. The internal reliability of this instrument in this study was .85. Among Chinese high school students, a recent study found that ULS-6 had stronger psychometric properties when the two reverse-scored items (i.e., “I am an outgoing person” and “I can find companionship when I want it”) from ULS-8 were excluded (Xu et al., 2018). Xu and colleagues reported a coefficient alpha of .88 for ULS-6’s internal consistency and demonstrated satisfactory construct validity in their study comprising 3,480 Chinese high school students. We used ULS-6 as the measurement of loneliness in the following studies 3.1 and 3.2.

Results

A simple t-test was first conducted to examine whether only children were lonelier than those who grew up with siblings. The finding revealed that only children reported lower scores of loneliness than non-only children, t(697) = −7.05, p < .001, d = −.31, 95% CI: [−.4, −.22]. The left side of Figure 1 provides the raw means of loneliness for both groups.

Figure 1. Study 2 (Northeastern Chinese College Students): Loneliness in the Only Children and Non-Only Children.

Note. Raw means are displayed on the left, and adjusted means (covariates: gender, age, living areas before coming to college, sibship size, and socioeconomic status; SES) are displayed on the right. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Prior studies have suggested that demographic variables play a role in the degree of loneliness experienced by Chinese individuals (e.g., Chen et al., 2014; Ma, 2010; Zhang et al., 2006). Thus, we further tested if the only-child effect on loneliness still existed when the covariates (i.e., age, gender, sibship size, the rural or urban area they came from, and family socioeconomic status) were considered. The results showed that even controlling for demographic covariates, the loneliness scores for only children remained lower than children with siblings, F(1, 692) = 8.07, p = .005, CI: [.07, .38]. The right side of Figure 1 displays the estimated marginal means, which are means representing loneliness for both groups after controlling for covariates. Table 2 shows the multiple regression table containing detailed information concerning covariates.

Table 2.

Study 2: Multiple Regression Predicting Loneliness by Only Child Sibling Status and Covariates

			95% CI
Predictor	b	SE	LL	UL	t
OC status	.23	.08	.07	.38	2.84**
Region	−.19	.05	−.28	−.09	−3.76***
Gender	.03	.05	−.06	.12	.67
Age	−.04	.04	−.11	.03	−1.02
Sibsize	−.01	.03	−.06	.05	−.18
SES	−.02	.01	−.05	.01	−1.25

Note. N = 699. OC status: only child status (0 = only child, 1 = non-only child); Region: living area before coming to college (0 = rural, 1 = urban); Gender: (0 = male, 1 = female); Sibsize: number of siblings in the family; SES = socioeconomic status; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Study 3

The third study aimed to investigate only children and loneliness using a mixed-method approach and two samples of high school students. One sample of high school students (Sample 3.1) went to school in a medium-sized city in northeastern China. The second sample of high school students (Sample 3.2) went to school in a city of similar size as the first sample, but in southeastern China. This approach afforded three advantages. First, through two parallel studies, we were able to determine if the results were consistent for both samples, thus addressing concerns about replication, a feature emphasized in psychology research in recent years (Maxwell et al., 2015; Shrout & Rodgers, 2018). Second, the cultural differences between northern and southern China have been reported by a series of recent studies (for more details, view Talhelm, 2020; Talhelm & English, 2020; Talhelm et al., 2014). Specifically, Talhelm et al. (2014) and Talhelm and English (2020) argued that, in China, individuals growing up in the southern provinces tend to show less individualism than those raised in the northern provinces. Therefore, recruiting participants in one northern and one southern city in China enabled us to explore whether the interplay between loneliness and only-child status is similar among Chinese adolescents growing up in divergent cultural environments. Third, this mixed-method approach with qualitative responses provides us with an opportunity to explore the nuances of loneliness experienced by only and non-only children adding to the information gleaned through quantitative data. In addition, if the responses from the qualitative questions align with the results from the quantitative scale, it will indicate strong external validity of the measurement (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007).

Study 3.1

Method

Sample.

Students from a public high school in northeastern China (N = 345) were recruited and administered a paper-based survey with the help of a headteacher. Of the participants, 193 were female (55.94%) and 239 were only children (69.28%). Participant age ranged from 14 to 17, with average age being 15.61 (SD = .03). Among those with siblings, 76.42% had one, 16.04% had two, and 7.54% had more than two siblings.

Measures

Loneliness.

The ULS-6 (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987; Xu et al., 2018) was administered. The internal consistency calculated on data from the 3.1 sample was .87.

Qualitative Questions.

The instrument administered to this sample contained two questions addressing participants’ loneliness experiences. One question was presented first and asked, “Do you often feel lonely?” and the students were asked to respond Yes or No. This question was followed by an open-ended question that asked students, “Please describe briefly one situation that often makes you feel lonely.” The question was followed by a blank space for the students to write their descriptions. The purpose of this question was to further explore participants’ loneliness experiences, particularly for the experiences that were hard to be captured by the quantitative measure.

Analysis.

Using the quantitative data, we first ran a simple t-test to compare the reported loneliness between only children and children with siblings. Then, a multiple regression was conducted which added the covariates when comparing the two groups.

In terms of the first qualitative question (Do you often feel lonely?), the participants reported either “Yes” or “No,” and these codes were coded “No” as 0 and “Yes” as 1. Then we cross-checked their corresponding quantitative answers to examine if participants who indicated “Yes” in this direct measure of loneliness reported higher scores in the ULS-6 compared to those who indicated “No.”

Regarding the coding procedures of the second open-ended question—asking for a description of a situation that often makes participants feel lonely—we adopted a typological analysis. This approach involves dividing data into different categories according to predetermined typologies (e.g., theories; see Hatch, 2002). Using typological analysis, we developed a preliminary list including three categories with first-level codes based on the three dimensions of loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2015; Hawkley et al., 2005): intimate loneliness, relational loneliness, and collective loneliness. Specifically, intimate loneliness was coded when participants expressed the absence of a significant someone close to them who normally is able to provide emotional support and meaningful relationships (e.g., parents, siblings, and best friends). Relational loneliness was coded when participants reported the absence of a broader available social network like peers, teachers, and neighbors. Collective loneliness was coded when participants reported an absence of an “active network” like class, school, or social groups, wherein individuals can share similar social identities. Statements that did not fit any of these three dimensions were coded as Other. Last, we ran Chi-square to determine if a particular type of loneliness was reported more often by only children.

The open-ended responses (n = 327; 18 participants did not respond to this question) were evenly divided into three subsets and three doctoral-level graduate students independently coded two of the three subsets. After coding, we checked coder reliability between coders of the same subsets. The average inter-rater reliability across the three subsets was high with an agreement rate of 92.42% (91.27%, 93.77%, and 92.21% for each of the three subsets, respectively).

Results

Quantitative Results.

The results from the t-test showed that only children were more likely to report lower levels of loneliness than non-only children, t(343) = −2.58, p = .01, d = −.22, 95% CI: [−.39, −.05]. The left side of Figure 2 displays the raw mean comparisons between both groups. After controlling for the covariates, the findings still showed that only children reported lower levels of loneliness than children with siblings, F(1, 339) = 6.86, p = .009, CI: [.10, .73]. The estimated marginal means for both these groups are presented on the right side of Figure 2. The multiple regression table can be found in Table 3.

Figure 2. Study 3.1 (Northeastern Chinese High School Students): Loneliness in the Only Children and Non-Only Children.

Note. Raw means are displayed on the left, and adjusted means (covariates: gender, age, sibship size, and socioeconomic status; SES) are displayed on the right. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Table 3.

Study 3.1: Multiple Regression Predicting Loneliness by Only Child Sibling Status and Covariates

			95% CI
Predictor	b	SE	LL	UL	t
OC status	.42	.16	.10	.73	2.62**
Gender	.07	.08	−.09	.23	.83
Age	.00	.07	−.13	.13	.01
Sibsize	−.16	.10	−.36	.04	−1.59
SES	−.05	.06	−.17	.06	−.91

Note. N = 345. OC status: only child status (0 = only child, 1 = non-only child); Gender: (0 = male, 1 = female); Sibsize: number of siblings in the family; SES = socioeconomic status; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

^**p < .01.

Qualitative Results.

Regarding the first qualitative question, students were more likely to say No, they had not experienced loneliness (64.63%), than Yes, they had (35.37%). We found that the individuals who expressed “Yes” indeed reported higher scores in the ULS-6 loneliness assessment than those who indicated “No,” t(326) = −2.55, p = .006, d = −.22, 95% CI: [−.38, −.05]. Furthermore, in line with the quantitative findings, only children were less likely to respond “Yes” than non-only children (χ²(1, 328) = 7.96, p = .005).

In terms of the question about situations that made the participants feel lonely, 40.26% of the students wrote about a situation involving intimate loneliness, 58.44% wrote about a situation involving relational loneliness, and very few (1.3%) wrote about situations that reflected collective loneliness. A sample of participant responses corresponding to the different loneliness dimensions are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Example Responses for Each Loneliness Dimensions in Studies 3.1 and 3.2

Northeastern high school sample (Study 3.1)		Southeastern high school sample (Study 3.2)
Dimensions of loneliness	Examples	Dimensions of loneliness	Examples
Intimate loneliness (40.26%)	My dad is always so busy with work, day and night. I don’t think he cares about my emotions (14 years old, female, non-only child)	Intimate loneliness (21.05%)	My parents have the favoritism, especially my mom, towards my younger brother. Sometimes I don’t feel close to my parents (16 years old, female, non-only child)
	My parents just don’t understand me. Barely did I have a chance to share my happiness with them (16 years old, male, only child)		When my parents are away at work, I have to watch TV alone at home in almost every summer break! (15 years old, male, only child)
Relational loneliness (58.44%)	I would feel lonely when I was alone at home, without being invited by friends to play with them (16 years old, female, only child)	Relational loneliness (71.58%)	I didn’t have close friends, and no friend would invite me to play. No one remembered my birthday. No one sent me a Christmas gift (16 years old, female, non-only child)
	When needed, it’s hard for me to find a friend to share my sorrow. I often feel so lonely (15 years old, female, non-only child)		I feel lonely when I have to go to the bookstore by myself. I have no friend to read books together (17 years old, female, only child)
Collective loneliness (1.3%)	I don’t feel that I belong to this school. This school is too good for me (16 years old, female, only child)	Collective loneliness (7.37%)	When no one likes or comments below my pictures on the social media platform like Wechat Moment (16 years old, male, only child)
	I am not a local and I don’t understand the dialect here (16 years old, male, only child)		My family moved here from another city and we are often treated as an outsider in my living community (15 years old, female, only child)

We further explored if a particular dimension of loneliness was mentioned more often by only children. Because the number of collective loneliness situations was small (n < 5), we were only able to include situations coded as intimate and relational loneliness. The Chi-square test indicated that only children cited intimate loneliness less frequently than non-only children, χ²(1,304) = 4.49, p = .034. No significant difference was obtained between only children and others in terms of relational loneliness.

Study 3.2

Sample

We conducted Study 3.2 in a public high school in southeastern China with the help of a headteacher as a replication of Study 3.1. Two hundred and ten students completed the paper-based survey. One hundred and thirteen participants were female (53.81%) and 138 were only children (65.71%). The mean age of the participants was 16.48 (SD = .04) with ages ranging from 15 to 17. Among non-only children, 79.17% had one sibling, 18.06% had two siblings, and 2.78% had more than two siblings.

Measures and Analysis

The quantitative and qualitative measures, as well as the analysis plan for Study 3.2, were the same as the ones employed in Study 3.1. The internal consistency of the ULS-6 scores in this study was .83. We used the same method for analyzing the qualitative data from this sample as we did to evaluate the contents of the open-ended responses from Study 3.1. We found that the average inter-rater reliability was high with an agreement rate of 92.7% (94.76%, 92.38%, and 90.95% for each of the three subsets, respectively).

Results

Quantitative Results.

In general, the quantitative results found in Study 3.2 were consistent with those of Study 3.1. Specifically, only children scored lower in loneliness compared to non-only children, t(208) = −2.44, p = .015, d = −.21, 95% CI: [−.38, −.04]. In addition, when the covariates were controlled, the results continued to indicate that only children had lower levels of loneliness, F(1, 204) = 5.29, p = .022, CI: [.06, .78]. The raw means and estimated marginal means are displayed in Figure 3. Table 5 contains the multiple regression table with all covariates included.

Figure 3. Study 3.2 (Southeastern Chinese High School Students): Loneliness in the Only Children and Non-Only Children.

Note. Raw means are displayed on the left, and adjusted means (covariates: gender, age, sibship size, and socioeconomic status; SES) are displayed on the right. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Table 5.

Study 3.2: Multiple Regression Predicting Loneliness by Only Child Sibling Status and Covariates

			95% CI
Predictor	Estimate	SE	LL	UL	t
OC status	.42	.18	.06	.78	2.30*
Gender	−.06	.08	−.23	.10	−.78
Age	.00	.07	−.14	.15	.05
Sibsize	−.15	.13	−.40	.10	−1.15
SES	−.08	.06	−.19	.03	−1.51

Note. N = 345. OC status: only child status (0 = only child, 1 = non-only child); Gender: (0 = male, 1 = female); Sibsize: number of siblings in the family; SES = socioeconomic status; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

^*p < .05.

Qualitative Results.

In response to the first qualitative question, fewer participants (42.57%) stated “Yes,” that they had often felt lonely, while more participants (57.43%) wrote “No,” indicating they had not. When compared to the quantitative measures, the results showed that individuals who responded “Yes” scored higher in loneliness assessed by ULS-6 than those who indicated “No,” t(200) = −2.28, p = .012, d = −.19, 95% CI: [−.36, −.03]. Also, consistent with the previous quantitative results, only children were less likely to indicate that they had often felt lonely (χ²(1, 202) = 6.7, p = .01) than did their peers with siblings.

Regarding the typical situation that caused participants to feel lonely, fewer (21.05%) responses indicated intimate loneliness, while more (71.58%) responses indicated relational loneliness, with just 7.37% reflecting collective loneliness. The example responses for each loneliness dimension are displayed in Table 4.

Additionally, we examined if a particular loneliness dimension was reported more frequently among only children. In Study 3.2, we also included the collective loneliness responses in our Chi-square analysis (unlike Study 3.1) because the cell number met the minimum requirement. The results indicated that there was no evidence that only-children experienced more of any particular loneliness dimension than non-only children (χ²(2, 190) = 1.14, p = .57).

Discussion

The three studies presented here succeeded in demonstrating that the majority of young Chinese adults believe in the only-child-as-lonely stereotype. Yet the results of our analyses of data from samples of high school and college students indicate that only children do not report greater loneliness than their peers with siblings. These results overall suggest an important gap between beliefs and reality.

Only-Children-as-Lonely-Children Stereotype

Why do young Chinese adults believe in this stereotype? The view that only children are lonely children has been popularized by Chinese books, magazines, and social media for decades (Bao, 2011). Indeed, smaller studies have demonstrated that Chinese adults believe in this stereotype (Bao, 2011; Wu et al., 2018). The present study differs from the two previous studies in that the present findings are based on representative samples from six Chinese cities, with each city differing in regional location, city size, and economic development. The stratified random sampling used in the six-city study increases the likelihood that the findings represent the population being studied. Moreover, the previous studies (Bao, 2011; Wu et al., 2018) did not specify the life stage of the only children referenced in their measures, which may have led participants to view the targets as only children of very young age. The current study provides more nuance by focusing on stereotypical views about only children in a particular developmental stage.

In general, the majority of respondents reported perceiving only children as lonelier than children with siblings, to a greater or lesser extent, suggesting that this stereotype was prevalent among young Chinese adults. The results also suggest that belief in the stereotype is motivated by sibling status experiences. Specifically, respondents with siblings reported more belief in the stereotype than only children did. This finding is in line with social identity theory (Hogg, 2016; Stets & Burke, 2000) suggesting that individuals with siblings view only children as members from the out-group, rating them more negatively than fellow in-group members. Conversely, it is also possible that only-child participants perceived themselves as lacking loneliness because they saw only children as their in-group.

Finally, when asked for the main reason for planning to have more than one child in the future, almost two-thirds of participants indicated that fear of only-children-being-lonely was a factor in their deciding to have more than one child. This finding suggests that young Chinese adults may have internalized the popular loneliness stereotype about only children from the social media, and this belief has influenced their future family plans. This finding is in keeping with a previous American study showing that young adults who held negative stereotypes about only children felt the pressure to have a second child to keep their first child from experiencing life as an only child (Herrera et al., 2003). In addition, the results of the first study suggest that belief in the loneliness stereotype was more widespread than beliefs about only children being overindulged. Taken together, our findings about beliefs in the stereotype suggest that such beliefs may motivate young Chinese adults, especially those who grew up with siblings, to have more than one child.

Loneliness of Only Children

The results from the second and third studies consistently showed that, contrary to the stereotype, Chinese only children reported less loneliness than their peers with siblings. This is an important finding because loneliness is a common challenge for individuals during late adolescence and emerging adulthood. The results are similar for all three samples, and regardless of whether covariates were included in the analyses. These results contradict expectations based on the deficit perspective of loneliness (Weiss, 1973), which posits that the absence of certain types of relationships, like sibling relationships, results in enhanced feelings of loneliness.

Why would Chinese only children experience less loneliness than their peers with siblings? Recent studies of time use suggest that only children spend more time with their parents than children with siblings do (Lao & Dong, 2019; Wikle et al., 2019). Furthermore, because the extended kinship network is emphasized by Confucian ideology in Chinese society (Slote & De Vos, 1998), enhanced time with grandparents and cousins may also compensate for the lack of siblings.

In contrast to the deficit perspective, the cognitive perspective of loneliness (Perlman & Peplau, 1982) proposes that individuals’ feelings of loneliness arise when their expectations about social relationships are not fulfilled. It is possible Chinese only children did not develop expectations for sibling relationships because growing up without siblings became a social norm in urban China (Chen et al., 2014; Gu et al., 2007; Jylhä & Jokela, 1990; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014). That is, growing up in a society where most classmates are children without siblings, only children themselves may have little chance of developing expectations for sibling companionship, and thus, naturally, may not see themselves as failing to meet such expectations.

In addition to these two main approaches to loneliness, another likely explanation for why only children express lower levels of loneliness concerns their overall mental health. Two recent meta-analyses (Falbo & Hooper, 2015; Tang et al., 2019) found that Chinese only children had better mental health compared to their counterparts with siblings. Thus, it is possible that only children are more resilient to psychological distress and less vulnerable when they perceive discrepancies between their desired and achieved social relationships. Moreover, Lin et al. (2017) found that compared to their peers with siblings, only children sought out available resources more frequently, when needed. Therefore, it may be that only children do better at reaching out for help when they experience social exclusion.

Situations That Trigger Loneliness

We observed some similarities and differences across samples in Studies 3.1 and 3.2 with respect to the situations that frequently gave rise to feelings of loneliness. In general, late-adolescent participants from both northeastern and southeastern China reported situations corresponding to relational loneliness (e.g., peers and friends) the most frequently, intimate loneliness (e.g., parents and siblings) the second most frequently, and collective loneliness (e.g., school and social group) the least frequently. This result aligns with the evidence that the global social network of peers and friends plays a continuously increasing role in late adolescents’ social relationships (Arnett, 2000; Wrzus et al., 2013), and thus, late adolescents may have higher chances of developing dissatisfied expectations of such relationships.

In terms of situations that trigger loneliness, the results of Studies 3.1 and 3.2 were not completely consistent. Among northeastern adolescents in Study 3.1, only children mentioned intimate loneliness less frequently than children with siblings, indicating that children with siblings experience more loneliness related to parents and siblings. A possible explanation is that only children receive more attention and mentoring from their parents and likely have closer parent-child relationships than children with siblings do (Lao & Dong, 2019; Short et al., 2001). Another possibility, suggested by participants’ responses, is that children with siblings may experience sibling conflict, which may result in the development of unfulfilled expectations for positive sibling relationships. Children without siblings avoid such sibling conflicts and the resulting discrepancies in expectations. This pattern of findings, however, was not replicated in Study 3.2 among southeastern adolescents. In Study 3.2, the frequency of the three dimensions of loneliness was cited similarly by only children and their counterparts with siblings. It is unclear why significant differences in one dimension of loneliness were found for one sample, while no significant differences were found in the other sample. More investigation is needed in future studies to explore if Chinese only children and children with siblings experience different types of loneliness.

In addition, although cross-regional differences in the loneliness experiences of participants within China are not the main focus of the current research, we found that the southeastern adolescents in Study 3.2 cited relational and collective loneliness more often than their northeastern peers in Study 3.1. This seeming emphasis on more social aspects of loneliness among southeastern adolescents hints at the view that individuals growing up in southern China are more likely to exhibit greater collectivistic cultural orientations than those from northern China (Talhelm, 2020; Talhelm et al., 2014). However, we should be cautious in interpreting this result through the lens of cross-cultural differences within China, because culturerelevant components are beyond the scope of the current study. Future studies are needed to explore the underlying mechanisms of the different sources of loneliness across different regions in China.

Implications

In sum, the current research makes several important contributions. First, we corroborate and extend findings that belief in the only-child-as-lonely stereotype is widespread in Chinese society. Second, through three studies, we demonstrate that only children report lower levels of loneliness than their peers with siblings.

This gap between stereotype and reality provides important insights for parents and counseling professionals. Specifically, our research will help young adults clarify their beliefs of only-child-as-lonely and then check them against the reality provided by the results of this study. With regards to psychologists, one study documented that clinical professionals may have prior-impressions of a hypothetical only-child client as “particularly likely to experience problems” (Stewart, 2004, p. 173), reflecting their biases against only children. Thus, clinical professionals, who often work directly with children and parents on issues of social relationships, would benefit from the awareness of stereotypes they might hold about only children.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations of the current research should be noted. First, our study adopted a cross-sectional design, which may provide limited inferences for the development of loneliness among children with and without siblings. Future research should adopt a longitudinal approach to document if the trajectories of loneliness differ for these two groups during their late adolescence and emerging adulthood. Furthermore, because the first cohort of Chinese only children produced by the OCP has reached their 40s, more investigation should be developed to explore if findings from current research apply to only children during other critical life periods (e.g., middle adulthood). Second, Study 1 was limited by the secondary analysis of existing measures and data, therefore future studies should explore relevant topics in a more in-depth manner. For example, it would be good to adopt the loneliness stereotype items from the ULS-6 and ask the participants to indicate such stereotypical beliefs about only children and children with siblings respectively. Furthermore, it would have been valuable to examine the reasons for having more than one child through an open-ended response. Third, as noted in the qualitative results from Studies 3.1 and 3.2, northeastern Chinese only children cited intimate loneliness less often than their peers with sibling, whereas the only children and children with siblings from the southeastern China mentioned different types of loneliness in a similar pattern. These interesting results imply that the potential cultural differences underlying the loneliness experience within China should be further explored. Moreover, it indicates that different types of loneliness among children with and without siblings should be addressed in future studies. For example, a multidimensional measure of loneliness (e.g., intimate, relational, and collective loneliness based on R-UCLA scale, Hawkley et al., 2005; or emotional and social loneliness on SELSA-S, DiTommaso et al., 2004) may be a good approach to further quantitatively assess if degrees of loneliness for children with and without siblings vary regarding different dimensions of loneliness. Last, although Study 2 included participants either growing up in rural or urban area, the late-adolescent participants from Study 3 were mostly recruited from cities where the OCP was intensely applied. Therefore, we suggest that future studies also focus on the rural only children’s loneliness experience during late adolescence. Additionally, it is noteworthy to note that because the Chinese only children are the product of the national OCP in China (Falbo, 2019), a look at other countries without such family planning policy (e.g., United States and Singapore) may provide more insights into the topic of only children and loneliness.

Public Policy Relevance Statement.

Popular concern about only children in China focuses on their loneliness, not just in childhood, but also continuing throughout adolescence and young adulthood. This research examines the stereotypes and realities about loneliness for Chinese only children with three studies, demonstrating that while belief in the loneliness of only children is widespread in China, the evidence supports the opposite difference, that only children in China are less lonely than peers with siblings.