Musings on personal growth, books, motherhood, writing, and more. "Every hour is saved from that eternal silence, something more, a bringer of new things." – Tennyson
I’ve been thinking about the respective advantages and disadvantages of large and small families. Are kids healthier, happier, and in general better off in small families or big families?
This was the question I was asking. I’m now under the impression that there are so many factors involved in a person’s health and happiness that this question is mostly irrelevant.
It’s especially irrelevant, I believe, in families where basic needs are unmet or where there is parent-caused or other family-wide trauma; these tragedies throw everything off and make all family size psychology moot.
The question may also be morally suspect, according to my good friend, who believes that it’s wrong to willfully create more need in the world (i.e., have more children) when there’s so much unmet need (i.e., homeless children) already.
Nevertheless, the question remains interesting to me; so, as far as it may be a useful topic, here are my findings.
Toward an Answer
Studies show that children from smaller families tend to have higher IQ’s and educational achievements than children from larger families. With fewer children, parents can devote more attention, time, and resources to each child’s education and development.
But if I had to choose between kids with high IQs and kids with great social/emotional skills, I would definitely choose the social skills. And the consensus on social skills favors large families. This makes sense to me, because:
1. With several siblings, children receive more feedback from peers about the way they act, and they have more opportunities to interact with peers in general than children in smaller families do. Here’s a lovely personal essay about the value of having many siblings.
2. While children in large families have fewer parental resources than children in smaller families do, this may not be automatically a negative thing…
– Parents of large families do not have as much time and energy to hover, smother, demand perfection from, be enmeshed or codependent with, or make passive aggressive demands from their children as parents of smaller families do.
– Children with many siblings and with fewer resources to go around learn not only interpersonal skills but also, I would think, bigger interpersonal concepts such as personal responsibility, the necessity of sharing, the value of things owned and earned, the value of work, resourcefulness, thriftiness, and awareness of others’ needs and desires. It would be a tall order to expect any child of a large family to reach adulthood having mastered all of these skills, though; and, again, there are many more factors to account for.
3. Emotions are likely to be more out in the open in large families, because in order to get what you want, you have to express it, which is an essential life skill. However, perhaps this point is more speculative than actually true: according to JRank Psychology Encyclopedia, children in large families tend to take on specific roles in order to stand out; such roles may trump the acquisition of assertiveness.
All things being equal, I would choose to have a large family, but that’s probably because I come from a small one and envy people who have tons of siblings. For example, I always loved watching (reruns of) The Brady Bunch. But oh, that life were as simple as a sitcom!
Ultimately, I think the question of large families vs. small families is interesting, but not critical, in light of bigger issues.
This study did introduce me to a cool new scholarly term, though, and a faster way to say “number of siblings”: “sibship size.”