Cognitive pollution under the headline of science

A fairly mundane example of what passes for news reporting but is cognitive pollution. From Is Only-Child Syndrome Real? Children without siblings have long been thought of as spoiled and selfish. Are the claims true? by Corinna Hartmann.

I have no strongly formed views on the subject. It would be surprising that there weren't differences between single child versus multi-child families, in part because the dynamics are demonstrably different, in part because there must necessarily be a different child parental relationship, and in part because, where choice is involved, people who choose a single child versus multiple children may have different traits. I looked into birth-order hypothesis a decade or two ago, some parts of which touch on singleton status, and at that time the studies were quite mixed and broadly underpowered and absent strong statistical controls. Problems which have long plagued the fields of sociology and psychology, leading to the roiling problem of replication (or lack thereof).

Despite intense interest and years of research, we simply don't have good, robust, comparable, reliable data. Comparing single family status in a nation with a single child policy such as China (as it did then) to a nation where number of children is under the control of free deciding parents (as it is in OECD countries with birth control) to family planning in developing nations with low access to birth control is an invitation to confounds. Any results are only at best mildly suggestive.

Hartmann apparently has an axe to grind as she approaches this question as to whether there are differences between singletons and multi-sibling children.

She starts out with:

Only children always want to get their way, can’t share and are generally selfish—or so the long-held prejudice goes. According to recent research, however, these claims are overstated. So where did these biases come from?

But are they biases or are they assumptions based on anecdotes. Hartmann gives a decent thumbnail sketch of research which assumed that there were differences and, with extraordinarily small and poorly designed studies, did indeed find that there were differences. But we have come a long way since then, especially in our capacity to frame hypotheses and test those hypotheses against empirical data in a robust fashion.

Except you wouldn't know that by the reformulation presented further in the article. We shift from "There might be material differences in behavior and actions between singletons and multi-sibling children" to "You need brothers and sisters to grow into a decent person." Hartmann has introduced a straw man argument which virtually no one makes and is certainly not one that is researched.

Toni Falbo, a psychologist at The University of Texas at Austin, and an only child, opposes the idea you need brothers and sisters to grow into a decent person.

Creating a straw man argument in order to refute it is a hallmark of cognitive pollution and someone with an agenda.

Falbo, with her badly constructed hypothesis finds that

In her 1986 survey, for which she examined more than 200 studies on the subject, she concluded the characteristics of children with and without siblings do not differ. The only difference, she found, was that only children seemed to have stronger bonds with their parents compared with children who had siblings.

So Hartmann appears to have arrived where she wanted to be. There is no difference between singletons and multi-sibling children. The only difference Falbo finds, or the only one Hartmann reports, is a positive one.

The only difference, she found, was that only children seemed to have stronger bonds with their parents compared with children who had siblings.

OK, a straw man argument and findings that repute the strawman but does have a positive finding that you prefer. Two red flags.

SO all's well with those who want to believe that there are no differences between singletons. Except that there are differences.

In one survey only children achieved lower scores in terms of how tolerant they were. According to the five-factor model (FFM), a model of personality dimensions, particularly tolerant people are altruistic, helpful, compassionate and cooperative. Intolerant individuals are often characterized as quarrelsome, distrustful, egocentric and more competitive.

I thought Hartmann was trying to dispel the spoiled and selfish charge. Quarrelsome, distrustful, egocentric and more competitive sounds like it might be a kissing cousin of spoiled and selfish.

But it gets worse.

MRI tests revealed differences in brain structure. In the supramarginal gyrus, a cortical area associated with creativity and imagination, researchers found more gray matter (linked to intelligence) among only children. Researchers, however, discovered fewer gray cells in the frontal brain, more precisely in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), of only children than those with siblings. This deficit was accompanied by lower tolerance. Earlier studies also attributed important functions to this brain region when it comes to processing emotional information, including the ability to attribute feelings to others and regulating one's own emotions.

Hartmann starts out trying to disprove that only children are spoiled and selfish. Falbo gives Hartmann her QED moment - there are no differences between singletons and multi-sibling children.

Except that there are actually measurable neurological differences which in turn manifest in behavioral traits which might be characterized as intolerant and unaccommodating of others or might be characterized as spoiled and selfish.

Hartmann wants there to be no difference. The empirical data suggests there is a difference. Hartmann downplays the significance of the empirical differences.

Parents likely have to work harder at teaching their only kids social skills and engineering opportunities where children would have to share their toys, books and parental attention. Otherwise, creating a loving and calm environment seems more important than the number of children in a household.

But the reality is that she is writing in the Scientific American and ought to be able to at least create a defensible hypothesis to test against data. Instead she cobbles together a Frankenstein argument highlighting one study which supports her unstated contention, emphasizes possible positive effects of singletonhood and then tries to spin the empirical evidence into irrelevance.

The unintended substance of her argument is "There is a stereotype that it is developmentally valuable for children to have siblings and there is empirical evidence to support that notion in terms of improved interaction with others, better cooperation, and improved capacity to recognize and negotiate with those who might have competing goals." But that's not the impression you get if you simply go with her frame and her narrative rather than examining her evidence.

Of course, there is also the root issue that most these studies are loose and unreliable. The better conclusion is that given the state of data today, we cannot either affirm or refute that there are no differences between singletons and multi-sibling children.

Cognitive pollution.