Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study draws on intersectionality and reproductive identity as conceptual frameworks to investigate the motivation and experience of Israeli voluntary single-child parents in online support groups (OSGs) for the parents of only children. A qualitative analysis of 20 semi-structured interviews revealed that the social stigma attached to having one child was a significant factor in their decision to join an OSG for all single-child parents. However, once becoming members of the group, voluntary single-child parents experienced conflictual encounters with their involuntary counterparts and felt stigmatized in the OSG as well. This led them to create their own OSG exclusively for voluntary single-child parents. The interviewees coped with their conflictual OSG membership experience by “cruising” between the two OSGs in a search for social support. Membership in both groups enabled them to gain support for the two distinct components of their reproductive identity: reproductive status; and reproductive decision-making. The findings extend the conceptual framework of intersectionality to OSG research, demonstrating how the interplay between multiple stigmatized identities shapes OSG options, choices, and experiences.

Keywords

online support groups single-child parents stigma reproductive identity intersectionality

Introduction

For decades, only children, that is, people with no siblings, have drawn considerable attention from scholars, especially psychologists and sociologists (Dufner et al., 2020; Falbo & Polit, 1986; Fenton, 1928; Jefferies, 2001; Mancillas, 2006). However, very little attention has been given to the experiences of parents who choose to have only one child (Breton & Prioux, 2009; Khadaroo & MacCallum, 2021; Mor, 2017). Israel, with its strong familistic and pronatalist ideology and policies, provides an ideal setting for examining the experiences of voluntary single-child parents (Birenbaum-Carmeli, 2016; Fogiel-Bijaoui, 2020).

The current study explores the motivations of voluntary single-child parents for joining a Facebook online support group (OSG) for all parents of only children, and their experience in the group. Social media serves today as the primary means of connection for many individuals. As such, it is also a significant social support resource for people coping with stigmas (Gazit & Amichai-Hamburger, 2021; Yeshua-Katz, 2016). As a result of this role, examining the experiences of voluntary single-child parents in OSGs can provide considerable insight into the way in which they experience their stigmatized reproductive identity.

The study draws on two theoretical frameworks—intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) and the concept of reproductive identity (Athan, 2020)—to explore how the intersection between two stigmatized components of voluntary single-child parents’ reproductive identity shapes their motivations and experiences in OSGs tailored for the parents of only children, both voluntary and involuntary. These two components are reproductive status (i.e., parenting a single child) and reproductive decision-making (i.e., deciding to parent a single child) of voluntary single-child parents.

The Single-Child Family

The single-child family deviates from the ideal family model, which is typically viewed as a unit composed of at least two children (Khadaroo & MacCallum, 2021). Among Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the ideal number of children, on average, indicated by men and women is approximately 2.2 and 2.3, respectively (OECD, 2016). In Israel, 77% of adults regard three or more children as the ideal (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Yet despite the widely held view that families should consist of multiple children, in practice, there has been an increase in single-child families in various countries across the globe. For example, a Pew Research Center study found that the number of American women who reached the end of their childbearing years with one child had doubled in recent decades, going from 11% in 1976 to 22% in 2014 (Pew Research Center, 2015). A rise in single-child families has also been reported in southern Europe and in several central European countries (Breton & Prioux, 2009; Jefferies, 2001).

Various factors contribute to the decision of having only one child. Breton and Prioux (2009) found that women over 35 who have a late first birth have a reduced likelihood of having a second child. The dissolution of a union after the first child’s birth, having a child out of wedlock with no subsequent partnership, and financial and emotional resources are also important factors. Misra and Murray-Close (2014) discovered that women experience a “wage penalty” for each additional child, which can influence their decision to have one child. Partners may choose to invest more in one child, known as the quality–quantity tradeoff (Becker & Lewis, 1973; Fanelli & Profeta, 2021; Misra & Murray-Close, 2014). Mothers may also face societal pressures to take on the primary caregiver role while working, leading to the choice of having a single child (Friedman, 2015; Goldscheider et al., 2015; Hochschild & Machung, 2012). Women who work without assistance from partners may choose the single-child parenthood model (Esping-Andersen & Billari, 2015).

Despite the increasing numbers of single-child families, in many cultures there is still a stigma attached to this family model (Dufner et al., 2020; Mancillas, 2006), rooted primarily in the societal portrayal of only children as socially inept (Falbo & Polit, 1986). The psychologist Granville Stanley Hall, who served as the first president of the American Psychological Association, even argued that “being an only child is a disease in itself” (cited in Fenton, 1928, p. 547). Although such notions have been widely criticized throughout the years, they are deeply embedded in public opinion, creating strong social stigmas against only children (Breton & Prioux, 2009; Mancillas, 2006).

Negative social attitudes are directed not only at the children, but also at their parents, who are accused of being selfish for not providing their child with siblings to benefit his or her development (Jefferies, 2001; Mancillas, 2006; Mor, 2017). According to literature, women face greater social criticism than men for deviating from reproductive norms as they are expected to prioritize traditional notions of motherhood and family over individual desires and goals. In addition, mothers of single children are accused of being overprotective, resulting in unhappy children (Mancillas, 2006). The accusations are so harsh that some women report considering having a second child only to stave off social criticism (Jefferies, 2001). Nevertheless, studies indicate that only children exhibit high levels of social competence, academic achievement, and wealth compared with children with siblings (Basu & Desai, 2016; Falbo & Polit, 1986; Parr, 2007). They are also well-adjusted and have a better parent–child relationship, as their parents tend to spend more time with them (Khadaroo & MacCallum, 2021).

Single-Child Families in Israel

Israel is a pronatalist country, with state legislation and policy supporting multiple births (Birenbaum-Carmeli, 2016; Fogiel-Bijaoui, 2020; Yefet, 2016). The pronatalist policy is reflected first and foremost in the laws and regulations relating to reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), with nearly unlimited treatment offered to every woman, irrespective of marital status or sexual orientation, until she successfully delivers two children. As a result, Israel has the highest IVF rates globally. In 2015, 21.7 IVF cycles were performed for every 1,000 Israeli women, compared with 20.7 in Denmark, 17.8 in Slovenia, 15.5 in Belgium, and less than 10 in other European countries (Eldar-Geva et al., 2018). The strong cultural reproductive imperative has also led to greater access to reproductive medicine, with more fertility clinics per capita in Israel than in any other country (Eldar-Geva et al., 2018; Yefet, 2016). It also has one of the most legally restrictive abortion regimes in the Western world (Eldar-Geva et al., 2018), and only marginally subsidizes contraception (Ministry of Health, 2013).

This pronatalist state policy is rooted in the national narrative that includes, in addition to the biblical obligation to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), the will of the Jews to survive, specifically in the context of the Holocaust and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (Birenbaum-Carmeli, 2016). This narrative depicts children as an asset for the continuity of the Jewish nation, and parenthood as a civic obligation (Fogiel-Bijaoui, 2020; Lavee & Katz, 2003; Yefet, 2016). In conjunction with government support for reproduction, Israeli society is characterized by a high level of familism. Consequently, raising a family with multiple children is a means of obtaining social and cultural status. This applies mainly to women and is referred to as “fertility worship” (Berkovitch, 1999, p. 285) or “reproductive citizenship” (Yefet, 2016, p. 254). These attitudes underly the social criticism of voluntary childlessness, single-child parents, and families with large age gaps between the children (Birenbaum-Carmeli, 2016; Donath, 2013).

The lack of social legitimacy for single-child families in Israel may explain the scarcity of research on the topic. Mor’s (2017) study on Israeli mothers who decide to raise a single child revealed their ambivalence toward departing from Israeli reproductive norms. They justify their choice as citizens of the world, yet express guilt and a need to conform to collective attitudes. Donath’s (2013) study on maternal regret revealed another aspect of Israeli reproductive norms where even dissatisfied parents continue to have more children for the sake of the first.

Online Support Groups for Stigmatized Individuals

Online support groups are social networks on digital media, such as Facebook, that offer individuals support from similar others. They have become increasingly popular in recent years due to the rapid growth of technology, which has made them both accessible and affordable. Furthermore, they are unconstrained by temporal or geographical boundaries, so that users can easily connect to large numbers of similar others at whatever time and location is convenient for them (DeAndrea, 2015). As stigmatized individuals have little to no offline support, they are likely to turn to OSGs as their primary source of support (Gazit & Amichai-Hamburger, 2021; Yeshua-Katz, 2016). Since deviation from reproductive norms can lead to social stigma, online groups devoted to this condition can shed light on how reproductive identities are “imaged” around the globe (Athan, 2020).

Studies that have examined the link between stigmatized reproductive status and the use of OSGs, including those conducted in Israel, have focused predominantly on childlessness and fertility issues (e.g., Moore, 2014; Morison et al., 2016; Patel et al., 2019). For example, a study of the factors influencing Israelis’ engagement in a fertility support group on Facebook (Gazit & Amichai-Hamburger, 2021) found that external factors such as having a child and family support predicted higher levels of engagement in the online group. In another study which examined the role of OSGs in coping with the stigma on childlessness in Israel (Yeshua-Katz, 2016), women with fertility issues tended to look for information and emotional support in OSGs, whereas voluntarily childless women tended to look for esteem and validation of their decision.

Intersectionality and Reproductive Identity

This study explores the experience of voluntary Israeli single-child parents’ membership in an OSG, using two conceptual frameworks: intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) and reproductive identity (Athan, 2020). Intersectionality is a key analytic framework for the discussion of the structural identities of race, class, gender, and sexuality (Cooper et al., 2016), providing insights into the ways in which different aspects of a person’s social and political identities combine to create modes of discrimination and privilege (Warner & Shields, 2013; Zinn & Dill, 1996). It thus embodies the idea that social and political identities should not be studied independently of one another, or separately from the processes that maintain inequality (Warner & Shields, 2013). In addition, it rejects the notion of essentializing any social group and highlights time, place, and localized specificity (Hankivsky et al., 2010).

The notion of intersectionality is grounded in the traditions of Black feminism and critical race theory, which argue that identity is formed at the intersections of race and gender (Cooper et al., 2016; Crenshaw, 1989). Nevertheless, it has been applied within and across contexts in a variety of ways, and continues to evolve (Warner & Shields, 2013). One development is the incorporation of intersectionality in research on reproduction (Price, 2011), where this perspective is adopted mainly in respect to the politics of reproduction, employing terms such as reproductive choices, or more commonly, reproductive justice (Mizielińska & Stasińska, 2019; Price, 2011). Reproductive justice is an organizing framework in and of itself, as it places reproduction within the broader context of structural constraints on individual women and entire communities (Luna, 2009; Price, 2011). In other words, reproductive justice acknowledges the ways in which intersecting factors, such as race, social class, and sexuality, affect the freedom of women to make reproductive decisions (Price, 2011).

In a similar vein, Athan (2020) offers the novel concept of reproductive identity, which mirrors preexisting models of human identity such as race, gender, and sexuality. She defines it as “a process whereby individuals, in dialogue with their particular macro-micro context, experience an enlarging awareness of their reproductive potential . . . explore and accept their reproductive desires and predilections . . . narrate and make meaning of their lived reproductive experiences, and in doing so feel more agentic and decisive as they integrate this evolving understanding into their whole self-concept” (p. 454).

The Current Study

This study extends the concept of intersectionality by focusing on the intersection of two marginalized components of voluntary single-child parents’ reproductive identity: reproductive status, that is, being parents of a single child; and reproductive decision-making, fertility intentions and preferences (Bhrolchnce & Beaujouan, 2019), that is, voluntarily choosing to parent a single child. We investigate the interplay between these two marginalized components in shaping voluntary single-child parents’ motivation for joining, and experience of membership in, OSGs designed for the parents of only children, whether by choice or otherwise. Our aim is to shed light on the ways in which voluntary single-child parents whose reproductive identities deviate from the norm make sense of their reproductive experiences and manage their stigma through OSG membership. The study focuses on two research questions:

1: What motivates voluntary single-child parents to join an OSG?

2: How do voluntary single-child parents experience their membership in OSGs?

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 20 single-child parents by choice, 18 mothers and 2 fathers. All the participants were Israeli-born Jews, with a middle-class socioeconomic status and an academic degree. These characteristics align with exiting literature indicating that deviations from reproductive norms in Israel tend to be associated with higher education and middle-to-high socioeconomic status (Donath, 2011; Mor, 2017). All the participants were also in a couple relationship, aged between 29 and 51 years, and their children’s ages ranged from 16 months to 20 years. One participant self-identified as a lesbian, while the remainder identified as heterosexual. Excluding single parents, who may have different circumstances influencing their decision to have only one child, ensured that the participants’ decision to adopt the single-child family model was a pure choice. Three participants were living overseas, contributing to the study’s multicultural perspectives.

Participants were recruited in two ways. First, a request to participate in the study was posted on two Facebook groups for single-child parents. The first group was established in Israel in 2017 and was open to both involuntary and voluntary single-child parents. The second is a relatively new OSG that was established in 2020 exclusively for voluntary single-child parents. In both groups, approval to post the request was received from the admin. Participants were also recruited through snowball sampling. The criteria for inclusion in the study were that they were voluntary single-child parents, were participating in at least one of the above OSGs, and were in a couple relationship.

Data Collection

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted to tap participants’ motivation for joining the OSGs and their membership experiences in the two groups. Approval for the study was granted by the Ethics Committee at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Each participant signed an informed consent form after receiving an explanation of the aims and procedure of the study. To protect their confidentiality, the real names of the participants are not used here.

The interview protocol consisted of open-ended questions framed by the authors that covered topics such as their reasons for joining and the benefits and type of support they gained from the groups. The first author conducted the interviews between January 2021 and May 2021 until saturation was reached. That is, no new codes or categories were produced during the analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Each interview lasted between 60 and 120 min. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, all the interviews, except one, were conducted via Zoom or over the telephone. They were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim with the participants’ permission. We assigned pseudonyms to all participants.

Corpus and Data Analysis

The 20 interview transcripts were analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s (2012) guidelines for reflexive thematic analysis (TA). The term TA refers to a variety of techniques used to locate, arrange, and categorize insights into patterns (i.e., “themes”) within qualitative data sets (Braun and Clarke, 2012). Reflexive TA is perceived as a wholly qualitative approach where “coding is an organic and open iterative process” without the need of a codebook or coding frame (p. 6). It is distinct from coding reliability TA, which focuses on quantitative reliability and replicability values while also being somewhat positivist and largely qualitative, and from codebook TA, which bases themes on a relatively set coding scheme before performing a comprehensive analysis.

There are six phases to reflexive TA. During the first phase, data familiarization, we looked for telling phrases and connections that would add depth to later, more systematic, coding, paying particular attention to statements relevant to the research objectives. In the second stage, we applied explicit labels (codes) to various units and determined their initial meaning over the entire data set. Third, we created themes by combining related codes into arrays of meaning. The following two steps involved comparing the emergent themes to the research questions and honing them by giving them clear definitions and titles.

We were able to combine an open coding scheme typical of reflexive TA with intersectionality as a guiding theoretical framework through the inductive-dominant method (Armat et al., 2018). Following Abrams et al.’s (2020) guidelines for applying intersectionality in qualitative data analysis, we focused on the intersecting structure of participants’ marginalized identities during the coding process, rather than treating them separately. Furthermore, we conducted both semantic and latent level analyses of the data. In the final phase of report production, we aimed to convey the complex narrative of the data.

For example, as part of our familiarization with the data, participants’ conflictual experience in the OSG for single-child parents and their consequent shift back and forth between that group and the new one created specifically for single-child parents by choice was understood as a practice aimed at overcoming the devaluation they experienced in the first group, suggesting a framework in which their two marginalized identities collide. In the next phase, we labeled the conflict in the first group a “stigma experience,” and the shift between groups “cruising between online support groups.” In Phases 2–5, we expanded these labels, generating codes and constructing broader themes.

Findings

Data analysis revealed three main themes. The first relates to the motivations of voluntary single-child parents for joining an OSG for Israeli parents of only children, whether by choice or otherwise. The second theme relates to participants’ membership experience in this OSG. Finally, the third theme relates to membership in the two OSGs: one for single-child parents in general, and the other exclusively for voluntary single-child parents.

Motivations for Joining an OSG for Single-Child Parents

When asked about their motivations for joining an OSG, most participants began by describing their social experience as the parents of an only child in Israeli society. The majority stated that they do not personally know any families with a single child who was not very young.

You feel like an alien because no one is like you. I don’t know any other families with an older single child like mine. I remember there was a time, at first, that it drove me so crazy that I started searching on Google for famous people who are only children. I wanted to see that I’m not alone in this, that it exists. (Hadar)

Not only do single-child parents feel like a minority in Israeli society, but they also feel devalued as parents.

When I talk with other mothers, I often feel that they consider my input inferior. The other mothers treat me with less respect because who am I to know? I’m the mother of only one child! The message is unmistakable: You are not a legitimate mother until you have more than one child. (Vicky)

This devaluation is also evident in the sharp social criticism directed at them.

Being the mother of a single child is a daily struggle. A few days ago, in the playground, a dad who knows me from [her son’s] kindergarten asked me: “Do you still only have one [child]?!? I apologize for the question, but what will happen if he dies in the army?” (Dana)

Participants’ experiences of marginalization reflect society’s view that the single-child family is somehow immoral. It challenges three social codes of Israeli culture: the code of “good parenting”; the religious-political code of familism; and the code that sees parenthood as a means to a normative adult life.

The code of “good parenting” accuses single-child parents of standing in the way of the “best interests of the child.” Thus, single-child parents are viewed as destining them to a life of loneliness and sabotaging their future by overburdening them with responsibility.

I hear the same comments all the time: “You are ruining your daughter’s life, she will be alone and lonely and miserable, she will have to take care of you when you’re old all by herself, and after you’re gone, she will be left alone in the world.” (Yael)

The second social code, the religious-political code of familism, depicts the acceptable Israeli-Jewish family by relying on the verse “be fruitful and multiply,” and its connection to the Zionist ideology which links reproduction with the continuity of the Jewish people. In keeping with this perspective, small families are not perceived as establishing what is known as a “household in Israel.” In the eyes of the participants, this cultural logic labels single-child families as “lacking”:

Did you hear what Sarit Hadad [a famous Israeli singer] said [in a newspaper article] when her second daughter was born? “Now we’re a family.” Many people feel this way. They don’t see families with one child as a “real” family. (Katya)

The third social code challenged by the single-child family regards parenthood as a natural developmental step in adulthood. According to this code, bringing one child into the world with no “backups” jeopardizes the parenting role and, by extension, normative adult development. The narrative depicts a harsh reality in which losing a child is a reasonable scenario, leading to the common conception of siblings as a shield against the loss of parenthood.

You’ve probably heard it many times [as a single-child mother]: “What if your daughter dies?” Like a second child is a spare tire, [like] it’s less terrible if you have another child at home because at least you’re still a mother. (Efrat)

Participants indicated that the marginality of their reproductive identity often led to feelings of isolation and loneliness. This was their primary motivation for seeking out and joining an OSG on Facebook for single-child parents in general, which was, at the time, the only active Israeli group of its kind. Most parents found the group as a result of an independent online search, although a few found it through a post on a different parenting group:

This feeling of constantly seeing families who were different from ours made me search for people like us. What I see outside, on the street, is so different. I wanted perhaps to see and hear people who were more like me. (Neta)

Another participant stated that her motivation for joining the OSG stemmed from a need to find like-minded people who could understand and support her reproductive choice.

I realized I was doing something wrong. At this point even my husband disagreed with me. So I started searching for information about it. I mainly found negative things, such as articles on Ynet [an Israeli online news portal] which focused only on the negative aspects of it. I even read the abstract of Adler’s theory on parenthood, which contends that having an only child is not OK. Worse than that, it’s detrimental [to the child]. So I searched for an Israeli online community that supports it, that sees the benefits of having one child. How much can you stand to feel like such a monster? (Nicole)

These remarks reveal parents’ expectations from the OSG. They hoped the group would alleviate their loneliness and isolation by expanding their social network to include people in the same situation who would support their reproductive identity.

The Membership Experience in the OSG for All Single-Child Parents

The participants described the membership experience in the OSG for the parents of only children in general as a dynamic experience that started out positively but later became more complicated and even disappointing. The positive aspects relate to the group nature of the experience, which enabled them to meet other parents with a similar reproductive status. This eased the uncomfortable feeling of loneliness and social abnormality. In addition, it promoted an initial sense of relief regarding their family model.

It’s so rare to meet people like us that finding this group boosted my spirits immediately . . . . It’s nice for a change to read something and say, “Yes, I agree, I feel the same way” . . . I say this with great pain: Regardless of how confident I am in my decision [to have one child], I still need to feel I have support. (Efrat)

Despite the satisfaction that came from meeting other parents who shared the same reproductive status, most of the participants also noted a gradual loss of interest in the content of the OSG, as the emphasis began to shift to reproductive decision-making and desires.

At first, there were interesting posts, people talked about challenges, advantages, even some practical things. For example, I asked what games people know of that a child can play alone. But at some point, it became more of a whiny group [where involuntary single-child parents complained] about having only one child. (Ofir)

I felt that after being in the group for about a year, the atmosphere started to change . . . . There were all sorts of [mothers] who joined who were not [single-child parents] by choice. They became so dominant that it turned the group into a forum for involuntary single-child parents . . . . At first, many people responded to them at length . . . . urged them to look at the pros of having one child. But listen, it gets exhausting. I came to hear something else, to find a different perspective on only children. (Maya)

Not only did involuntary single-child parents began to alter the nature of the OSG, but they also expressed strong criticism of parents who chose to have an only child.

In this group there’s a lot of criticism and guilt [regarding voluntary single-child parenthood]. A lot! There’s more criticism in the group than “outside,” even more than you’d get from a mother who chose to bring triplets into the world. (Dana)

Participants described the stigma attached to their choice within the OSG as particularly disappointing, as they had expected it to be a safe haven:

I hear enough bullshit in real life about how it’s wrong to leave a kid without a brother or sister that I don’t need it in the group as well. The group should be a place where we can just be ourselves, families of three, without justifying our choices. If anything, parents who want more than one child should justify their choice considering the difficulty of raising even one child in Israel, not us. Our choice is responsible and ethical. (Michal)

Some lay the blame on the very nature of the group:

I don’t think the group is a good thing for either side [voluntary or involuntary single-child parents]. It’s like people who don’t eat gluten by choice and people who have celiac disease sharing the same group . . . The people who chose not to eat gluten would say that they’ve found the light, that they look good and they’re fit, whereas the people with celiac disease are truly suffering from a limitation and just dream of eating [gluten] . . . . So I think this is [like] that group . . . . You can’t shrink it down to the common denominator. It’s too narrow. There are still two groups here that are very different from one another. (Neta)

The participants’ comments reveal that, paradoxically, they experienced the single-child parents’ OSG (established in 2017) as another arena in which they were required to legitimize their reproductive decision-making. The marginality of their reproductive choice within the OSG led one of them to establish in 2020 another Facebook group designed exclusively for voluntary single-child parents. All the participants viewed this initiative positively and joined the new group. They saw it as a space that provided an opportunity to meet other single-child parents by choice and to share their stigmatized reproductive decision with like-minded people.

I immigrated to Israel from some miniscule town in Siberia. And it was as if suddenly I met someone who said: “I come from that same small town in Siberia!” It gives you such a sense of belonging to that person and it’s such a sense of “wow” . . . You get the same feeling when you meet a person [in the new OSG] who has only one child by choice in Israeli society. It’s wow. And to say it out loud, and not just to your husband or just to a friend, to say it out loud and in front of everyone is not a trivial thing. (Katya)

I was happy they opened the group . . . because I’m [always] looking for people like me. It’s a basic need. Even if inside you feel it’s the right thing to do, you still want to know that you’re not alone, that you’re not the only one in the world who decided to do something like this. (Maya)

Thus, the new OSG provided support for the participants’ reproductive decision-making and reinforced their self-esteem.

Membership in Both OSGs

The lack of support for voluntary single-child parenting experienced in the first OSG reflects the existence of two marginalized components in the participants’ reproductive identity: reproductive status and reproductive decision-making. Although the members of the group who were involuntary single-child parents shared the participants’ reproductive status, they delegitimized their reproductive decision-making. Yet despite feeling devalued in the group, the participants did not leave, but rather chose to maintain membership in both OSGs. They explained their continued membership in the first group by the fact that it still offered a degree of relevant content and support for their reproductive status.

I’m there because there are still interesting discussions occasionally, and because it doesn’t bother me to be in both groups . . . . It pops up on my feed. I don’t have to go into all my groups all the time. (Noga)

In general, I don’t voluntarily leave groups . . . . It doesn’t bother me to remain in a group. And I’ll tell you one more thing: If we put aside for a moment the women who beat themselves up for being mothers of only one child, there are also women [in the first OSG] who are so good at articulating in their posts things that I feel that it’s an absolute pleasure . . . . So for me, this group is another place to learn, to define, to be more precise about matters that concern the family I started. (Irit)

Another factor in the decision to remain in the first OSG was the large number of members who contributed to the group activity.

There are a lot of posts that I don’t feel are relevant for me, and that even annoy me . . . but there are still subjects that I’m interested in. I’m mainly interested in learning from people with children older than mine about how to deal with future dilemmas. For example, is it worth telling a teacher in advance that your kid is an only child? Or what is it like leaving one child home alone? There are many people in the first group, so there’s a greater chance that they’ll discuss these issues. (Vicky)

Several interviewees noted that they chose to remain in the first OSG because it gave them a chance to offer involuntary single-child parents a different perspective.

Look, you can also understand how frustrating it can be to have only one child not by choice and to yearn for another child. And I think our perspective can help. It can encourage them to stay positive, to see the advantages of the situation they’ve found themselves in. (Yael)

Only one participant left the first OSG when the new group opened. Another “muted” it but left his options open: “It’s still a large and central group. It’s possible that there will be topics that come up that will interest me in the future” (Ofir). The participants’ comments indicate that the size of an OSG impacts the extent of its appeal. Moreover, they show that by its very nature, social media enables individuals to “cruise” between different virtual communities that represent different aspects of their identity.

Discussion

This study draws on the conceptual frameworks of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) and reproductive identity (Athan, 2020) to investigate voluntary single-child parents’ motivations for joining Israeli OSGs for parents of only children, whether by choice or otherwise, and their experience of membership in these groups. Three main findings were identified in the study: (1) the role of stigma as a motivator to participate in single-child parents’ OSGs; (2) the duality of the experience of voluntary single-child parents in a group of parents of only children in general; and (3) the tendency to “cruise” between OSGs that reflect different components of their identity.

The stigma attached to the reproductive identity of voluntary single-child parents in the offline social sphere appeared to be the driving force behind the participants’ decision to join an OSG. The stigma relates to both components of their reproductive identity (Athan, 2020): reproductive status (i.e., having only one child); and reproductive decision-making (i.e., voluntarily choosing to parent an only child). Their lack of familiarity with other single-child parents, along with the stigma attached to this family structure in the pronatalist society of Israel, led the participants to seek a refuge in an OSG for other people like them.

Nevertheless, after joining the group, the anticipated refuge turned out to be another arena in which they faced social criticism from involuntary single-child parents. Paradoxically, the interviewees described this criticism as an escalated version of what they encountered in the offline social realm. However, as a result of their delegitimization by some of the other members of the OSG, the participants reported that they continued to explore, define, and articulate their reproductive identity. This is an indication of the bidirectional relationship between their unique reproductive identity and their membership experience in the OSG for all single-child parents. Not only was their experience in the OSG shaped by their reproductive identity, but their reproductive identity was further shaped by their ongoing membership in the group, where the key role played by their reproductive decision-making in constructing this identity was highlighted.

The participants adopted a two-pronged approach to manage their conflictual experience in the OSG. On one hand, one of them created a new OSG exclusively for voluntary single-child parents, which all the other participants joined. On the other hand, they maintained membership in the original OSG. This suggests that they were agentic, seeking to receive support for their stigmatized reproductive decision-making without giving up support for their stigmatized reproductive status. In other words, the interviewees recognized the benefits of participating in both types of OSGs and acted accordingly to derive the best of both worlds. This effortless “cruising” between different OSGs representing different aspects of their reproductive identity echoes Wellman’s (2002) “networked individualism.” According to Wellman, “The shift from locally connected collectives to a personalized, wireless world enables individuals to switch between ties and networks” (p. 10). This strategy liberated the participants from the restrictions of tightly knit physical groups and expanded their opportunities for finding different types of online support: support for their reproductive status in the original OSG; and support for their reproductive decision-making in the new one.

The condemnation of voluntary single-child parents in the first OSG implies that a social hierarchy exists between the two marginalized components of their reproductive identity, with status positioned above decision-making, as having a child remains aligned with pronatalist Israeli values. However, a stigma is still attached to having an only child (Dufner et al., 2020; Mancillas, 2006; Zheng et al., 2021). As a result of this social hierarchy, involuntary single-child parents can participate in the oppression of voluntary single-child parents, thereby reinforcing the dual marginalization of their reproductive identity.

Social hierarchies in OSGs are not unique to those examined in the current study. Similar systems exist in other OSGs for people contending with social stigmas, such as the “pro-ana” community (Boero & Pascoe, 2012; Yeshua-Katz, 2015). Research indicates that social hierarchies in OSGs tend to serve a practice known as “online boundary work,” whereby group members engage in discursive efforts to distinguish “authentic” members from those who do not belong (Yeshua-Katz, 2016). Our findings suggest that involuntary single-child parents conducted a similar form of online boundary work. Their disapproval of voluntary single-child parents conveyed the message that they were unworthy of the group’s support since they chose their stigmatized identity. Thus, in line with previous studies of voluntary stigmatization, the present study points to a decline in online social support because of the attribution of personal responsibility to stigmatization (Decety et al., 2010; Ritter & Ueno, 2017).

In view of this situation, the participants created a new Facebook group in which they reconstructed their reproductive identity. They used this new OSG to reframe their reproductive decision to become voluntary single-child parents as a rational choice, as opposed to the decision to have more than one child. In a study of stigma resistance in childfree online communities, Morison et al. (2016) describe the adoption of a morally superior as a counter-positioning strategy that promotes the inversion of stigmatizing attributions. This strategy can be viewed as a form of agency, as it challenges dominant regulatory reproductive norms. In a similar manner, voluntary single-child parenthood is socially marginalized, and therefore, the participants in our study sought online support. However, their conflictual experience in the OSG for both voluntary and involuntary single-child parents then led them to further develop their unique reproductive identity and resist the stigma they encountered in offline and online environments alike.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Certain limitations of the study should be noted. First, the participants were recruited from a Facebook group, where most members were mothers. This aligns with previous research showing that mothers are more likely to use social media for parenting support (Duggan et al., 2015). Possibly, this is because mothers carry a heavier burden of child care responsibilities (Pew research Center, 2023). The higher number of mothers in the group studied here may also stem from the greater social stigma encountered by woman, compared with men, for not conforming to reproductive expectations (Donath, 2011). Future studies should recruit single-child fathers and investigate gender differences in OSG motivations and experiences.

From an intersectional perspective, further investigations are needed to examine the interplay between sociodemographic variables, such as socioeconomic status and religious observance, and the reproductive decision to have an only child. Furthermore, since voluntary single-child parents are stigmatized in many societies, exploring the online experiences of these parents in contexts other than Israel could reveal cultural influences on their social lives and reproductive identities (Breton & Prioux, 2009; Jefferies, 2001; Mancillas, 2006).

Conclusions and Implications of the Study

Online support groups are generally depicted in the literature as supportive spaces for individuals experiencing social marginalization (Gazit, Amichai-Hamburger, 2021; Yeshua-Katz, 2016). The current study, however, offers a more complex picture that also reveals their “dark side.” Our participants perceived the OSG for all single-child parents as a potential source of support, but later came to realize that members who had not chosen this reproductive status used the platform to delegitimize the reproductive identity of those who had. This paradox is in line with the intersectionality theory, which contends that stigmatization and discrimination are the combined effect of the intersection of different marginal aspects of a person’s social identity (Cooper et al., 2016; Crenshaw, 1989; Warner & Shields, 2013). Moreover, this study extends the conceptual framework of intersectionality in two ways. First, it demonstrates how devaluation can arise not only as a result of the intersection of different aspects of one’s social identity, such as race, class, gender, and sexuality (Cooper et al., 2016; Crenshaw, 1989), but also as a result of the intersection of two components of reproductive identity, in this case, reproductive status and reproductive decision-making. Second, the study provides an example of intersectionality in which marginality involves an aspect of one’s identity that is, a product of choice and not of social categorizations such as race and gender. In practical terms, the findings concerning the devaluation that voluntary single-child parents experience in a pronatalist society should be taken into consideration by mental health professionals and family therapists in their clinical work with this population.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Daphna Yeshua-Katz

Author Biographies

Khen Ya’ari (PhD, University of Haifa) recently completed her postdoctoral fellowship at the Department of Social Work of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her research interests include cultural perceptions of parenting, family, and education. She teaches at the Department of Sociology, Political Science, and Communication at the Open University of Israel.

Daphna Yeshua-Katz (PhD, Indiana University) is a senior lecturer of Media Studies at the Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her current research interests include digital coping, online support groups, and computer-mediated communication among vulnerable groups.

Dorit Segal Engelchin (PhD, Tel-Aviv University) is a Professor of Social Work at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her current research interests include new family forms, women’s and men’s family choices, and women’s health and well-being.

References

Abrams

J. A.

Tabaac

Jung

Else-Quest

N. M.

(2020). Considerations for employing intersectionality in qualitative health research. Social Science & Medicine, 258, 113138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113138

Armat

M. R.

Assarroudi

Rad

Sharifi

Heydari

(2018). Inductive and deductive: Ambiguous labels in qualitative content analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 219–221. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.2872

Athan

A. M.

(2020). Reproductive identity: An emerging concept. American Psychologist, 75(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000623

Basu

A. M.

Desai

(2016). Hopes, dreams and anxieties: India’s one-child families. Asian Population Studies, 12(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2016.1144354

Becker

G. S.

Lewis

H. G.

(1973). On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2 pt 2), S279–S288. https://doi.org/10.1086/260166

Berkovitch

(1999). ‘Women of Valor’: Women and citizenship in Israel. Israeli Sociology, 2(1), 277–317 (in Hebrew). https://www.academia.edu/10589372/

Birenbaum-Carmeli

(2016). Thirty-five years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online, 2, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.05.004

Boero

Pascoe

C. J.

(2012). Pro-anorexia communities and online interaction: Bringing the pro-ana body online. Body and Society, 18(2), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X12440827

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

(Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

10.

Breton

Prioux

(2009). The one-child family: France in the European context. Demographic Research, 20, 657–692. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2009.20.27

11.

Bhrolcháin

M. N.

Beaujouan , É. (2019). Do people have reproductive goals? Constructive preferences and the discovery of desired family size. In Schoen

(Ed.), Analytical family demography (pp. 27–56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93227-9_3

12.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Family Day—Families and Households in Israel (in Hebrew). https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2022/041/11_22_041b.pdf

13.

Cooper

Disch

L. J.

Hawkesworth

M. E.

(Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of feminist theory. Oxford University Press.

14.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine. The University of Chicago Legal Forum. Issue: Feminism in the Law: Theory, Practice and Criticism.

15.

DeAndrea

D. C.

(2015). Testing the proclaimed affordances of online support groups in a nationally representative sample of adults seeking mental health assistance. Journal of Health Communication, 20(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.914606

16.

Decety

Echols

Correll

(2010). The blame game: The effect of responsibility and social stigma on empathy for pain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(5), 985–997. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21266

17.

Donath

(2011). Making a choice: Being childfree in Israel. Yediot Ahronoth Books (in Hebrew).

18.

Donath

(2013). The more the merrier? Some cultural logics of the institution of siblingship in Israel. Israeli Sociology, 15(1), 35–57 (in Hebrew). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26234097

19.

Dufner

Back

M. D.

Oehme

F. F.

Schmukle

S. C.

(2020). The end of a stereotype: Only children are not more narcissistic than people with siblings. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(3), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619870785

20.

Duggan

Lenhart

Lampe

Ellison

(2015). Pew Research Center [2019-06-12]. https://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/16/parents-and-social-media

21.

Eldar-Geva

Semama

Lerner-Geva

(2018). In-vitro fertilization treatments in Israel: Public funding policies and their implications. Ha’refoa: Israeli Medical Association, 157(11), 731–737 (in Hebrew). https://www.ima.org.il//FilesUpload/Medicine/0/314/157412.pdf

22.

Esping-Andersen

Billari

F. C.

(2015). Re-theorizing Family Demographics. Population and Development Review, 41(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00024.x

23.

Falbo

Polit

D. F.

(1986). Quantitative review of the only child literature: Research evidence and theory development. Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.176

24.

Fanelli

Profeta

(2021). Fathers’ involvement in the family, fertility, and maternal employment: Evidence from central and Eastern Europe. Demography, 58(5), 1931–1954. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9411306

25.

Fenton

(1928). The only child. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 35(4), 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1928.10532171

26.

Fogiel-Bijaoui

(2020). The personal, the national and the global: Families in Israel. Mozneh Mishpat, 13, 1–27 (in Hebrew). http://bit.ly/3BvSDZI

27.

Friedman

(2015). Still a “stalled revolution”? Work/family experiences, hegemonic masculinity, and moving toward gender equality. Sociology Compass, 9(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12238

28.

Gazit

Amichai-Hamburger

(2021). Factors underlying engagement in Facebook support groups of female infertility patients. Psychological Reports, 124(3), 1150–1173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120934703

29.

Goldscheider

Bernhardt

Lappegård

(2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x

30.

Hankivsky

Reid

Cormier

Varcoe

Clark

Benoit

Brotman

(2010). Exploring the promises of intersectionality for advancing women’s health research. International Journal for Equity in Health, 9, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-9-5

31.

Hochschild

Machung

(2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin.

32.

Jefferies

(2001). A reluctance to embrace the one-child family in Britain. Příspěvek Přednesený Na Konferenci EUROSCO the Second Demographic Transition in Europe. Bad Herrenalb, 23, 28. https://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/010623_paper05.pdf

33.

Khadaroo

MacCallum

(2021). Parenting of adolescent single children: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Family Issues, 42(12), 2896–2919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X21993180

34.

Lavee

Katz

(2003). The family in Israel: Between tradition and modernity. Marriage and Family Review, 35(1–2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v35n01_11

35.

Luna

(2009). From rights to justice: Women of color changing the face of US reproductive rights organizing. Societies without Borders, 4(3), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1163/187188609X12492771031618

36.

Mancillas

(2006). Challenging the stereotypes about only children: A review of the literature and implications for practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00405.x

37.

Ministry of Health. (2013). Eligibility- Contraception pills. Call.gov.il (in Hebrew). https://call.gov.il/infocenter/index?page=content&id=EL7416&actp=RSS

38.

Misra

Murray-Close

(2014). The gender wage gap in the United States and cross nationally. Sociology Compass, 8(11), 1281–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12213

39.

Mizielińska

Stasińska

(2019). Negotiations between possibilities and reality: Reproductive choices of families of choice in Poland. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 30, 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506819887765

40.

Moore

J. K.

(2014). Reconsidering child freedom: A feminist exploration of discursive identity construction in childfree live journal communities. Women’s Studies in Communication, 37, 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2014.909375

41.

Mor

(2017). “Missing motherhood?” Mothers talk about raising only child in Israel [Unpublished master’s thesis, Bar Ilan University] (in Hebrew).

42.

Morison

Macleod

Lynch

Mijas

Shivakumar

S. T.

(2016). Stigma resistance in online childfree communities: The limitations of choice rhetoric. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315603657

43.

OECD. (2016, December 7). Ideal and actual number of children. OECD Family Database. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-children.pdf

44.

Parr

(2007). Which women stop at one child in Australia? Journal of Population Research, 24(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03031931

45.

Patel

Blandford

Warner

Shawe

Stephenson

(2019). “I feel like only half a man”: Online forums as a resource for finding a “new normal” for men experiencing fertility issues. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 3(82), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359184

46.

Pew Research Center. (2015). December 17). The American Family Today. Social Trends. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/17/1-the-american-family-today/

47.

Pew Research Center. (2023, April 13). In a growing share of U.S. marriages, husbands and wives earn about the same. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/

48.

Price

(2011). It’s not just about abortion: Incorporating intersectionality in research about women of color and reproduction. Women’s Health Issues, 21(3), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2011.02.003

49.

Ritter

L. J.

Ueno

(2017). Construction and management of stigma based on a voluntary-achieved status. Symbolic Interaction, 40(4), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.296

50.

Warner

L. R.

Shields

S. A.

(2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race: Identity research at the crossroads. Sex Roles, 68(11), 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0281-4

51.

Wellman

(2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In Tanabe

van den Besselaar

Ishida

(Eds.), Digital cities II: Computational and sociological approaches (pp. 10–25). Springer.

52.

Yefet

K. C.

(2016). Born to be a mother: Anatomy, autonomy, and substantive citizenship for women in Israel. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 39, 257–315.

53.

Yeshua-Katz

(2015). Online stigma resistance in the pro-ana community. Qualitative Health Research, 25(10), 1347–1358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315570123

54.

Yeshua-Katz

(2016). Online boundary work in stigmatized groups: The case of support groups for Israeli childless women. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3442–3461. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5517/1719

55.

Zheng

Jing

Zhang

Y. Y.

(2021). They are not little emperors: Only children are just as altruistic as non-only children. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211038190

56.

Zinn

M. B.

Dill

B. T.

(1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178416