open communication about adoption and adoptive …€¦ · web viewopen communication about...

Adoption communication and identity 1

Running Head: ADOPTION COMMUNICATION AND IDENTITY

Open communication about adoption and adoptive identity development

By

Elizabeth Anne Donahue, MA

Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY

Submitted in fulfillment of the Journal Article Requirement

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

May 2008

Rhiannon Allen, Ph.D.


University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

David Castro-Blanco, Ph.D.


Lisa Samstag, Ph.D.


Correspondence to be addressed to:

Elizabeth Donahue26 East 91 Street Apt.4CNew York, New York 10128


ABSTRACT

Adoption Communication Openness (ACO) (Brodzinsky, 2005) refers to a

communication process that is open, honest, and supportive of adoption-related emotions.

The present study examined the relationship between ACO in the adoptive family and

adoptive identity development in adults. Adoptive identity was measured by a new self-

report, categorical measure based on Dunbar’s (2003) adoptive identity typology, which

distinguishes four types characterized by increasing exploration and narrative

development: Unexamined, Limited, Unsettled and Integrated. The present study

proposed that ACO would promote exploration of adoption issues, culminating in either a

state of exploration (Unsettled) or integration of adoption (Integrated) into overall

identity. Seventy-five adults completed an online survey including measures of ACO,

preoccupation, and negative and positive feelings about adoption. Although ACO levels

were associated with positive feelings about adoption, they were not associated with the

types in the manner predicted by the study's hypotheses. Several explanations for these

results are offered, the most important of these being that positive feelings may be related

to a pre-crisis stage of denial of impending identity challenges (Grotevant, 1997).

Consistent with Dunbar’s (2003) findings, the Unsettled participants were the most

preoccupied and unhappy, whereas Unexamined participants were the least preoccupied,

and older adults were more likely to be Unsettled or Integrated.


Identity development is a vulnerable area for adopted individuals. Adopted

individuals are subject to greater identity conflicts and stress than non-adopted

individuals (Brodzinsky, 1993; Grotevant, 1997). Adoption is a psychologically complex

experience, and many features of the adoption experience may generate stress. The

adoptee may be confronted with unanswered questions about his or her past, difficulties

in coming to terms with his or her role in the adoptive family, and many other emotional

challenges. Research on adoption has increasingly focused on examining variables that

contribute to these psychological hurdles.

There is growing awareness of the importance of open communication about

adoption including affective attunement among members of the adoption triad. David

Brodzinsky (2005) termed this construct adoption communication openness. Adoption

communication openness (ACO) is a process that includes open and honest exchange of

adoption-related information as well as supporting adoption-related emotions. It includes

“among other things, a willingness on the part of individuals to consider the meaning of

adoption in their lives, to share that meaning with others… [and] to acknowledge and

support the child’s dual connections to two families…” (Brodzinsky, 2005, p. 149).

Adoption communication openness

Only one study to date has directly measured the impact of adoption

communication openness. Brodzinsky (2006) investigated adoption communication

openness versus family structural openness as they related to the adjustment of adopted

children. Participants in the study were parents and their 67 adopted children, aged 8 to

13 years. To measure ACO, Brodzinsky (2006) designed the Adoption Communication

Openness Scale, a child self-report measure of adoption communication openness


adapted from the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olsen, 1985). The

results of Brodzinsky’s (2006) study indicated that ACO was positively correlated with

children’s self-reported self-esteem and negatively correlated with parents’ ratings of

children’s behavior problems.

Although no study has attempted to directly apply Brodzinsky’s (2005) construct

to adults, empirical work on related constructs suggests that it would be validated. Two

studies of adult adoptees indicated that adoptees who had discussed adoption openly

within their families had a more positive adoption experience (Howe & Feast, 2000;

Raynor, 1980). Sobol, Delaney, and Earn (1994) found that adoptees were emotionally

closer to their families when communication was open. In this study, adoption

communication openness is conceptualized as a form of connection that promotes

identity development.

Adoption and identity

Forming a sense of personal identity is a complex process for adoptees. This may

be due to the fact that they have two sets of parents and their knowledge of their heritage

may be incomplete (Grotevant, Dunbar, Kohler, & Esau, 2000). Genealogical

bewilderment occurs when a child has no knowledge, or uncertain knowledge, of her

biological parents and ancestors, creating stress and confusion (Sants, 1964). Adoption

entails a series of subtle losses for which there is little societal recognition or support

(Brodzinsky, 1990). In addition to the ambiguous loss of the birth parents, there is status

loss associated with being different from other children (Kirk, 1964). As the adopted

child reaches adolescence and develops the capacity for abstract reasoning, he is able to


consider the loss of connectedness to a genealogical line and all that implies for his

identity (Brodzinsky, 1990).

Lifton (1990, 1996) observed that adoptees often deny the loss and fear of

abandonment associated with adoption. They develop false selves to protect both

themselves and the adoptive parents. If the original loss of the birth parents is denied, the

adoptee may be left with feelings of anxiety and depression (Clary, 2000). It seems

crucial for the adoptive family to acknowledge the losses in adoption and for the adoptee

to be able to grieve them in order to form an authentic and positive sense of self.

A psychosocial approach to adoptive identity development

Grotevant (1997) offered a scheme for thinking about identity development for

adopted individuals based on the literature on sexual orientation (e.g., Troiden, 1988). He

proposed stages of adoptive identity development: a stage of limited awareness, a crisis

stage initiated by a “sensitizing experience” such as hostile feedback from others, and

then lastly identity exploration (Grotevant, 1997). He further proposed that the identity

process may involve a series of cycles, “each facilitating the individual’s integration of

adoption into identity at a more mature cognitive and affective level” (p. 17). This

hypothesis has yet to be examined through longitudinal research.

Adoption typology: Four identity types

Dunbar (2003; Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004) characterized four types of adoptive

identities. She interviewed adolescents (aged 12 to 20 years) and coded the interviews for

depth of adoptive identity exploration, degree of positive and negative affect, salience of

adoptive identity, the degree to which the adoptee acknowledged differences between

adoptive and non-adoptive families, internal consistency, flexibility, and the adoptee’s


expected relationship with their parents (Dunbar, 2003; Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004).

Based on a cluster analysis, adoptees were then grouped into four types: Unexamined,

Limited, Unsettled, and Integrated. Two dimensions differentiated the types: (1) the

adoptive identity exploration, its depth and salience; and (2) negative affect about being

adopted.

The Unexamined group had not actively considered the meaning of adoption. In

this group, adoption was not a salient issue and little positive or negative affect was

displayed. They were most often younger, male, and placed in confidential adoptions.

The Limited group had explored adoption to a modest degree but did not feel it

was very important in their lives. They minimized the difference between adoptive and

non-adoptive families, and generally viewed adoption as positive for all parties.

Moderately intense positive affect was expressed along with little or no negative affect.

This group included males and females from different openness arrangements.

Adolescents with Unsettled identities had thought a great deal about adoption and

typically harbored feelings of rejection and anger. They were in the process of sorting out

their feelings. This group showed the highest scores on salience and negative affect about

adoptive identity combined with moderate positive affect. Females in fully disclosed

adoptions tended to fall into the Unsettled group.

Adolescents with an Integrated adoptive identity had typically thought a great

deal about adoption and had coherent, well-developed theories as to what it meant in their

lives. They showed at least moderate degrees of positive or negative affect, the positive

generally outweighing the negative, and had the highest positive affect of all the groups.


They had moderate to high scores on salience. These adolescents tended to be older,

female, and from fully disclosed adoptions.

The present study

This study explored the relationship between adoption communication openness

and adoptive identity development in adults. The self-report measure introduced by the

present study, the Adoptive Identity Questionnaire, contains brief, multi-sentence,

descriptions of Dunbar’s (2003) four identity types. This study also investigated the

construct validity of the measure in a sample of adopted adults using variables known to

vary across the adoptive identity types: age, gender, preoccupation with adoption and

positive and negative affect.

METHOD

Participants

Seventy-five adults placed for adoption before age 2 years were recruited using

postings and public service announcements at colleges and universities across the United

States. Sixteen of these were recruited through the New York office of Adoption

Crossroads, a non-profit network of adoptee search and support organizations. The total

sample was comprised of 55 female and 20 male adoptees ranging in age from 18 to 39

years (M=27.77, SD=7.29). All participants were adopted by nonrelatives. Other

demographic characteristics and adoption-related information are displayed in Tables 1

and 2.


Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 75)

Characteristic n %Gender

Male 20 36.0

Female 55 64.0

Age at time of study (years)

18-24 32 42.7

25-29 12 16.0

30-34 10 13.3

35-39 21 28.0

Race

Asian 12 16.0

Black 3 4.0

Latino 6 8.0

White 41 54.7

Multi-Ethnic 11 14.7

Unidentified 2 2.7

Marital status

Single 48 64.0

Married 20 26.7

Divorced 7 9.3


Past or current therapy

Yes 46 61.3

No 29 38.7

Hollingshead four factor index of social status (1975)

Major professional 13 17.3

Minor professional 14 18.7

Skilled Craftsmen 3 4.0

Non-workforce 7 9.3

Students 38 50.7

Note. Participants who were enrolled in an academic course of study or were not

employed outside of the home were not evaluated for social status.


Table 2

Adoption Characteristics of Participants (N = 75)

Characteristic n %Age at placement (months)

< 1 35 46.7

1-6 31 41.3

6-12 3 4.0

12-24 6 8.0

Birth family contact

Current/Past 22 29.3

None 53 70.7

Adoption sponsorAgency 60 80.0

Independent (non-agency) 15 20.0

Adoptive racial relationship

Same-race 48 64.0

Cross-race 27 36.0

Adoptive identity type

Unexamined 14 18.7

Limited 11 14.7

Unsettled 27 36.0

Integrated 23 30.6

Procedures


Data were collected on a secure website managed by Survey Monkey. The online

survey included a demographic form and three self-report measures of: (1) adoption

communication openness with adoptive parents; (2) adoptive identity development; and

(3) adoption dynamics. A final additional question in the survey was open-ended and

invited participants to include anything else they felt was important to understand them

and their families. Interested respondents contacted the investigator by cell phone or

email dedicated to the project. Participants were then sent the link to the survey website

along with a participant ID to enter in lieu of their name. Survey participants certified that

they were 18 years of age or older, were adopted prior to age two, and consented to the

terms of the study. They were given the option, upon completion of the survey, to receive

a $10 gift card and a copy of the study results.

Measures

The Adoption Communication Openness Scale (Brodzinsky, 2006)

The Adoption Communication Openness Scale is based on the Parent-Adolescent

Communication Scale (Barnes & Olsen, 1985). Participants rated on a 5-point Likert

scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with 14 statements. The statements

pertain to the respondent’s comfort with discussing their feelings regarding adoption with

their adoptive parents. In the present study, the Adoption Communication Openness

Scale showed a high degree of reliability, Cronbach alpha = .95 (14 items).

Adoptive Identity Questionnaire

The Adoptive Identity Questionnaire (AIQ) is a new, self-report measure based on

Dunbar’s (2003) typologies. The measure consists of multi-sentence descriptions of the

four adoptive identity types. See Appendix. Each paragraph contains a series of


statements that reflect the depth of adoptive identity exploration, degree of positive and

negative affect regarding adoptive identity, and the extent of adoptive identity salience

associated with that type. Respondents are instructed to rate each description according to

how well it describes them on a 7-point Likert scale and then to choose the description

that best characterizes them. The Adoptive Identity Questionnaire was reviewed by

Harold Grotevant who confirmed that the measure captured the key elements of the

identity types. The measure was then piloted with two adult adoptees prior to its use in

the present study.

Adoption Dynamics Questionnaire

Feelings about adoptive status were assessed using three subscales (positive affect,

negative affect, and preoccupation) from the Adoption Dynamics Questionnaire (ADQ)

(Benson, Sharma, & Roehlkepartain, 1994). The original 565-item, self-report instrument

was designed for use in a national study of 715 families with adolescents who were

adopted as infants (Benson et al., 1994). The shortened 44-item instrument used in this

study was used by N. Dunbar to establish the construct and predictive validity of the

adoptive identity types (Dunbar, 2003). Response formats include using a 5-point Likert

scale, choosing between 7 levels of frequency (never to everyday), and marking “no”,

“not sure” or “yes.” In the present study, the Preoccupation scale showed a high level of

reliability, Cronbach alpha = .91 (17 items) as did the Positive affect scale, Cronbach

alpha = .93 (20 items). The Negative affect scale showed an acceptable level of

reliability, Cronbach alpha = .68 (7 items).

RESULTS


Our first hypothesis stated that there would be significant mean differences

among the four identity types with regard to self-reported ratings of adoption

communication openness. It was expected that more openness would be related to greater

exploration of adoptive identity. More specifically, the Unsettled identity type was

expected to report significantly greater openness on the Adoption Communication

Openness scale than the Limited and Unexamined types. Also, the Integrated type was

expected to report significantly greater openness than the Limited and Unexamined types.

In order to evaluate this hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. The omnibus F

test from this analysis was statistically significant, F (3, 71) = 6.98, p < .001, 2 = .23.

However, the pairwise comparisons which correspond to the predictions made in the

hypothesis were not supported. In fact, contrary to the hypotheses, the Unsettled type had

a significantly lower mean ACO score than the Unexamined (F (39) = 14.06, p < .05, d =

1.27) and Integrated (F (48) = 15.05, p < .05, d = 1.12) types. Cohen’s (1988)

guidelines for estimating effect size from the d statistic state that .2 = small, .5 = medium

and .8 = large. Therefore, these differences were very large.

Also contrary to the hypotheses, the Unsettled type had a lower ACO score than

the Limited (F (36) = 3.26, p = .08, d = .66) type and the Integrated type had a lower

ACO score than the Unexamined type (F (35) = .16, p = .69, d = .14). These differences

were not significant and the effects were moderately large and fairly small respectively.

Although the Integrated scores were in fact higher than the Limited scores the difference

between these groups failed to reach significance (F (32) = 1.54, p = .22, d = .47) and the

effect size was moderate. There were no significant differences between the Limited and


Unexamined (F (23) = 2.13, p = .15, d =.72) types and the effect size was fairly large.

Means and standard deviations for these analyses are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for Adoption Communication Openness by Adoptive Identity

Type

Adoptive Identity Type M SD

Unexamined 3.87 .84

Limited 3.30 1.01

Unsettled 2.66 .98

Integrated 3.74 1.05

The second hypothesis stated that adopted adults’ self-reported ratings of adoption

communication openness as measured by the ACO scale would be significantly

positively correlated with self-reported ratings of positive affect about adoption as

measured by the ADQ. As predicted, a significant positive correlation was found between

adoption communication openness scores and positive affect scores, r (73) = .60, p

< .001.

The third hypothesis stated that there would be statistically significant mean

differences among the four adoptive identity types with regard to age. In order to evaluate

this hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. Consistent with this

hypothesis, the omnibus F test from this analysis was statistically significant, F (3, 71) =

4.63, p < .005, 2 = .17. In order to test the specific pairwise comparisons outlined in the

hypothesis, pairwise comparisons were conducted. As predicted, the Unsettled type was


significantly older than the Limited type (F (36) = 5.90, p < .05) and significantly older

than the Unexamined type (F (39) = 6.55, p < .05). Also, the Integrated type was

significantly older than the Limited type (F (32) = 7.34, p < .01) and significantly older

than the Unexamined type (F (35) = 8.12, p < .01). Means and standard deviations for

this analysis are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for Age (in years) by Adoptive Identity Type

Adoptive Identity Type M SD

Unexamined 23.71 5.17

Limited 23.55 5.52

Unsettled 29.44 8.05

Integrated 30.30 6.57

The fourth hypothesis stated that the proportion of women would be significantly

higher in the Unsettled and Integrated adoptive identity types than in the Limited and

Unexamined types. No significant variations were found in gender representation

amongst the four adoptive identity types, c2 (3, N = 75) = 3.18, p = .37, w = .21. The

results are displayed in Table 5.


Table 5

Gender comparisons within Adoptive Identity Type

Adoptive Identity Type

Gender

Unexamined

( n = 14 )

Limited

( n = 11 )

Unsettled

( n = 27 )

Integrated

( n = 23)

Female (n = 55) 10

(18.2)

9

(16.4)

22

(40.0)

14

(25.5)

Male (n = 20) 4

(20.0)

2

(10.0)

5

(25.0)

9

(45.0)

Note. Numbers in parentheses represent percentages.

The fifth hypothesis stated that there would be statistically significant mean

differences among the four adoption identity types with regard to: (1) Positive affect

about adoption and (2) Preoccupation about adoption. More specifically, the Limited and

Integrated adoptive identity types were expected to report significantly higher mean

positive affect scores than the Unsettled adoptive identity type. Also, the Unsettled and

Integrated adoptive identity types were predicted to report significantly higher mean

preoccupation scores than the Unexamined adoptive identity type.

In order to evaluate this hypothesis, a MANOVA was conducted. Consistent with

the hypothesis, the multivariate omnibus test was statistically significant, F (9,168.08) =

6.62, p < .001, 2 = .22. The adoptive identity groups differed on all three outcomes

(Positive Affect about Adoption, Negative Affect about Adoption and Preoccupation with

adoption). Positive Affect about Adoption was significantly higher for the Limited than


the Unsettled type (F (36) = 5.11, p < .05) and significantly higher for the Integrated than

the Unsettled type, (F (48) = 22.85, p < .001). As predicted, participants displaying an

Integrated adoptive identity reported significantly greater Preoccupation than did those

displaying an Unexamined adoptive identity (F (35) = 11.22, p < .01). As expected, those

displaying an Unsettled adoptive identity reported significantly greater Preoccupation

than did those displaying an Unexamined adoptive identity (F (39) = 43.82, p < .001).

The results are displayed in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6

Means and Standard deviations for Adoption Dynamics Variables by Adoptive Identity

Type

Adoption Dynamics

Positive Affect Negative Affect Preoccupation

Adoptive Identity Type M SD M SD M SD

Unexamined 70.0 9.7 12.2 3.0 36.6 12.5

Limited 60.6 15.8 14.0 4.1 49.1 7.3

Unsettled 50.9 12.9 15.4 4.8 63.1 13.0

Integrated 67.1 9.7 11.2 3.6 50.4 12.6


Table 7

Correlation Coefficients for Relations Among Three Measures of Adoption Dynamics

Measure Negative affect Preoccupation

Positive affect -.59** -.44**

Negative affect .24*

*2 < .05, **2 < .001.

A repeated measures ANOVA was performed in order to test for an interaction

between adoption dynamics measures and the adoptive identity groups. In order to

compare levels of positive affect, negative affect, and preoccupation by adoptive identity

type, individual scores on these measures were converted to z-scores. The omnibus test

for the interaction term was statistically significant, F (6, 140) = 10.26, p < .001, 2 = .31,

indicating a significant interaction between adoptive identity type and each of these

dynamics variables. The pattern of mean adoption dynamics scores, positive and negative

affect, and preoccupation, differed significantly across the four identity types as follows.

The Unsettled group had significantly higher negative affect than the Integrated (F (48) =

13.03, p < .001) and Unexamined types (F (39) = 5.62, p < .05). The Unsettled group also

had significantly higher preoccupation than the Unexamined (F (39) = 43.56, p < .001)

the Limited (F (36) = 10.30, p < .005) and Integrated (F (48) = 13.40, p < .001) types and

lower positive affect than the Unexamined (F (39) = 22.85, p < .001), Limited (F (36) =

5.11, p < .05) and Integrated (F (48) = 23.72, p < .001) types. The Unexamined group

had significantly lower preoccupation than the Limited (F (23) = 6.45, p < .05), Unsettled

(F (39) = 43.56, p < .001) and Integrated (F (35) = 11.22, p < .001). Although differences

were found between the Integrated and Limited groups, none rose to the level of

significance. The results are displayed in Figure 1.


Figure 1

Adoption Dynamics: Mean Scores of Positive Affect, Negative Affect, and Preoccupation

about Adoption as a function of Adoptive Identity Type

Positive Negative Preoccupation Affect Affect


DISCUSSION

Construct validity of the Adoptive Identity Questionnaire

A number of findings supported hypotheses regarding the construct validity of the

Adoptive Identity Questionnaire (AIQ). AIQ descriptions were validated in this study

using a well-known and reliable measure of adoption dynamics, the Adoption Dynamics

Questionnaire (Benson et al., 1994) and analyses about age and gender distribution across

the four types. Consistent with Dunbar’s (2003) typology, Unsettled participants were

both preoccupied with adoption and unhappy with adoption as a whole. They had

significantly lower positive feelings about adoption and higher preoccupation with

adoption than any other group. The Unexamined group also fit the predicted pattern,

showing low preoccupation, significantly lower than all three other groups.

Notably, participants who identified themselves as either Unsettled or Integrated

were significantly older than those who identified themselves as Limited or Unexamined.

This finding is consistent with the identity status literature and Dunbar’s (2003) study. It

supports the prevailing view that adoptive identity exploration and commitment increase

with age. Gender differences in identity group membership may have been masked by the

confounding variable of age. On average, male participants in this study were

significantly older than the female participants, making them more likely to fall into the

Unsettled or Integrated groups.

Adoption communication openness and adoptive identity formation

The present study proposed that adoption communication openness would

facilitate the acknowledgement of feelings about adoption and the grieving of adoption-

related loss. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to expect that participants who reported

higher levels of openness should either be currently engaged in adoptive identity


exploration (Unsettled) or should have completed exploration and achieved a

consolidated and positive adoptive identity (Integrated). These hypotheses, however,

were not supported.

Contrary to expectations, ACO was not significantly higher in the Unsettled

identity types than in the Unexamined and Limited identities. In fact, adoption

communication openness was lowest in the Unsettled type. One may find a possible

explanation by bearing in mind that the construct of Unsettled identity status does not

specify whether the individual’s exploration process is productive.

Indeed, a number of Unsettled individuals wrote about frustrated or fruitless

attempts to find their birth families, delayed revelation of their adoptive status, and an

inability to form a coherent identity. Even when Unsettled individuals reported resolution

of the adoptive exploration, it often appeared to culminate in loss. For instance, a 36-

year-old-woman wrote, “My first mother died when I was 1 and I just found this out 3

years ago. It took me 14 years of actively searching to find this out. I have no idea who

my birth father is but have some little bits of info and hope to find who he is before he

dies too.” A 39-year-old woman wrote, “I would like to add that even before I found out I

was adopted (I asked if I was adopted at age 6 and my adoptive mother told me I was), I

have NEVER felt like I belonged anywhere and, to this day, still do not.” A 32-year-old

woman wrote, “The questions concerning grades 6,7,8, I really couldn’t answer because I

didn’t learn of my adoption UNTIL I was 18 years of age.”

Close examination of participant’s reports suggests that dead-ends in the search

process contributes to negative feelings and high levels of preoccupation. A 39-year-old

woman, wrote, “I didn’t know that I was adopted until I was age 25. All of my life was a


lie….I am a work in progress, and willing to discuss my adoption, or adoption in general

with anyone. The attorney … is a HIGHLY respected and known member of the

community but I have no respect for any person who denies helping me know my true

background.” This participant reported that she was granted permission by the state to

access her original birth certificate, but the attorney who handled her adoption had never

placed the original certificate in her files and refused to assist her.

One view of the present study’s findings might be that adoption communication

openness is a protective factor that mitigates the development of intense preoccupation

with adoption issues. Perhaps the concerns most urgent for the Unsettled group were

alleviated in other groups by higher levels of adoption communication openness. It is

important to note that the prominence of adoptive identity issues varies across individuals

(Grotevant, Dunbar, Kohler, & Esau, 2000). Thoughts about adoption or searches for the

birth family are behaviors that fall along a continuum of salience. At one extreme of the

continuum, individuals attach little importance to their adoptive status. At the other

extreme lies preoccupation, where adoption may become the central organizing theme of

the individual’s identity. Grotevant et al. (2000) wrote that in the center of the continuum,

adoption remains important but is balanced with other aspects of identity. Perhaps the

reason that ACO negatively correlates with Unsettled Identity is that ACO helps adoptees

achieve a middle point on the adoptive identity salience continuum. If so, high ACO

could inoculate participants against the kind of intense preoccupation found in the present

study’s Unsettled participants. Conversely, intense preoccupation with adoption may

create tension in participants’ relationship with their adoptive parents (Kohler, Grotevant,

& McRoy, 2002).


It should be noted that there was a significant correlation between ACO and how

positive an adoptee felt about their adoption experience. Although ACO does not predict

membership in a particular identity group as hypothesized in this study, it closely relates

to how positive an adoptee feels about their adoption experience. A possible

interpretation of this finding is provided by Brodzinsky (2005) who wrote that adoption

communication openness entails sensitive responding to the child’s expressions of

concerns about adoption and acceptance of the reality and validity of adoption related

feelings. Such attuned responsiveness might improve the child’s psychological

development and emotional well-being.

The capacity of parents to remain empathically attuned and to adapt to their

child’s changing needs for communication about adoption (adoption communication

openness) may be related to their capacity for self-reflectiveness or mentalizing (Fonagy,

Steele, Steele, Higgitt, & Target, 1994; Main, 1991). Self-reflectiveness or mentalizing

refers to the meta-cognitive capacity to understand feelings, beliefs, intentions and

desires in oneself and others (e.g., Fonagy, 1991). It also implies the ability to reflect on

and differentiate between thoughts, representations and feelings and reality (Main, 1991).

Parents’ self-reflective function and adoption communication openness may serve as

protective factors against the development of clinically significant adjustment problems.

In a comparison of adoptive and nonadoptive Israeli mothers, Priel, Melamed-Hass,

Besser and Kantor (2000) found that mothers with a higher self-reflective function

reported less externalizing symptoms in their child.

In this study, Integrated individuals who reported high openness and high positive

affect commented on their parent’s honesty. One 36-year-old man wrote, “My adoptive


parents were very open with me about being adopted as far back as I can remember. They

were always positive about it and answered any questions to the best that they could.

When I decided at about age 35 that I wanted to look for my birth parents, my adoptive

parents were excited and happy that I had made that decision.” A woman age 25 years,

related, “I feel I adjusted better than most to adoption because I was never shocked to

find out. As long back as I can remember my parents told me I was special because

mommy and daddy got you from the nice ladies at the church.”

In contrast, dishonest communication was mentioned by several participants who

were Integrated but reported lower levels of positive affect and ACO. For instance, a 25-

year-old woman wrote, “In 6, 7 and 8th grades, my adoptive parents were separating and

contemplating divorce. … It was easy to idealize what my birth parents might have been

like at that point and wish for a happier family. Also, at that point, I had been told that my

parents had died, which was later revealed to be untrue. To this day, I am unsure whether

they are alive or not.” Another participant, a 29-year-old man, reported, “I have met my

bio-mom, through long, hard search, and some siblings from my bio-dad, but have not

met him, or all of my siblings. It was NOT an open adoption, in fact Catholic Charities …

tried to make it impossible for me to search, telling me that my bio-mom's last name was

identifying.”

The identity types with significant positive affect about their adoption experience

can be separated into two groups: those for whom adoption was more salient (Integrated)

and those for whom adoption was less salient (Limited and Unexamined). The less

salient, less explored and younger groups, the Unexamined and Limited types, felt

significantly more positive about being adopted than the group which was in the midst of


exploration, the Unsettled type. Pregnancy and birth are life cycle events that often stir

curiosity about one’s origins (Hajal & Rosenberg, 1991). Adoption is therefore less

salient among younger adoptees, who have not yet considered its meaning in their lives.

The literature supports this developmental view of positive feelings. Brodzinsky

(1987) wrote, “for those adoptees who have a reasonably good relationship with their

parents, it seems reasonable to expect that a pattern of foreclosure will emerge; that is,

the adolescent and young adult adoptee will most likely identify with the adoptive parents

and assume their values and beliefs without questioning whether the parental ideology

truly reflects their own point of view” (p. 39). According to Grotevant’s (1997) stages of

adoptive identity development, there is a pre-crisis stage in which adoption issues are

denied and compartmentalized and not yet integrated into a larger whole.

The Integrated group also felt significantly more positive about adoption than did

the Unsettled type although, their ages did not significantly differ. Positive feelings could

spring from consideration and resolution of adoption issues and then integrating them

into one’s overall identity. For instance, a 39-year-old man who reported high openness

and positive affect and who identified himself as Integrated wrote, “The emotional

significance of being adopted has certainly changed over the years, and especially since I

had children and met my birthmother. For what it's worth, I feel my adoption has

influenced my career choice (clinical psychology, also in training to be a psychoanalyst)

and sense of self.”

Implications of the study

The findings of this study indicate that adoption communication openness is a

relevant family construct in adjustment to adoption. ACO was positively correlated with


positive feelings about being adopted and negatively correlated with an Unsettled

identity. These findings have implications for pre-placement preparation of adoptive

parents and post-placement support services for adopted individuals.

During the post-placement period, parents may need assistance with the task of

revealing adoptive status. Although timing of adoption revelation was not a variable in

this study, the participants who reported that their parents had delayed revelation until

after the toddler years seemed angry and resentful.

This study found that while many of the older participants had achieved a

positive, healthy sense of identity, the Unsettled group had very negative feelings about

being adopted. This finding suggests that post-adoption services are needed to help with

the logistical aspects of searching in states where records are still closed and the

emotional challenges encountered throughout the process.

Limitations of the study

The cross-sectional design of this study permitted the author to recruit a

geographically diverse sample but limited the study’s ability to address questions related

to development, such as whether the adoptive identity types form a developmental

continuum. It also precluded offering causal interpretations about the effects of adoption

communication openness. Another limitation was the small sample sizes in the Limited

and Unexamined identity groups which were composed of 11 and 14 participants

respectively.

Areas for future research

Adoption communication openness appears to be a relevant factor in the

development of a positive feeling about adoptive status. Yet it remains unclear how it


influences identity development. It is reasonable to assume that ACO may be one of

multiple factors that interact to determine the nature and course of adoptive identity

development. Longitudinal studies could explore how family dynamics, intrapsychic

processes and social context interact to determine patterns of adoptive identity.

Future research may also clarify the relative contributions of adoptive parents’

self-reflectiveness (Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Higgitt, & Target, 1994; Main, 1991) and

adoption communication openness to children’s adjustment to adoption. Does adoption

communication openness contribute to healthy adjustment independently of self-

reflectiveness?

Adoptive identity is constructed not only at the family level but also at the social

level, including interaction in contexts and relationships beyond the family (Dunbar &

Grotevant, 2004). The need to know about one’s background is widely recognized as

important, but how openly can the adult adoptee speak about adoption in his or her social

world? As open adoptions become more commonplace and interracial adoption makes

adoption more visible, will there be a lessening of social stigma attached to adoptive

status? What impact will these trends have on adoptive identity development for future

generations of adoptees? Future studies could examine how ease of communication about

adoption in the social world beyond the adoptive family may influence adoptive identity

formation.


REFERENCES

Barnes, H.L. & Olsen, D.H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the

circumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438-447.

Benson, P.L., Sharma, A.R., & Roehlkepartain, E.C. (1994). Growing up

adopted: A portrait of adolescents and their families. Minneapolis: Search

Institute.

Brodzinsky, D.M. (1990). A stress and coping model of adoption adjustment. In D.M.

Brodzinsky & M.D. Schechter (Eds.). The psychology of adoption (pp. 3-24).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Brodzinsky, D.M. (1993). Long-term outcomes in adoption. The Future of Children, 3,

153-166.

Brodzinsky, D.M. (2005). Reconceptualizing openness in adoption: Implications for

theory, research and practice. In D. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.),

Psychological issues in adoption: Theory, research and practice (pp. 145-166).

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Brodzinsky, D.M. (2006). Family structural openness and communication openness as

predictors in the adjustment of adopted children. Adoption Quarterly, 9(4), 1-18.

Clary, M. (2000). Annihilation anxiety and depression among adoptees and

non-adoptees. Unpublished master’s thesis, Long Island University, Brooklyn.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.),

Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 10(4), 255-282.

Dunbar, N. (2003). Typologies of Adolescent Adoptive Identity: The influence of family


context and relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.

3092738).

Dunbar, N. & Grotevant, H.D. (2004). Adoption narratives: The construction of

adoptive identity during adolescence. In M.W. Pratt & B.H. Fiese (Eds.),

Family stories and the life course: Across time and generations (pp. 135-161).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Fonagy, P. (1991). Thinking about thinking: Some clinical and theoretical considerations

in the treatment of a borderline patient. International Journal of Psychoanalysis,

72, 1-18.

Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The theory and

practice of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 231-257.

Graafsma, T.L.G., Bosma, H.A., Grotevant, H.D., & deLevita, D.J. (1994). Identity and

development: An interdisciplinary view. In H.A., Bosma, T.L.G Graafsma, H.D

Grotevant,. & D.J deLevita (Eds.), Identity and development: An

interdisciplinary approach (pp. 159-174) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grotevant, H.D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 2, (3), 203-222.

Grotevant, H.D. (1992). Assigned and chosen identity components: A process

perspective on their integration. In G.R. Adams, R. Montemayor, & T. Gulotta

(Eds.), Advances in adolescent development (Vol. 4, pp. 73-90). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Grotevant, H.D. (1997). Coming to terms with adoption: The construction of identity


from adolescence into adulthood. Adoption Quarterly, 1, (1), 3-27.

Grotevant, H.D., Dunbar, N., Kohler, J.K. & Esau, A.M. (2000). Adoptive Identity: How

contexts within and beyond the family shape developmental pathways. Family

Relations, 49, 379-387.

Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (1998). Openness in adoption: Exploring family

connections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hajal, F. & Rosenberg, E.G. (1991). The family life cycle in adoptive families. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 78-85.

Howe, D. & Feast, J. (2000). Adoption, search and reunion: The long term experience of

adopted adults. London: The Children’s Society.

Kirk, H.D. (1964). Shared fate. New York: Free Press.

Kalakoski, V., & Nurmi, J.E. (1998). Identity and educational transitions: Age

differences in adolescent exploration and commitment related to education,

occupation and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 29-47.

Kohler, J.K., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2002). Adopted adolescents’

preoccupation with adoption: The impact on adoptive family relationships.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 93-104.

Lifton, B.J. (1990). The formation of the adopted self. Psychotherapy in Private Practice,

8, 85-91.

Lifton, B.J. (1996). The adopted self. In C.B. Strozier, M. Flynn (Eds.), Trauma and Self

(pp. 19-28) Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular


(coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) model of attachment. Findings and directions

for future research. In P. Harris, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & C. Parkes (Eds.),

Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127-159). New York: Routledge.

Priel, B., Melamed-Hass, Sigal, & Besser, A., Kantor, B. (2000). Adjustment among

adopted children: The role of maternal self-reflectiveness. Family Relations, 49,

389-396.

Raynor, L. (1980). The adopted child comes of age. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Sants, H.J.(1964). Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British

Journal of Medical Psychology, 37, 133-141.

Sobol, M.P. & Cardiff, J. (1983). A sociopsychological investigation of adult adoptee’s

search for birth parents. Family Relations, 32, 477-483.

Sobol, M.P., Delaney, S. & Earn, B.M. (1994). Adoptee’s portrayal of the development

of family structure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 385-401.

Troiden, R.R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent Health

Care, 9, 105-113.


APPENDIX

Adoptive Identity Questionnaire

Read each of the following four paragraphs. Using the scale below, rate each paragraph according to how well it describes you. Then circle the paragraph that best describes you.

Not at all like me = 1, 4 = Somewhat like me, and 7 = Very much like me

Being adopted doesn’t really matter much to me. I try to avoid the topic of adoption because it raises a lot of questions. I would like to know more about my birth parent(s) or I have met my birth parent(s) but don’t think about them very often. The importance of adoption to me varies at different times. (Limited)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Not at all Somewhat Very much

I have thought a great deal about adoption. I understand myself better because I have thought about whom I am in relation to my adoptive and birth parents. I don’t feel bad about being adopted. I have thought about whether or not to search for information about and or contact with my birth parent(s). I feel satisfied with the background information I have and/or the level of contact I had/have with my birth parent(s). (Integrated)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Not at all Somewhat Very much

It isn’t good or bad to be adopted. Adoption doesn’t enter into my life or my decisions at all. I don’t think my birth parent(s) would want to hear from me now. If the subject of adoption comes up I just give people the basic facts. I feel like it is something that happened in the past and I am fine where I am. (Unexamined) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Not at all Somewhat Very much

I am still trying to figure out how adoption relates to who I am. I think a lot about the traits I might share with my birth parents. After a conversation about adoption I tend to feel upset. I have thought about whether or not to search for information about and or contact with my birth parent(s). I feel dissatisfied with the background information I have or the level of contact I had/have with my birth parent(s). (Unsettled) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Not at all Somewhat Very much

open communication about adoption and adoptive …€¦ · web viewopen communication about...

Documents