tyebjee t. 2003. attitude, interest, and motivation for adoption and foster care

Attitude, Interest, andMotivation for Adoption andFoster Care

Tyzoon Tyebjee

This survey compares prospective foster and adoptiveparents' attitudes, willingness, and motivations, anddiscusses implications for media campaigns. The re-sults show that demographic profiles of targets foradoption and foster placements are the same, an op-portunity exists to shape positive attitudes toward fos-ter care in immigrant populations, the most compellingway to attract parents is to focus on the child in need,and testimonials of personal experiences of foster andadoptive parents should address perceived barriers toadopting or fostering. Political, religious, and environ-mental ideology were unrelated to attitudes or willing-ness to adopt or foster. Respondents with strong identi-fications with gay or lesbian lifestyles exhibited ahigher than average willingness to adopt or foster.

Tyzoon Tyebjee, PhD, is Professor of Marketing, Leavey School of Business, SantaClara University, Santa Clara, CA. The author conducted this research under the aus-pices of the Community Task Force on Homes for Children, which consists of represen-tatives from the Departments of Family and Children's Services in five Bay Area coun-ties and California. The David & Lucile Packard Foundation funded the study.

0009-4021/2003/060685-22 $3.00 © 2003 Child Welfare League of America 685

686 CHILD WELFARE • VoL LXXXII, #6 • November/December

This article reports on the public's attitudes toward fostercare and adoption. Only by understanding the needsof the lay public can service agencies can develop media

campaigns and program services that more effectively recruit andretain adoptive and foster parents.

Attitudes toward adoption and foster care are changing.Hoksbergen (1998) identified three shifts in the motivations thatlead to adopting a child. Before 1970, the motivation was to searchfor a substitute child, and consequently, adoptions were prima-rily domestic, and prospective adoptive parents sought same-racechildren. From 1970 to 1985, the focus of adoptive parents wasmore idealistic, driven by the desire to provide for a child in need,which resulted in a dramatic rise in foreign adoptions. Since 1985,a new realism has surfaced with a rising awareness that foreignadoptions can entail having to deal with children with healthproblems or difficulties in adjusting to their new envirorunent.This is reinforced by the nature of journalistic coverage of adop-tion. A content analysis of this coverage in national print andbroadcast media shows that most stories address policy issuesrather than provide positive narratives with a human face(Waggenspack, 1998).

Several researchers have contended that myths and misper-ceptions have stigmatized the status of adoptive families, therebyinfluencing not only the public but also policymakers, court offi-cials, child welfare professionals, and adoption researchers(Crawford, J., 1999; Miall, 1987; Wegar, 2000).

Much of the published literature on attitudes toward adop-tion has focused on either specific populations or specific adop-tion practices. Favorable attitudes toward open adoption amongboth adoptive and birthparents were reported by Haugaard, West,and Moed (2000) and among a random sample in the Canadian(Miall, 1996) and U.S. populations (Rompf, 1993). HoUingsworth(2000a) reported on the sociodemographic correlates of attitudetoward transracial adoption. Bausch and Serpe (1999) found that38% of 591 Mexican American respondents said they were likely

Tyzoon Tyebjee 687

to adopt but thought that structural obstacles such as lack of in-formation, resources, and bilingual social workers made it diffi-cult. Beeman and Boisen (1999) found attitudes of child welfareprofessionals toward kinship foster care to be generally favor-able, although workers perceive kinship caregivers as more diffi-cult to supervise. I. Crawford, McLeod, Zamboni, and Jordan(1999) evaluated the attitudes of psychologists toward adoptionby gay and lesbian parenting and reported a bias against placingfemale children in such situations.

As this review demor\strates, published literature on attitudestoward adoption and foster care is skewed toward adoption. Lim-ited understanding of attitudes among the general population, whichis ultimately the source of adoptive and foster parents, exists.* Nostudy has compared attitudes toward adoption versus foster care.

Although the child welfare and family studies literature in-clude few, if any, attitude surveys of the general population, sev-eral such surveys have appeared as research reports to founda-tions and agencies funding such studies. The Field ResearchInstitute (1999) found that only 44% of Califomians believe chil-dren in California are more at risk of parent abuse today than 10years ago, 17% believe children are less at risk, and 32% believethe level of risk has remained the same. This belies the pastdecade's sharp increase in the number of children in need ofhomes. Moreover, of the 17% who believe the level of risk hasdeclined, more Hispanics (25%) and African Americans (27%) thanwhites (13%) believe children are less at risk. Again, this beliesthe fact that a disproportionate number of children in need ofhomes are Hispanic and African American. Clearly, in Califor-nia, the public perception of the extent of children's risk signifi-cantly lags behind reality.

Princeton Survey Research Associates (1997) conducted a na-tionwide survey of 1,554 households in behalf of the Evanson B.Donaldson Adoption Institute. Its key findings were the following:

* For an analysis of sociodemographic correlates of adoptive versus nonadoptive par-ents, see HoUingsworth (2000b) and Poston and Cullen (1989).

688 CHILD WELFARE • Vol. LXXXII, #6 • November/December

• Although 90% of Americans have a positive view of adop-tion, half say that adopting is not as good as having one'sown child.

• Attitudes toward adoption are divided across socialgroups. Less-educated Americans are more skeptical aboutadoption, men are more skeptical than women, and Afri-can Americans are more skeptical than whites.

• Six in 10 Americans have had personal experience withadoption, meaning they themselves, a family member, ora close friend was adopted, adopted a child, or put a childup for adoption. A third have considered adopting a child.Those with personal experience are more likely than thosewithout to have favorable opinions of adoption.

• Americans are divided over whether it is better for preg-nant teenagers to place their babies for adoption or raisethem themselves. Americans also are divided over whichoption is better for the child in this situation, althoughslightly more believe the baby is better off adopted thanraised by the birthmother.

• Americans are divided over whether the governmentshould promote adoption as an alternative to welfare.Asked about a California plan in which welfare motherswould be encouraged to put their children up for adop-tion, a slim majority opposed the plan. When askedwhether the plan should apply to pregnant teenagers, re-spondents were somewhat more supportive.

• The public is ambivalent about open adoption, that is,adoption in which birthparents maintain some contact withthe child they have placed for adoption. Most Americansthink it is a good idea, but only in a limited number ofcases. One in five feel it is always a bad idea for birthmoth-ers to maintain contact with the children they have placedfor adoption.

The National Foster Care Awareness Project (1998) conducteda nationwide survey of 1,000 households. Respondents viewedfoster care favorably (74%), although not as highly as adoption.

Tyzoon Tyebjee 689

Also, 19% of the respondents indicated a willingness to become afoster parent, although differences across social groups existed.People yoimger than 30 were more likely to become foster par-ents (33%), as were single people (30%), young women (29%) andHispanics (28%). A relatively large number (41%) of respondentssaid they knew someone who was or had been a foster parent,and these respondents were twice as likely to be willing to be afoster parent as the general population.

No study has investigated both foster care and adoption. Thus,comparisons between foster care and adoption with the same setof respondents have been not been possible. This study was mo-tivated by the importance of examining differing views of andinterest in becoming adoptive parents versus foster parents inthe same set of respondents.

Such a comparison is useful in determining whether agen-cies could use the same media campaign in promoting both fos-ter care and adoption. If the target audience and the media mes-sage implications of attitudes and motivations are the same forfoster care and adoption, agencies could leverage scarce resourcesin a single campaign. On the other hand, if the demographicsand attitudes of those who are willing to foster are different fromthose willing to adopt, media campaigns would need to be tar-geted to different audiences. This study looks at what core mo-tivations form the common ground between those who arewilling to adopt and those who are willing to foster a child inneed.

In particular, the study addresses the following questions:• What factors influence attitudes toward adoption versus

attitudes toward foster care?• What factors influence the willingness to adopt versus the

willingness to foster?• What motivates people to adopt or foster, and what fac-

tors influence these motivations?The Field Research Institute administered the survey as part

of its periodic public opinion polls. It admirustered the randomdigit dialing telephone survey in fall 2000 to 1,011 California


households with respondents older than 18. The institute embed-ded the questions regarding attitudes, willingness, and motiva-tion regarding foster care and adoption in one of its regular syn-dicated surveys. The syndicated survey instrument includes along battery of demographic and ideology variables. Table 1shows the profile of the sample on these demographic and ideol-ogy variables.

Attitudes Toward Adoption Versus Foster Care

The study measured attitudes toward adoption with the ques-tion, "Is your impression of adoption generally positive or nega-tive?" Of respondents, 91% reported a positive attitude, 5% hada negative attitude, and 4% had no opinion. The survey asked asimilar question asked about foster care and found a positive at-titude expressed by only 60% of the respondents; 26% reported anegative attitude.

Next, the study addressed how segments of the populationview adoption and foster care. The analysis cross-tabulated thetwo attitude measures against the battery of demographic andideology variables (see Tables 1 and 2). The tables also report pvalues for the chi-square test for each demographic breakdown.

The variables associated (using a cut-off of p < .01) with atti-tude toward adoption are:

• Ethnicity. Whites were more positive about adoption, andAfrican Americans and Hispanics were significantly lesspositive.

• Home Ownership. Homeowners were more positive thanrenters.

• Household Size. Respondents in large households wereless positive about adoption.

• Language of Interview. Respondents interviewed in En-glish were more positive.

• Citizenship. U.S. citizens were more positive.• Place of Birth. U.S.-born respondents were more positive.

Tyzoon Tyebjee 691

• Voter Registration. Respondents who were registered tovote were more positive.

• Personal Experience. People who had themselves or knewsomeone who had been an adoptive or foster parent, weremore positive.

The variables associated (using a cut-off of p < .01) with atti-tude toward foster care are:

• Age. Young people ages 18 to 24 have the most favorableview of foster care, and youth ages 25 to 29 are the nextmost supportive group.

• Language of Interview. Respondents for whom the inter-view was in Spanish were less likely to be positive aboutfoster care and more likely to have no opinion than wererespondents in interviews conducted in English.

• Citizenship. Respondents who were not U.S. citizens wereless likely to be positive about foster care and more likelyto have no opinion toward it.

• Place of Birth. Foreign-born citizens were more likely tohave no opinion on the topic, leading to less frequent posi-tive or negative reports. Assuming that being foreign-bornis associated with a lower likelihood of being a registeredvoter, the effect of voter registration is consistent with placeof birth, although at a weaker level of significance.

• Familiarity with Adoption and Foster Care Issue. Famil-iarity was associated with more positive responses andfewer no opinion responses.

• Personal Experience. People who had themselves or knewsomeone who had been an adoptive or foster parent weremore positive about foster care and less likely to have noopinion about foster care.

Comparing the correlates of attitude toward adoption withthe correlates with attitude toward foster care, the results can leadto some interesting observations. First, nonwhite, ethnic popula-tions and people who are immigrants are less likely to have fa-vorable views of adoption. Therefore, media campaigns about


a.o•a

^ OUJ 0}

-J a

< II- W

8O

1-; 00 h- O) C\J CO OJCO CO CO c\i ^ i r i r^

CO 1 - (D

Tf CO c\iCO C\l CO CO CO CO

CO T f Ti^ i n CO CO

N N Ol O) O) N COcd IT) c\i CO in CO cvi

O> h^ CO CO

CD CO T-^ COin •* CO in q qc\i 00 c\i CO o o

CM o> r^ 1 - C» h- 1 - T- o> in •«- ojCO r^ CO 1-̂o> CO CO Ol

c\j ojCO CDa> O)

I

Ln S

f- CO

d ai

h* CO oj r^ Ol ^c\j o TT o •«- in•»— 1— cj CM -^

CO CO CO CMCD CM CD inCO CO 1- 1- s s

h.; en 05 in CJ05 d ' t CD <O

O> CO CO CO Tt COCD TJ- cd iri CM OJ

tic

1u2a.co

T3CoQJOC

cCI5C3

(1) CO ffi 3 S •=

O5 05 en O5

oo•a

Ifc Q) CSJ csi CO ^ i n

I >̂ _ ' ^_ rv I rr\ v^ I r>Fe Ma

' - CJ CO •* i n

IE =o ow o

III

J S E ffi^ I? < 0)

o .<»Z I

g S ~ ^

< < Z 5

Tyzoon Tyebjee 693

mo

in in CO 00 oq inCO d cvi ^ O> CM

o inCO >»

00 <D

CO cvi

in00

COCO CM

O t-m •>-

1^CO

ino

inoo

y—

CVJcn CO

0000CO

cn CO fN. h-- CO 1 -

co T-̂ cvi cvi iri

cvi oq 1- o i 1 - CO1^ cj) iri cji •r̂ iriCO 00 O) CO O) O)

00 Oi h* CVI ^ OJ

oJ od 00 CO i n 00O) r^ 00 O) CO 00

t^ CO

cvi dO> O)

in 1^ O) in N;cvi (b cy r^ C3O) CO O> GO O)

h^ CD CO O) ^ O^ O Cy Tf O CVI' ^ CVJ CVJ T - t - T -

T f 00 CO CO t - •<-O> CO O ^ ^ COi n -r- ^

CO •*CVI in•* in

o r^ CO CVJ TtCO r^ ^ h^ » -i n ^ CVI

CVj CVI T - T - T - CO ^

^ o c\i lo o ^ o^ CVI CJ 1 - T - ^ ^

qCOin

inCO

od cd

in r^ •n in00in

00cd

CVJCOCO

00 G) CO 00 C\J

•oo

3 .9

CE OEI

II8?

g: CD CD >

~ E CO o <ii

S z 03 3 z


a>05CO

oo

CO

o

O> CM

CO cdq q't in

CO CC>

^ CO

qin

CVJ CO O CM CDCO

rod

inCO

COd

inCO

otxi

CVJ CO

CO r>-'

inCO

T- in

5 rom o 1- o in en

CM C\jro CO

in incj Ttro CO

COCMro

r̂Cviro

inCMro

CO

c6CO

o•<f

ro

CO

dro

I CO S

CO O I-- lOCD CO r^ COT- eg CO 1 -

h~ q h.- inCD cji cd r>̂^ CN CO t -

COroroin

COroCvl

CO

CO

ino

CO

rocvj

CMCOf-

co

CJ

mi

oO

lU

m£5ffl

g

1£

CO

c;cuif

5o

_O 0)CO Q.

<u.2 Q.

IIi.1' I

| o

CO

£CO

CO

•Q

c

1 g O^ z

CD

at

Le

asti

Hav

a

ram

gn-B

orn

1F

orei | o

tara

d to

VR

agis

Yes

onci

tizen

No/

n

o

1

1

ierv

ativ

aC

ons

•oCO

o

la-o

f-th

e-

Mid

d

Tyzoon Tyebjee 695

CO CO

iri inCMCO

CO CO qcvi

COCO co in

COcd

00cvi

CO

cviincd

CMcd

CO

CM

CM ' -

CO T^o>cvi

COin

CVI

COo r -

iriCM•<t

00iri

CV] COCO

CMin

in

(doCO

CM

O)

CO

COoo

CO

O)dcn

COcn00

CJin05

OJ T -

co d)O) CJ)

in o OJ

OJ ^ O

h^ o COcvi ^ COOJ O) 00

CVJCO

CO

0000

inCO

CO

CO

C30CJ)CO

COOJ

O)

CVI

ino(O co

COinCM

CM C30

CVI

COCOCO

CMO o

COO)in

CMcviCM

00cd

COCO

CO

CO

ocd in 1-̂

CO

CO

•0;

OC)CO

odoo

CM

CM

dCO

CVJ

cdi^cdCO

y-

cdCVJ

CVJ1^

cnCJ

qoiCO

^ -

oiCO

ral

t kn

ow

0) C.o o'3 Q

8

ous

Pra

fai

.§

o

fere

nc0 p

rere

ligio

us/

n

oz

stia

nhr

i:

o

vith

1

stia

n/id

ent

hri:

O

gio

us

right

reli

ewis

h)di

ng J

(inci

u•C

hris

tian

coz

a>

ised

to a

n!ef

L

IE

1

1

of S

elf

as

ink

>.a

efii

Q

nses

the

r re

spo

oil

<

imm

un

CQ•O

£

ficat

ion

wi

•§

oc

Ibxp

n

c SO Q.!2 .§ o S0 t •^ ^

COX3V..2

OII

CC

ntfi

z


I mcd

CO CO

cdoCO o

CO ^

r^ -̂ . CO

CO

CO

T . -

ro

11I

q q Ol CO q in qr̂ 1-̂ cJ -^ oi -̂ r CDi n CD CO ^1- CO i n ' I '

CO CSJ 1 ^ CD

in m in CD

CO s . CO h.; r^ qCO CO CO cd cd dm in m CO ^f m

2a.o

TJ

(03

CO

I

CO

33.

254

314

o

39.

220

eg

37.

COCO

001

ro

33.

roin

tnCOCM

151

CO

COTt

105

1^ TtCO COi n CO

CO

in

enCO

184

034

CO

cvj

tn

158

o

40.

g

36.

CDCD

I CO 'cr CO CD CO i n CO

^ o o> T̂ cd CO iri

in q in CO q 05in en CO en d dCO CO CO CVI • * T t

CDCD

CO

15

197

COCOq

oCM

164 ro

CO

egCO

1 ^CJ

oro

tn

roCO

CMCM

ino11.

0)0)uc«

IQ.•DCCD

(0

uu)

o

(0

I,0

CM

O> CO

i n CO

T- in in in CO CO h-in in o cd cd N iri1 - CM CO CM CM CM CM

CM CM CM Ol CD N CD

O ^ O Ol h^ CO COCO CO in m in in in

Ol O Ol CO

CO in in in

II

I01

CD

I- oin in

Fem

ale

Mal

e

126

ga

18-2

410

625-2

9

CO 1 ^Tt OCM eg

30-3

940-4

9

CO • * CJ^ in in

der

50-5

960-6

465

and

ol

•duc

atio

n

egCDCO

jr l

ess

o

o

O5

I

COCMCO

100l

3/tr

ade

sch

ca

Som

a co

l16

3ua

tera

dC

olle

ge g

154

! S

tudi

esP

osto

radi

CD O5 i n ^ O5 CD

cd cd »-̂ •* cd ' tCM CM CM CM CM CO

T t r>- CO CJ) CVl

•-̂ in cj cd cdCO in r^ m Tt

cCOa.

i5 c !2

o c c

.a i a. o 5 .2 =E o .2 i5 CO « == z X m < z 2

Tyzoon Tyebjee 697

o

h- r-. r-: CO • * cncvi cd ' - ^ cvi od

cn in CO q CO 00cd cn 1^ d -^ in

o 00

10. CO

odCO o

00moo 12

. CO ^

CM

O)00

cnod

CD CD in in CD•^ in in CD CD

o

58. o>

42. o>

50. o

40. CO

in

O)

s So

54.

mCO CM

OOcnCOCO

cdin

COcviin

CM COmro

oo"̂ CO

OinCVI 33

CO

47

oo oo

•* in

.- CO1^ CO

CO m 1 - in 1 - COCO o •^ CO ^ m

CM C31 O CVI q ^CD r^ O) CD ^ OJ

305

.762

CM

14.

CVJ

CM

16.

inin

10.

o •* CJCJ T- m

y- <D y-

in Tt ^

243

.144

CVI

cd

212

O)

385

.522

cncd

oCO

CO

cd

237

.229

CVJ

13. m

10.

inin

17.

y- CM•.- CM

CO O

933

.934

CVI• * •

246

in

cd

^ 1- o o

t - CM CM CM CM

in

CM

CO

CMCOCM

qcdCM CO

mod in

CM

CD

CM

00inCVI CM CM

CO

oiy—

cdCM

l-~

cdCM

. - O 0> 00 O O CO in CM cn r^ -.r00 O> CO 00 CO Om in CO m m r~ m

CO

CD

O)

in

in

inCOCO

r-oi•n

CJ)OJin

r*- h- CO 00 o T-1 - O CM ^ O CM^ CM CM t - T- 1 -

CO r-O) COin

<O CO '^ T~ oo CO O CO CO CO ^CO r^ T- r^ 1 -n CM


COCO mo

CMT tCO

I CMd

r..CO

ro r̂c6 N̂

mO)

CO

T t

T t

CO

CVJ

dT t

cd cdCO

ejen05

It O CO T - CO Tt CM

m intnTttn

COTttn

rocdID

COTfin

COcdlO

eg

mT t

m

COC3in

CO ro o in

IUl

S

COCO

roTf

.087

17.8

ineo

103

12.5

inCO

214

11.9

COCO

104

16.2

tnCO

388

.001

12.3

?

TtCO

24.8

COCO

.001

25.7

383

11.9

141

.001

22.7

fe

330

35.8

254

.493

1.7

44.0

mj ^

8.4

33.9

304

.013

2.0

41.7

168

8.9

38.0

137

.110

9.8

37.5

184

4.3

i

I I

I

CVJdeg

cdevi CVJ

COdCO

cdeg

CO

T tCM

CO

CM

rocdCVJ

roCOCM

CO

CM

O CO Tt O

CO IO

CO O5

CO CO

in

CM

t^COCVI

Tt

CJ

COinCM

CO T -

CM O

COCD ro

CMr~CO

mCO COCO

roCJro COro COm T-

UJ

CMUJ

ffl

ox;CO

1'o

Siz

e

coCO

COtD

: =

pond

ent

Res

iople

peop

le

CVI CO

2 pe

ople

Ttn

(])

.2c;

uage

of

iLa

ng

lish

nish

C35 COC QLU CO

•o

II

I o az >

a

ast

ta

m

1 1

100

ign

S o 3z f^

TD

I.CO

C35

TDCO

& Om S tD tD•u § I s1 5 £9i .§ §1o S o 5z o o 5

Tyzoon Tyebjee 699

^ c o o o q - ^ ^. "^ ^ ^ ^ ^.oo O C 3 J C M C O O > 0 0 C 3 1 0 O C O OJ

o

50. o>

56. 1^ m

cd • *CO m

incd

CO

56. Ol o

inCOidin

00cdm

d

LO 00 CM i n i n CO COT - T - CM

COcdCO

in

dm

COod

16.

21. m

20. (̂

12. oo

cd00

15. CO

cdcncvi

qcd oi

CVI

13. cn CO

inin

dCM

CModCM

y -

y-l

CM

C»oiCVJ

COcdCM

oo

CM

OOidCM

CO

cviCO

CVIcdCM

COcdCJ

y-

oiCM

CMCMCVJ

mdCVI

^-odCM

COcdCVI

COoi•a-

oCO CO

cviCO

OJinin

CO

CO

CO

in

y-

CO

CM

dCO

ooiin

CO

cviCO

o>odin

idin

CO y-

cvih- COCVJ 1 -. . - C O

COCO

CO

CO

COcnCO

CM 00OJ ^

CMmoCO

oCO

inCM

COCO

r CO1 - COCVI CO

cn

od

m

in

cdCO

oJ

.001

CM

COcnCM

3.2

m

CMO

G

Ooi

idin

5.6

CO

CO

CVI

oT . :

N.

CM

4.2

CO

ooin

CA

Ion.

oT3

e/a

COu

ter

CO

3II

oLLj j

ID• DCCDO)a>

Iran

o

al,

3X<DU)!ac'n!aC/J

> ioCDII

do•5

z


adoption targeted to nonwhite audiences must address estab-lished adverse attitudes. The immigrant population, on the otherhand, has a less formed opinion about foster care, as reflected inthe rate of no opinion responses. Thus, media campaigns aboutfoster care targeting immigrant populations can be directed to-ward attitude formation rather than attitude change.

Second, the effect of the respondent's education is related toattitudes toward both adoption and foster care, but in completelydifferent ways. In the case of adoption, the more educated seg-ment of the population has a favorable view, but in the case offoster care, the less educated segment has a positive attitude.

Third, people who demonstrated the highest level of concernabout problems facing children had the most negative view offoster care. One conjecture that can be derived from this relation-ship is that giving a child only a temporary home is really not inthe child's best interests.

Finally, a powerful determinant of positive attitudes towardadoption and foster care is the respondent's own experience withthose in his or her social network. If the respondent knew someonewho was an adoptive or foster parent, he or she had an increasedfavorable attitude. This result suggests significant opportunities forthe use of adoptive and foster parents as spokespersons in mediacampaigns and peer-to-peer communications.

Willingness to Adopt Versus Provide Foster Care

The question, "How likely is it that you yourself would seriouslyconsider providing either a temporary home to a child as a fosterparent or a permanent home to a child as adoptive parent at somepoint in your life?" measured willingness to be an adoptive orfoster parent. The respondent could answer at one of four levelsof willingness, and the distribution of responses across the samplewas: very likely, 15%; somewhat likely, 32%; not too likely, 23%;not at all likely, 29%; and no opinion, 1%.

The survey asked the 47% (n = 475) of respondents who indi-cated a willingness level of either very likely or somewhat likely

Tyzoon Tyebjee 701

whether they would be more likely to adopt or foster. Of these475 respondents, 55% indicated a preference for permanent adop-tion, 36% preferred providing a temporary foster home, and theremaining 9% were unsure. The research objective was to iden-tify the differences in the characteristics of those who were likelyto prefer to volunteer as adoptive parents versus foster parents.Table 2 compares these preferences across various demographicand ideological characteristics.

The only statistically significant difference between those whowere willing or somewhat willing to adopt versus foster was intheir stated degree of concern for children. Those who were extremelyconcerned about children were more likely to adopt than foster. Thosewho were somewhat concerned about children split virtually equallybetween preferring to adopt and preferring to foster.

This result is striking because it suggests that individuals whoare inclined to become foster parents are similar to those who areinclined to adopt a child, at least in terms of the demographiccharacteristics included in this survey.

Motivations for Adopting or Providing Foster Care

The study asked the subset of respondents who said they werevery or somewhat likely to adopt or foster the reason behind theirproclivity. Interviewers read several statements to them and askedrespondents whether the reason given in each statement appliedin their case. Table 3 shows the results.

The most salient reasons for a person's willingness to adoptor foster are all focused on the child, namely, to make a differencein a child's life, to provide a child with a positive family experi-ence, or because there are so many children in need. The secondmost common set of motivations focused on how adoption orfostering would affect the adult, namely adding meaning to life,fulfilling religious or spiritual beliefs about providing for chil-dren, or becoming a parent or continuing to be a parent. The leastcited motivations were environmental factors, namely, having ad-equate financial resources or not being able to bear children.


TABLE 3Motivations for Adopting or Becoming a Foster Care Parent for ThoseRespondents Likeiy to Consider (n = 496) (in percentages)

Motivation

Make a difference in a child's lifeWould like to provide a child with a

positive family experienceThere are so many children in needAdd meaning to your lifeReligious/spiritual beliefs about

providing for childrenWould like to become a parent or to

continue parentingHave the financial resources to

adequately care for a childAre unable to have children of

your own

DefinitelyApplies

77.9

75.573.957.2

57.1

53.1

37.6

17.3

SomewhatApplies

16.0

16.318.229.0

25.3

26.3

31.8

7.6

Does NotApply

6.1

8.27.9

13.7

17.5

20.5

30.6

75.1

Note: The interviewers read these statements in randomized order across respon-dents. For reporting purposes, this article ranks them in terms of salience.

The study asked respondents to evaluate factors that oftenprevent people from becoming foster or adoptive parents. Re-spondents rated to what extent each of these factors applied tothem. As in the question of motivation, respondents made no dis-tinction between barriers in the case of foster care versus adop-tion. The study investigated motives to adopt or foster only inthe case of respondents who indicated some level of willingnessto either be foster or adoptive parents, however, it investigated bar-riers for the entire sample. Table 4 shows the distribution of responses.

Whereas the most compelling motives for adopting or foster-ing were focused outward on the needs of the child, the strongestbarriers lay in respondents' life situations. These barriers weredue to the respondents' life cycle stage, namely, their age andfamily size. The next most important barriers were therespondent's resource constraints, in terms of finances, time, andspace. The third layer of barriers lay in how people felt aboutdealing with public agencies and the fear of losing the child tothe claims of the birthparents.

Tyzoon Tyebjee 703

TABLE 4Barriers to Adopting or Becominc

Barrier

Already have children/family is big enough

Too young or too oldJob/career limitations on

available timeInadequate financial resourcesInadequate room in homePossibility of having to return child

to birthparents

1 a Foster Parent (in percentages)

DefinitelyAppiies

41.539.5

28.928.227.9

27.0Hassle of dealing with public agencies 18.6Effect that child might have on

family membersUncertainties about chiid's heaith

or temperament

17.9

17.0

Note: The order in which these statements wererespondents. For reporting purposes, they have

The Effect of Ideology

Somewhat Does NotAppiies

16.319.9

24.922.416.9

23.230.1

25.9

33.3

! read was randomizedbeen ranked In terms

Appiy

42.240.6

46.149.355.2

49.851.3

56.2

49.7

1 acrossof salience.

The Field Research Institute survey methodology asked respon-dents their opinions in four areas of ideology: identification withthe gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community;religious affiliation; identification with the environmental move-ment; and placement on the conservative-liberal political spec-trum. As Tables 1 and 2 show, respondents' ideological positionsin these areas were not significantly associated with their atti-tudes toward adoption or foster care or their preferences for oneover the other. If one ignores the stringent test of statistical sig-nificance, in absolute terms, the attitude toward foster care wasless positive in the case of Hberals, those without religious affilia-tion, and those who strongly identify with the GLBT community.

The effect of ideology on the willingness to adopt or foster achild provided an interesting result. As indicated, 15% of the over-all sample indicated they were very likely to adopt or foster achild. Although political, religious, or environmental ideology


do not significantly influence this overall willingness, GLBT iden-tity is a strong influence. Of those who strongly identify with theGLBT community, 26.4% said they were very likely to adopt orfoster a child. The preference data (see Table 2) also indicatedthat this segment of the population was more inclined towardadoption than foster care.

Conclusions

Based on the public opinion poll of California households, thestudy found that the public's attitude toward adoption is over-whelmingly positive. More than 90% of the respondents had afavorable view of adoption. The attitude toward foster care wasmore moderated. Only 60% of the respondents held a favorableview of foster care. This pattern repeated itself when it comes towillingness to take a child into the home; 55% would prefer totake in a child through adoption, whereas 36% would prefer todo so as foster parents.

In examining the demographic correlates of attitudes towardadoption versus foster care respectively, the study found that theyare virtually identical. In both cases, the following are associatedwith a more favorable attitude toward both adoption and fostercare: being white, being U.S. born, holding U.S. citizenship, be-ing a registered voter, and speaking English. A significant find-ing is that people who preferred to speak Spanish, were not U.S.citizens, and were foreign born, which are all possible correlatesof being a recent immigrant, have less definitively formed atti-tudes toward foster care, as represented by a relatively higherincidence of no opinion responses. This represents an opportu-nity for media campaigns directed toward the immigrant com-munity to shape a positive view of foster care.

A second significant finding is that people who personallyknow someone who has fostered or adopted a child are likely tohave a more positive view of both adoption and foster care. Thissuggests the use of testimonials in recruiting adoptive and foster

Tyzoon Tyebjee 705

parents in media campaigns. On the other hand, political ideol-ogy, religious affiliation, environmentalism, and identificationwith GLBT sexual orientation are statistically unrelated to atti-tudes toward adoption and foster care. Consequently, ideologi-cal subtext is unlikely to be effective messaging in media campaigns.

With respect to stated willingness to adopt versus foster, thestudy found no demographic correlates of the preference for oneover the other. Once again, the target audiences for adoption andfostering seem to overlap. This is good news for public interestmedia campaigns, which do not need to worry about splittingprecious media budgets across separate campaigns for adoptingand fostering.

The most compelling factors that motivate people to adopt orfoster are the plight of children in society and, less so, their ownneeds for personal fulfillment. Media messages that focus on chil-dren in need, therefore, will be the most compelling. Yet, the de-sire to help children is moderated by the realities of whether thepeople see themselves as too young or too old, whether they feeltheir families are already too large, or whether they will have thetime, money, or space to accommodate another child. Clearly, thestudy finds, people have a generally positive attitude toward andwillingness to adopt or foster. Testimonials of people in differentUfe cycles and economic circumstances who have had positive per-sonal experiences with adopting or fostering could be influential inpersuading people to translate this positive attitude into action.^

References

Bausch, R. S., & Serpe, R. T. (1999). Recruiting Mexican American parents. Child Welfare,78, 693-716.

Beeman, S., & Boisen, L. (1999). Child welfare professionals' attitudes toward kinshipfoster care. Child Welfare, 78, 315-337.

Crawford, I., McLeod, A., Zamboni, B. D., & Jordan, M. B. (1999). Psychologists' atti-tudes toward gay and lesbian parenting. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-tice, 30, 394^01.


Crawford, J. M. (1999). Co-parent adoptions by same sex couples: From loophole toLaw. Families in Society, 80,271-278.

Field Research Institute. (1999). Child abuse and neglect poll. San Francisco: Author.

Haugaard, J. J., West, N. M., & Moed, A. M. (2000). Open adoptions: Attitudes and expe-rience. Adoption Quarterly, 4,89-99.

Hoksbergen, R. A. C. (1998). Changes in motivation for adoption, value orientationsand behavior in three generations of adoptive parents. Adoption Quarterly, 2,37-55.

HoUingsworth, L. (2000a). Sociodemographic influences in the prediction of attitudestoward transracial adoption. Families in Society, 81,92-100.

HoUingsworth, L. (2000b). Who seeks to adopt a child? Findings from the National Sur-vey of Family Growth. Adoption Quarterly, 3,1-24.

Miall, C. E. (1987). The stigma of adoptive parent status: Perceptions of community atti-tudes toward adoption and the experience of informal social sanctioning. Family Re-lations: Interdisciplinary journal of Applied Family Studies, 36,34-39.

MiaU, C. E. (1996). The social construction of adoption: Clinical and community perspec-tives. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 45,309-317.

National Foster Care Awareness Project. (1998). Foster care in America. Washington, DC:Greenberg Quinlan Research.

Poston, D. L., & CuUen, R. M. (1989). Propensity of white women in the United States toadopt. Social Biology, 36,167-185.

Princeton Survey Research Associates. (1997). Benchmark adoption survey. Princeton, NJ:Author.

Rompf, E. L. (1993). Open adoption: What does the average person think. Child Welfare,71, 219-230.

Waggenspack, B. M. (1998). The symbolic crises of adoption: Popular media's agendasetting. Adoption Quarterly, 1,57-82.

Wegar, K. (2000). Adoption, family ideology, and social stigma: Bias in community atti-tudes, adoption research, and practice. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal ofApplied Family Studies, 49, 363-370.

(Address requests for a reprint to Tyzoon Tyebjee, Leavey School of Business, SantaClara University, Santa Clara, CA 95055.)

tyebjee t. 2003. attitude, interest, and motivation for adoption and foster care

Documents