University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship between changes in the type and frequency of contact in open and closed adoptions and behavioral outcomes of adopted children

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship between changes in the type and frequency of contact in open and closed adoptions and behavioral outcomes of adopted children

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGES IN THE TYPE AND
FREQUENCY OF CONTACT IN OPEN AND CLOSED ADOPTIONS AND
BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES OF ADOPTED CHILDREN
by
Cristina A. Castagnini
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSlER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
EDUCATION (COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY)
August2004
Copyright2004 Cristina A. Castagnini
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL.
UNIVERSITY PAJtK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695
This dissertation, written by
Cristina Ann Cas·tagnini
under the direction of h er dissertation committee, and
approved by all its members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Director of Graduate and Professional
Pro grams, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Date August 10, 2004
Chair
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the process of writing this entire dissertation, there were many people
who were there to help guide me and to help in finally finishing it. For one, I need to
acknowledge all of my cohort members who have been there for me since day one of
my doctoral program. And, to Yuying Tsong, although a cohort above me, she was a
strong support through this whole ordeal, and without her, I would not have made it.
I also need to acknowledge my committee members. Specifically, Dr. Brooks
for allowing me the use of the data set for use in my dissertation. Dr. McArthur, my
former clinical supervisor, was not only a source of support, but someone who
helped me enormously in my work with clients. Also, a special acknowledgement to
my advisor, Dr. Goodyear, who, even across 2,500 miles helped me get through the
struggles and numerous hurdles of finishing this dissertation.
To my entire family, especially my parents and grandparents, whose endless
support and encouragement meant the world to me. This was a tough road, and they
stuck by me the entire time. And, to my friends who kept telling me I could finish.
Even at those times I didn't know if I would make it, they were there to push me and
to remind me that I could do it.
And, last, but definitely not least, to the love of my life and best friend, Gary.
There are no words to describe how much his love and support mean to me. He gave
me his heart, his soul, and his strength from the day I first met him. Even an ocean
apart, we made it through the tumultuous year of internship and the endeavor of
finishing my dissertation together.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements n
List of Tables and Figures v
Abstract vi
CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEMS ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK 1
Background of the Problem 2
Historical Context 2
Recent Times 8
Closed Adoption 12
Open Adoption 14
The Debate: Open versus Closed Adoption 16
The Birth Parents 16
The Adoptive Parents 20
Adoptees 24
Conclusion of the Debate 30
Review of Empirical Evidence 31
Adoptees' Behaviors 31
Conclusions 40
Purpose of the Study 41
Research Questions 41
CHAPTER II: METHODS 43
Participants 43
Instruments 44
The Adoption Process 44
Adoptee's Behavioral Outcomes 46
Procedure 49
CHAPTER III: RESULTS 51
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses 51
Analyses of Research Questions 55
Research Question 1 55
Research Question 2 58
Research Question 3 60
Research Question 4 62
Research Question 5 64
Research Question 6 65
Additional Analyses 65
Between-Group and Gender Differences By Year 65
IV
CHAPTER IV: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 70
Discussion
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Research Question 4
Research Question 5
Research Question 6
Additional Analyses
Limitations
Implications
Practice Implications
Recommendations for Further Research
Conclusions
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Behavior Problems Inventory
70
70
74
76
77
79
80
81
84
86
86
87
89
91
101
v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Parents' Education Level 52
Table 2. Reported Family Income 52
Table 3. Adoption History by Status 52
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations and Zero-Order Pearson Product
Correlations for Measured Variables 53
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics (mean and SD) of BPI Subscales in Three
Surveyed Years by Type of Adoption 57
Table 6. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Adoptee's
Contact with Birth Parents and Behavioral Changes from 1990
to 1993 59
Table 7. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Adoptee's
Contact with Birth Parents and Behavioral Changes from 1993
to 1996 59
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics (mean and SD) of Changes in Behavioral
Outcomes by Contact with Other Biological Family Members 63
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics (mean and SD) of Behavioral Outcomes by
Gender 67
Figure 1. Interaction Between Gender and Adoption Status on Withdrawal
Symptoms in 1993 68
vi
ABSTRACT
Openness in adoption is a topic of much controversy and debate. Adoptive
parents who adopted infants in 1988 and 1989 were asked to complete surveys,
which included the Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI) in order to measure
behavioral outcomes of their children in open and traditional, or closed, adoptions
who were adopted as infants. The surveys were sent out and completed during three
different time intervals: at 2 years post-placement, 5 years post-placement, and 8
years post-placement. Findings revealed that of the 410 adoptees involved in this
study, adoptees in both open and closed adoptions were doing rather well. Results
indicate that adoptees' behavioral outcomes change in the same way across time.
However, adoptees in closed adoptions evidenced more symptoms of anxiety,
depression and withdrawal over time than did adoptees in open adoption. Also
investigated were the levels, types, frequency, and amount of contact between
members of the adoptive and birth families in relation to adoptees' behavioral
outcomes over time. Findings revealed no significant relationships between these
variables. A discussion about these fmdings as well as the limitations of this study is
included. Implications for these findings as well as areas for future research are
also discussed.
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
lAdoption is the permanent transfer of parenting rights and responsibilities,
by way of the judicial system, from one family to another. It involves the biological
parents, the adoptive pf_nts, and the adoptee--the adoption triangle (Smith, 1997;
Hollingsworth, 2000"iXTraditionally, adoptions have been closed, in that the birth
1
parents and adoptees have neither contact with nor knowledge of one another after
the adoption occ~though closed adoption initially was thought to be in the best
interests of everyone, that assumption is now being challenged by members of the
adoption triangle, mental health workers, and child welfare advocates. Open
adoption, which involves some amount of initial and/or ongoing contact between
- - -
birth and adoptive families, has been suggested_as th~e better alternative by
professionals who work with members of the adoption triang~
There are many theoretical and clinical arguments for and against each type
of adoption practicetBut, the debate regarding which practice_ is truly in the best
interests of all members of the adoption triangle remains unresolved and,
occasionally, heate,9
Although others certainly are affected, the primary reason this debate needs
to be resolved is for the benefit of adoptees. It was in that context that this study
was conducted to examine the impact of open and closed adoption ra tices on
adoptees' behavioral outcomes.
2
This chapter provides the conceptual framework for this investigation. It
first presents a historical review of adoption, follow_ed by a review of the theoretical
and clinical arguments for and against both open and closed adoption in relation to
all members of the adoption triangle. In the latter portion of the chapter, current
empirical research pertaining to open and closed adoption practices with respect to
the relationships that each has with adoptees' behavioral outcomes is reviewed. This
chapter concludes with the research questions that guided this study.
Background of the Problem
Historical Context
Historically, adoption has served a variety of functions in the United States
(Schwartz, 1984 ). Each has been strongly influenced by societal mores, changes and
needs, for which supporting laws and policies then have been developed. A review
of that history follows in order to establish the complex interaction of society, legal
issues, and adoption and to provide a context for this study.
The 1800's
Prior to the mid-1800s, adoption was primarily to benefit the adoptive
family. When children were abandoned, they were taken into families informally
and used as their indentured servants (Watson, 1996). The majority of adoptees then
were older children who actually could be of use to the families who took them in.
Infants were not desired because they were not capable of providing help (Watson,
1996). Furthermore, because many of the abandoned infants had been born to
unwed mothers, and because out-of-wedlock births were strongly maligned, many
believed that leaving the mother to care for her baby would help her to atone for her
immoral sexual behavior and help her to develop character (Cole & Donley, 1990).
Finally, infants' requirement of breast milk was an additional difficulty for potential
adoptive parents (Watson, 1996).
There were no legal statues regarding adoption prior to the mid-1800s.
3
Therefore, any family that desired to formally recognize the adoption (i.e., to create
an heir to protect the family property) would have to persuade their state legislature
to pass a private bill (Cole, 1983). The first adoption law was passed in
Massachusetts in 1851 and it dramatically changed the process and meaning of
adoption (Presser, 1972). The law was instigated both to reform adoption and to
protect adopted children from being used as slaves by families who took them in.
For the first time, the child's welfare, rather than the interests of the adoptive family,
became the primary consideration in legal adoption procedures (Cole, 1983; Presser,
1972).
Judges now had the power to decide whether the parents adopting the child
were capable of raising him or her; indeed whether the adoption even should take
place (Howe, 1983). All states subsequently followed suit by enacting their own
adoption statutes. Most made the best interest of the child the adoption standard
(Sokoloff, 1993).
Unfortunately, after formal adoption practices began, abandoned children
were not as readily taken into families, and many were left homeless (Watson,
1996). These homeless children often were cared for in ill-equipped and
4
overcrowded public almshouses and institutions (Cole & Donley, 1990). In an
attempt simultaneously to empty these and to provide the children with better lives,
the children were sent to farm communities. Sadly, these children were not used for
much more than slaves, as they had been prior to the adoption laws being passed
(Watson, 1996).
In short, the majority of United States adoptions in the 19th century involved
older children who could benefit the adoptive parents through the use of manual
labor on their farms. However, in the 20th century, remarkable societal shifts
influenced and changed adoption.
The Turn of the Century
At the turn of the 20th century, many technological advances and societal
changes led to an unprecedented high demand for infants to adopt. Due to
inventions such as the telephone, electrical system, car, and airplane, the United
States became an urbanized, industrialized, and technologically-advanced culture
that offered new job opportunities in urban areas. And, with the establishment of the
Child Welfare League of America, which sought to protect the rights of children, as
well as with the passing of child labor laws and compulsory child education laws,
children no longer could be used as laborers. With these changes, many families
began to move from rural to urban areas. In fact, by 1920, the urban population
exceeded that of rural areas for the first time (Y ankowitz, 2002). City life elicited
new ideas about family life, such as having a compassionate marriage, and having
children to create an "ideal family", rather than just in order to have future laborers
(http://www.holton.k12.ks.us/staff/abeamlhighland/ch25.html). Many young
married couples were trying to conceive children in an attempt to create this "ideal
family," but were physically unable to due to the effects of a flu epidemic that
followed World War I. A number of young married couples therefore turned to
adoption as an alternative (Watson, 1996). And, whereas families had preferred to
adopt older children, with the changes in family structure, and of children's roles in
general, couples now began to prefer to adopt infants (Carp, 1992).
5
Societal and technological changes now also made infant adoption a viable
alternative either to adopting an older child or to not having children at all. For
instance, with the creation of infant formula, infants were able to survive without
their mother's breast milk (Watson, 1996). And, whereas children born to unwed
mothers previously had been thought of as not only undesirable but as a fitting
punishment for "sinful" mothers, the new child welfare laws focusing on doing what
was in the best interests of children changed their attitudes. According to Reitz and
Watson (1992), the predominate thought was that "children born out of wedlock
belonged to society. Children so born were innocent victims of their mother's
behavior and needed protection from them" (p. 63).
Adoption became an even more desirable option as adoption agencies began
enacting policies and procedures that facilitated the formation of an "ideal family"
by making it appear as if the adoptee was actually the adoptive parents' biological
child. For instance, adoption agencies began trying to find infants who were as
similar as possible to the adoptive parents in such areas as race, ethnicity, religious
6
backgrounds, talents, and temperaments (Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1984).
Adoptive parents were only provided such background information about the birth
parents because the prevailing thought was that if adoptive parents were not
provided any identifying or negative information about the birth parents (i.e., family
history of mental illness, or family history of alcoholism), then the adoptive parents
would be more likely to accept the adoptee (Sorosky et. al, 1984 ). Once adoptive
parents were matched with a suitable infant, adoptees' original birth certificates
were sealed and replaced with a new birth certificate indicating that the child was
actually born into the adoptive family (Bauman, 1997). Furthermore, adoption
agencies began to encourage adoptive parents to raise the adoptee as if he or she
were their own, biological child, and not disclose to them that they were, in fact,
adopted (Anderson, Piantanida, & Anderson, 1998; Carp, 1992).
These policies and procedures were also thought to be in the best interests of
the adoptee and the birth parents, the other members of the adoption triangle. The
adoptee could go through their life without the label and stigma of being
"illegitimate," and without feeling unwanted and abandoned. In addition, birth
parents could create a new life for themselves, and not have the stigma of having
had an illegitimate child (Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1984).
Legal statutes which "were designed to shield adoption procedures from
public scrutiny, so as to provide privacy for both the birth parents and the adoptive
parents and to remove the stigma of illegitimacy from the child" (Baran & Pannor,
1993, p. 119) were enacted beginning in 1917 in Minnesota, with the nation's first
sealed records law. By 1940, most States had followed suit, enacting legislation
which closed adoption files from the birth parents, adoptive parents, and the
adoptees, as well as the general public. However, by 1970, many societal changes
had led many state legislators to amend these sealed records laws (Kuhns, 1994).
The 1970s
7
By the 1970s, some monumental societal shifts again affected adoption
policies and practices. One was the legalization of abortions. Another was a more
open acceptance of single mothers. As a result there was a shortage of infants
available for adoption (Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998; Siegel, 1993). The
demands for infants had not waned, and those couples who desired to adopt infants
typically first went to licensed adoption agencies. Usually, they were either placed
on long waiting lists or encouraged to adopt older, less desired children (Anderson,
Piantanida, & Anderson, 1993). Some frustrated and desperate couples
subsequently sought out infants through independent brokers; others opted to adopt
the older, less desired children.
Other changes occurred during the 1970s that affected existing adoption
practices. Adult adoptees and birth parents began returning to adoption agencies,
asking for information about one another, and seeking to reunite with one another
(Bauman, 1997; Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998; Smith, 1997). Birth
parents started voicing their feelings of loss and grief in the years since they
relinquished their child, and even started such political organizations as the
Concerned United Birth parents (CUB) to fight for a chance to reunite with their
8
children (Kuhns, 1994). This brought about a concern by mental health workers and
child welfare advocates who worked with members of the adoption triangle about
the impact that the adoption standards of secrecy, anonymity, and sealing of records
were having on members of the adoption triangle (Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1984).
With the influx of adoptees as well as birth parents indicating their
dissatisfaction with closed adoption practices, the concept of open adoption, in
which the birth families and adoptive families continue to have contact after the
adoption, was suggested by Baran, Pannor, and Sorosky, a team of adoption
pioneers, in 1976 (Caplan, 1990). While this novel type of adoption practice seemed
to be a viable solution to the problems experienced by adoptees and birth parents
with closed adoption, it also appeared to be a solution to the shortage of infants
available for adoption. Baran, Pannor, and Sorosky (1976), for instance, argued that
teenage mothers might be more willing to relinquish their children for adoption if
they knew they could have some continued role in their children's lives. While the
team initially proposed that open adoptions only occur in some instances, such as
with very young mothers with few resources who want to stay in touch with their
child, after years of facilitating open adoptions, they felt that open adoption should
be a standard practice (Pannor & Baran, 1984).
Recent Times
Since the 1970s, adoption practices and procedures in the United States have
gone through many changes, and continue to do so. Currently, adoption practices
are regulated by each State independently, with each having their own adoption laws
9
and regulations. However, with rare exceptions, adoptions are done very similarly
in most States. Most State adoption policies are such that a child can be placed with
prospective adoptive parents either via an adoption agency, or independently
through a lawyer. Adoption agencies can be public or private, with most States
requiring the latter to be licensed by the State, or at least follow standards required
of licensed agencies (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 2003). With
agency adoptions, the child has been willingly relinquished by their biological
parents to the agency, or has been placed there by the courts following the loss of the
biological parental rights. The agency then places the child with the adoptive
parents.
In contrast, independent, or private, adoptions usually involve direct
placement of the child by the biological parents with the adoptive parents.
Sometimes they also involve a third-party (i.e. an attorney, doctor) who acts as an
agent to either the biological or adoptive parents, and ultimately is the one who
brings the two parties together (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse,
2003). Independent adoptions are increasing in frequency, with one-half(Gilman &
Freivalds, 2001) to two-thirds of infant adoptions (Sokoloff, 1993) now being done
independently.
Although the process of adoption is similar in most States, there is also
within State variability among each individual agency. For instance, some agencies
may only offer adoptions to married couples. However with increasing societal
acceptance of non-traditional family structure, some agencies now exist that only
offer adoption to more untraditional adoptive parents such as single parents or
homosexual couples (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 2003).
10
Currently, as in the past, adoption is a common practice. It continues to
touch many lives in the United States, as it is estimated that there are one and a half
million adopted children in the United States, or just over 2 percent of all U.S.
children (Stolley, 1993). While there exist reporting mechanisms for foster care and
international adoptions, States are not legally required to record the number of
private, domestic adoptions. The last time the total number of adoptions each year
was collected was in 1992 when the National Center for State Courts (NCSC)
gathered adoption totals from a variety of sources, and estimated that 126,951
children were adopted in the U.S. (Flango & Flango, 1995). Furthermore it is
estimated that about 60 percent of Americans have a personal link to adoption. For
instance, the Adoption Institute's 1997 Public Opinion Benchmark survey found that
58 percent of Americans know someone has adopted a child, has relinquished a
child for adoption, or who has been adopted (Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute,
1997).
As in the past, adoption practices continue to change with societal mores,
changes, and needs. With some contemporary societal changes such as women
choosing to postpone childbearing among two-career couples, women being more
active in the labor force, as well as with the rising incidence of infertility, there is an
increase in the number of couples and individuals seeking to adopt babies (Berry,
1993).
11
The inability to have biological children is one of the most motivating factors
for couples who pursue adoption. In one study, for instance, more than 80 percent
of those adopting independently or through a private agency cited their infertility as
the reason they decided to adopt. And an estimated 50 percent of those adopting
from foster care stated that their inability to conceive their own biological children
was the reason for their decision to adopt (Berry, Barth, & Needell, 1996) Current
data estimate that between 11 percent to 24 percent of couples who are infertile or
who have problems carrying a pregnancy to term decide to adopt (Mosher &
Bachrach, 1996).
However, the number of couples who encounter problems having their own
biological children and therefore are seeking infants to adopt, along with society's
current acceptance of birth control, single motherhood, and abortion practices
contribute to infants not being as available to adopt (Berry, 1993). Concurrently,
however, there has been an increase in the number of adoptable older children with
histories of maltreatment, which led to a Federal mandate pushing States to take
timely action to provide permanent homes for those children. This has subsequently
led to an increase of adoption of those children (Berry, 1993 ), with foster care
adoptions currently accounting for an estimated 15 percent of all adoptions (Flango
& Flango, 1995).
For those couples seeking to adopt infants, however, other options also exist
such as international and transracial adoptions. In international adoption, children
from other countries are adopted by U.S. citizens. These adoptions typically are
12
arranged through adoption agencies, and are finalized abroad or in the United States,
depending on the laws of the country where the child resided. Transracial adoption
refers to children who are placed with an adoptive family of another race or
ethnicity. Although this, in one sense, is a subcategory of both domestic and
international adoption, it generally is considered a distinct category due to the
unique cultural issues encountered by the families involved in these types of
adoptions. According to the National Adoption Clearinghouse (2003) in 1987, 8
percent of all adoptions included parents and children of different races. An
estimated 15 percent of the 36,000 adoptions from foster care in 1998 were
transracial or transcultural.
Thus, there exist several different types of adoption. Within these types,
though, adoption practices and procedures tend to be similar across states. However,
there currently exists no uniformly accepted adoption practice in terms of open
versus closed adoptions. To gain a comprehensive understanding about why this
might be so, a discussion of both closed and open adoption, follows.
Closed Adoption
The practice of traditional, or closed, adoption has changed little with time.
It still is common in every state that@loption proceedings are confidential, and are
held in a court that is closed to the public in the judge's chamber~(National
Adoption Clearinghouse, 2003) ..
1
All adoption records, including the original birth
--~.
certificate, are sealed and locked away in the court's permanent recor~~-Pnce the
adoption proceedings are completed, a new birth certificate is issued, indicating that
the adoptive parents are the parents of the adoptee. The original records can be
accessed only through court approval (Kuhns, 1994).
~~
(~o federal legislation governs the release of information to adopted adults,
birthparents, or birth relatives. ):~ach state therefore deals with the release of
information differently. Most states (except New Jersey, which upholds complete
13
confidentiality) do have policies by which the information contained in them can be
accessed (Avery, 1998). Three states (Hawaii, Kansas, and Minnesota) have open
records. Three states (Alaska, Kansas, and Tennessee) allow adoptees to access
their original birth certificates; five (Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia,
and West Virginia), as well as Washington, D.C., allow for the release of the
information contained in the record only if it is deemed for a good reason (e.g., to
provide pertinent medical information to help diagnose or treat a medical
condition), and not just due to a desire to know (Avery, 1998). The vast majority of
the states allow the adoptive parents as well as adult adoptees, via court order or
upon their request, to have access to only restricted information regarding the
biological parents, including their parents' age at the time of adoption, ethnicity, and
other such information regarding their social background (Berry, 1993).
With closed adoption, then, the contents within the adoptee's record are the
only information adoptees can obtain about their birth parents. As such, most
!adoptees and birth parents cease to have any contact with or knowledge about one
t·-
another after the adoption. flowever, some States do have policies and procedures
that allow for contact between adoptees and their birth parents. For instance, some
14
States have court-appointed intermediaries which search for the biological parents,
and act as a liaison between the adoptee and their birth parents. If found, the birth
parents can then decide if they would like to meet the adoptee (National Adoption
Information Clearinghouse, 2003). And, approximately 20 states now have enacted
mutual consent registry statutes that allow both the birth parents and adoptees to
indicate their willingness to meet at a later date (Avery, 1998).
Although the procedures of closed adoption have changed little with time,
the manner in which it is viewed has changed dramatically. Whereas closed
adoption was once viewed as being the best for all members of the adoption triangle,
that no longer is universally true. Since the 1970s when open adoption was ftrst
suggested, support for it has continued to grow. Just what open adoption is and how
it differs from traditional, or closed adoption, is discussed.
Open Adoption
Although there is no agreement regarding the exact definitional consensus
for open adoption (McRoy, Grotevant, & White, 1988) it is, simply~ontact between
the birth families and the adoptive families after the adoption takes pl~~(Haugaard,
West, & Moed, 2000). There is so much variability in the frequency and type of
contact (i.e. telephone, in-person, letters), that openness is often viewed on a
continuum such that on one end of the continuum there is no contact at all, and on
the other end, there is frequent, direct, in-person contact and communication. In
between the two, there is usually some type of communication between the adoptive
r --
and birth families~ Sometimes the contact is solely between the birth families and
15
the adoptive parents, and sometimes contact also involves the adoptee (Grotevant,
2000). i
Since the 1970s, the "initial pioneers in open adoption have gathered
substantial support within the adoption community and have had a major impact on
the way adoption is practiced in the United States today" (Brodzinsky, Smith, &
Brodzinsky, 1998, p. 79). All members of the adoption triangle have moved into the
political arena, advocate for open adoption practices (Silber & Domer, 1990).
Current adoption practices reflect these changing attitudes. Open adoptions
are now more frequently done, with an estimated/69 percent of public and private
'-~"
agency adoptions involving the birth parents having met the adoptive couple (Berry,
1991). \However, despite this increase, states have not required any legal contracts
to be filed with the courts for open adoption to take place (Berry, 1993).
In response to the political demands for open adoption, adoption agencies
and a few State legislatures have revised their adoption practices and shown growing
public support for open adoption. Adoption agencies in California, Michigan,
Nebraska, Texas, and Wisconsin, for instance, were among the first to carry out
open adoptions (Caplan, 1990). There also exist some agencies that now offer open
adoptions exclusively, whereas others offer it as an option to both adoptive and birth
parents. And,(_<)pen adoption agreements in which the adoptive and birth parents
stipulate the amount of contact that will follow the adoption are now legally
recognized in some states, a few which enforce them with sanctions for
noncompliance (Avery, 1998)~In many other states, this area is still regulated by
"
16
court opinion such that these agreements are enforced if it is seen that doing so is in
the child's best interests (National Adoption Clearinghouse, 2003).
Understandings of what is in the child's best interests has been a major factor
in determining adoption practice and policy since the first adoption law was passed
in 1851. This also is a fundamental component to a rather heated, unresolved debate
regarding which adoption practice, open or closed, should be uniformly accepted.
Proponents for each position argue that their preferred practices are in the best
interests of the child. But all of the members of the adoption triangle are affected
and so must be considered in this debate.
The Debate: Open versus Closed Adoption
With the introduction of open adoptions in the 1970s, there has been an on-
going, unresolved debate regarding open versus closed adoptions (Sobol, Daly, &
Kelloway, 2000). Most arguments for and against each position are theoretical,
postulated by adoption professionals based on their work with members of the
adoption triangle. These arguments are presented in the section that follows in order
to clarify the nature of the debate and why it remains unresolved.
The Birth Parents
1
As discussed, when closed adoption practices were put into practice, social
mores were such that having a child out of wedlock was regarded as sinful. Thus,
many birth mothers opted to relinquish their children in order to evade the stigma of
1
Because the vast majority of the literature regarding the birth parents is based solely on the
birth mother, (Gross 1993), for the purposes of this paper, birth parent solely refers to the birth
mother.
17
having had a child out of wedlock. An assumption behind closed adoption practices
was that these ~irth mothers would want to put the fact that they had an illegitimate
child behind them, and to sever all ties with him or her.JClosed adoption practices
were therefore thought protect them from unwanted intrusions into their later lives
by the birth child (Avery, 1998).
However, in the 1970s, the influx of birth parents coming into agencies
desiring to fmd their children brought to question the secrecy and anonymity
inherent in closed adoption practices. Birth parents since have formed coalitions to
initiate contact with their birth children, a further challenge to the belief that birth
parents want to permanently sever all ties with their children. Furthermore, with the
changes in society since closed adoption practices were initiated, there is more
acceptance of mothers having a child out of wedlock and also less social stigma.
Advocates for both closed and open adoption believe their preferred adoption
practice will 'enable birth parents to gain closure with the grief and loss of having
relinquished their child, as well as provide them the opportunity to move on with
their live~:JHow both sides can argue the same benefits for two different types of
practices is discussed.
Advocates for closed adoption
Closed adoption is seen as mo_!'~ __ ben~fi~~al for the birth parents because the
on-going contact with and/or knowledge about their child inherent in open adoptions
fosters th~rming of attachments between birth parents and their childre~~ (This
interferes with the birthparents' ability to resolve their feelings of guilt and loss,
18
keeping them from moving on with their lives (Berry, 1991; Kraft, Palombo,
Woods, Mitchell, & Schmidt, 1985a). Cocozzelli (1989, as cited in Berry, 1993)
further argues that birthmothers may initially see some potential benefits to open
adoption, and subsequently be swayed to relinquish their child when they would
have not otherwise have done so. Birth mothers who relinquish believing that they
will,kontinue to have contact with their child are vulnerable to prolonged ambiguity
'--·
-·'(
and p~~erry, 1991). Although this concern is relevant to all birthparents involved
in open adoptions, this is a rather considerable concern for teenage birthparents who
become involved in open adoptions.
Kraft, Palombo, Woods, Mitchell and Schmidt (1985) argued that because
most birth mothers are adolescents, there is concern that they lack the ability to cope
with the complexities of an open adoption. They further argued that adolescent
birthmothers' own developmental status led to difficulty making the psychological
and cognitive adjustments demanded by openness. In particular, they speculated that
the difficult decision concerning adoption would be further complicated by
balancing their need to make a permanent decision, while at the same time creating
options for continued contact. Other authors have also asserted that the pregnancies
already had elements of unconscious needs of the birthmothers, which in open
adoptions would play out in fantasies about the adopted child (Fravel, McRoy, &
Grotevant, 2000, p. 426).
19
Advocates for open adoption
Advocates for open adoption, however, argue that closed adoption is not in
the best interests of the birth parents. Brodzinsky (1990), for instance, argues that
the underlying assumption of closed adoptions that birthmothers who relinquish
their child are able to put the experience behind them and gladly move on with their
lives is wrong. Others agree, maintaining that the permanent separation from their
child causes birthparents lifelong pain, grief, and suffering (Deykin, Campbell, &
Patti, 1984; Fravel, McRoy, & Grotevant, 2000; Lifton, 1977).
C With closed adoptions, birthparents experience pain and suffering due to
'\ ...
their inability to forget about the child they gave up; they often are haunted by
thoughts about the child (Fravel et. al, 2000).1 Not only do birthparents wonder
where their children are, who adopted them, and what kind of people they are, but
they also fear that the children will not understand why they were given up, and
therefore hate them for rejecting and abandoning them (Baran & Pannor, 1993).
Thus, it is argued that in the on-going contact with and knowledge of their child
afforded by open adoption will enable birth parents to have answers to these
questions, and be able to move on with their lives and resolve the grief and pain
associated with the adoption.
Moreover, because birthparents in open adoption are@_ften allowed to choose
l
the adoptive paren~~)they tend to perceive that they have more control of the
situation and to be more at ease with who will raise their child. This ultimately
reduces their guilt and uncertainty about giving up their child (Berry, 1991).
20
Because birthparents in open adoption will continue to have knowledge about their
child, they also are less likely to be consumed with thoughts about the child. Birth
parents in open adoption are therefore better able to cope with the feelings of fear,
pain, and suffering encountered by those birth parents involved in closed adoptions
(Baran & Pannor, 1993).
In short, there are numerous arguments regarding the advantages and
drawbacks for birth parents of both open and closed adoptions. However, a similar
situation exists with respect to the adoptive parents. Both sides argue that their
preferred adoption practice allows the adoptive parents tJf~el more at ease with the
adoption, less threatened by the thought of the birth parents coming to reclaim their
child, and more likely to bond well with their child.
The Adoptive Parents
Advocates for closed adoption
Proponents for closed adoption assert that adoptive parents involved in
closed adoptions are better able than are those parents involved in open adoption to
attach securely with their child and to form a family (Kaye & Warren, 1988; Kraft,
Palombo, Mitchell, Woods, & Schmidt, 1985b ). Without the threat of intrusions
from the birth parent, adoptive parents are able to raise the child as their own and to
gain a sense of entitlement to their child (Kraft et. al, 1985b; Kuhns, 1994 ).
Open adoption, in contrast, may interfere with the adoptive parents' ability to
attach with their child, and impede their overall sense of entitlement to the child.
One reason is that many adoptive parents know the birth mother before the adoption
21
actually takes place. To know the birth mother may hamper their ability to attach to
the adoptee, and further lessen their feelings of entitlement to the adoptee because
they feel that the child still truly belongs to the birth parent (Kraft, et. al, 1985b ).
Further, because they know the birth mother, adoptive parents may feel guilty for
taking the child from her, thereby also compromising their ability to attach securely
with the adoptee (Kraft, et. al, 1985b ).
Another reason that the continual presence of the birth mother can make
adoptive parents feel as if she is watching over them, making sure they do an
adequate job of raising the child (Kraft, et. al, 1985b ). Moreover, in the majority of
all adoptions, whether open or closed, adoptive parents initially fear that the birth
parents may change their mind and want the child back (Berman & Bufferd, 1986).
Proponents for closed adoption argue that open adoption may intensify this fear,
inhibiting healthy attachment with and feelings of entitlement to the child (Kraft, et.
al, 1985b).
Some proponents for closed adoption also argue that if the birth mother
continues to have contact with the adoptive parents and the adoptee, then her
unconscious needs could negatively affect the relationship between the adoptive
parents and the adoptee. Kraft et. al (1985b), for instance, argue that for infant
adoptions, in particular, the birth mother unconsciously became pregnant in the first
place in order to fulfill her needs for such things as closeness and intimacy that she
could not fulfill in other relationships. Thus, these unconscious needs will continue
even after the adoption takes place, and will significantly influence the interactions
between the birth mother and her child if they continue to have contact. The birth
mother may become highly competitive with the adoptive parents, negatively
affecting the adoptive parents' ability to attach with and feel entitled to the child.
Other proponents for closed adoption warn that due to these unconscious needs,
birthmothers could become overdependent and overly-reliant upon the adoptive
parents to take care of them, becoming a nuisance and intrusion upon their family
(Berry, 1991).
22
Overall, proponents for closed adoption argue that open adoption threatens
the permanence of the adoption, intrudes upon the ability of the adoptive parents to
form a family, and has a detrimental effect upon the parent-child attachment (Kaye
& Warren, 1988; Kraft, et. al, 1985b)
Advocates for open adoption
Most adoptive parents assert that the reason they became involved in open
adoption was to promote the best interests of the child or because they felt they had
to in order to have the opportunity to adopt a child; not because they initially
preferred it (Belbas, 1986; Berry, Cavazos Dylla, Barth, & Needell, 1998; McRoy &
Grotevant, 1988; McRoy, Grotevant, & White, 1988). However, many adoptive
parents involved in open adoption actually have become staunch advocates for it.
They, like many adoption professionals who are in favor of open adoption, assert
that adoptive parents involved in open adoption are actually better able raise their
children and to create a healthy family environment than are those parents involved
in closed adoption (Etter, 1993; Kuhns, 1994; Siegel, 1993).
23
Proponents for open adoption contend that it enables adoptive parents to gain
a greater sense of entitlement to their adopted child than with closed adoption
(Belbas, 1986; Rillera & Kaplan, 1985). This argument is especially relevant to
adoptive parents who specifically are chosen by birth parents to adopt their child:
those adoptive parents feel that they are deemed worthy of adopting the child, and
therefore worry less about the birth parent actually wanting the child back (McRoy
& Grotevant, 1988). Furthermore, the "ghosts of the birthparent, inherent in the
closed system, are ever present, and may lead to the fear that these parents will
reclaim the child and that the child will love these parents more than the adoptive
parents" (Baran & Pannor, 1993, pp. 120-121). Without these fears, the adoptive
parents are better able to feel secure with the permanence of the adoption, and
therefore more entitled to their adopted child.
Family therapists also warn that the underlying secrecy of closed adoptions is
harmful to family trust and communication (Imber-Black, 1993; Karpel, 1980).
Because a healthy family environment is shaped by openness, honesty, and trust,
there exists an overall positive, close, empathetic parent-child relationship (Baran &
Pannor, 1990; Stein & Hoopes, 1985).
Furthermore, because adoptive parents in open adoption know the birth
mother, they are more likely to understand the difficulty she had deciding to give up
her child, and subsequently are more likely to have empathy for her (Belbas, 1986).
For adoptive parents to have empathy for the birth mother is thought to lessen the
probability that the adoptive parents will have negative thoughts about the birth
24
parent. This also will enable the adoptive parents to be more empathetic toward their
adopted child and render them less likely to attribute any of the child's undesirable
behavior to genetic predisposition inherited from their birth parent ( Grotevant,
McRoy, Elde, and Fravel, 1994).
Adoptive parents in open adoption also are better able to answer their
adopted children's questions about the adoption. Their comfort with the children's'
curiosity and understanding and acceptance of the birth parents fosters open
communication in the family, and enhances their ability to form a family (Silber &
Domer, 1990).
In contrast, the lack of knowledge of or contact the adoptive parents have
with the birth parents may make it difficult for them to think and talk about
birthparents as actual people. They may therefore not be able to truthfully or
adequately answer their child's questions about the circumstances of the adoption,
and about the birth parents (Baran & Pannor, 1993). Furthermore, with lack of
knowledge, empathy, and understanding of the birth parents, any problems with the
adoption itself or with the adoptee can easily be blamed on the biological parents'
unknown lineage or genetics (Kirk, 1984), further decreasing the amount of empathy
and understanding that adoptive parents will have for their adopted child (Berry,
1993).
Adoptees
Proponents for both open and closed adoption argue that their preferred
adoption practice is in the best interests of the adoptee. They maintain that adoptees
in their preferred adoption practice have healthier bonding and relationships with
their adoptive parents and family, encounter less confusion and anxiety, and
ultimately evidence better psychological well-being and behavioral outcomes.
Advocates for closed adoption
25
Advocates of closed adoption contend that the biggest risk of open adoption
is the effect that the contact between the birth parent and the adoptee has on the
relationship between the adopted child and his or her adoptive parents (Berry, 1991).
In this argument, the birth parent's presence may interfere with healthy bonding and
attachment between the adoptee and their adoptive parents. This ultimately hampers
adoptees' healthy development and their adjustment within the family (Byrd, 1988;
Kraft, Palombo, Woods, Mitchell, & Schmidt, 1985a). With closed adoption,
however, with only one set of parents to whom the adoptee can attach and with
whom they can bond, there is more likelihood of healthy bonding and attachment
between the adoptee and their adoptive parents.
Advocates of closed adoption also warn that with the continued presence of
the birth parent inherent in open adoption, adoptees may be confused about who
their parents are, which can cause the adoptees undue anxiety (Berry, 1991;
Brodzinsky, Schechter, & Henig, 1992). This can also cause them confusion as they
ask themselves such questions as "If she gave you away, what is she doing here", or,
"if she is here, can she take me back?" (Brodzinsky et. al, 1992, p. 189). By
contrast, because the adoptee only has one set of parents with closed adoption, they
26
are neither confused about who their parents are, nor anxious about being taken back
by their birth parents.
Family therapists also assert that, especially during times of conflict, the
adoptee in open adoptions will be confused and feel caught between two families
(Hartman, 1993). Byrd (1988) contends that younger adoptees are incapable of
dealing with the differing value systems of two sets of parents, and warns that they
may ultimately reject both their adoptive as well as birth parents. And, all
adolescents, not just adoptees, are trying to resolve identity conflicts and confusion,
and tend to have more conflict with their parents. Therefore, this is a time when
adoptees, may be most inclined to reject their adoptive parents in favor of their birth
parents (Brodzinsky, Singer, & Braff, 1984).
Advocates for open adoption
Adopted children are referred for mental health services at a rate
significantly out of proportion to their representation in the general population.
Whereas adopted children only account for an estimated 2 percent of the population,
they comprise about 5 percent of the outpatients and up to 15 percent of inpatients in
psychiatric clinics. (Dickson, Heffron, & Parker, 1990; Kim, Davenport, Joseph,
Zrull, & Woolford, 1988; Mech, 1973; Menlove, 1965; Schechter & Carlson, 1964;
Wellish, 1952). And, in comparison to non-adoptee patients, adoptee patients
demonstrate more aggression, acting out behaviors, personality disorders, and
learning difficulties (Kirschner & Nagel, 1988; Nemovicher, 1960; Rogeness,
Hoppe, Macedo, Fischer, & Harris, 1988; Sabalis & Burch, 1980; Schechter,
27
Carlson, Simmons, & Work, 1964; Simon & Senturia, 1966; Taichert & Harvin,
1975, Weiss, 1985).
Although adoption professionals have considered that reasons for the
disproportionate amount of adoptees seen in mental health clinics are related to their
birthmothers' inadequate health and prenatal care while they were pregnant, many
adoption professionals have concluded that adoptees are subjected to "adoption
stress" simply due to the fact that they are adopted. This stress is increased in closed
adoptions due to "genealogical bewilderment," or lack of knowledge of one's
natural parents (Wellish, 1952). The resulting confusion and uncertainty
profoundly diminishes the adoptees' sense of security, and negatively affects their
mental health (Sants, 1964).
Based on his years of working with adoptees in closed adoptions Kirschner
(1995), a clinical psychologist, has postulated that the maladaptive behaviors seen in
adoptees are related to their lack of knowledge about their past. He collectively
refers to these behaviors as the "adopted child syndrome" (1988), contending that
those adoptees with this syndrome have adoptive parents who typically ignore or
deny their adopted child's need to discuss their adoption and to ask questions about
their personal histories. These adoptees learn that discussing their adoption is off
limits, so they resort to fantasizing about their adoption and birth parents.
According to Kirschner and Nagel (1988),
The underlying psychodynamics include the child's inability to
integrate two sets of parental images often one "bad" and the
other "good" into a single realistic image, and resultant
impairment in the development of the superego. A negative self
image is often mirrored by the adoptive parents' projection of
their own unacceptable impulses onto the child and the birth
parents (p. 300).
28
Kirschner and Nagel (1988) further contend that if adoptive parents are open
with their adoptees about their adoption, then adoptees will be less likely fantasize
about their birth parents, and therefore less likely to evidence the "adopted child
syndrome."
Advocates of open adoption argue that because adoptees in open adoption
have greater knowledge of their personal histories, they will have less need for
mental health treatment and evidence less maladaptive behaviors than will adoptees
in closed adoption, who do not have this knowledge. However, even for those
adoptees in non-clinical populations, there exist many reasons why adoption
professionals favor open adoption practices.
Proponents for open adoption agree that adoptees are the members of the
adoption triangle, who have the most to gain from open adoption (Baran & Pannor,
1990). Over time, many adoptees involved in closed adoption have expressed their
concerns and dissatisfaction with the secrecy inherent with closed adoption
practices. And, many adoption professionals who have worked with adoptees in
closed adoptions have seen the detrimental effects that closed adoption practices
have on adoptees', which have subsequently led many adoption professionals to
become proponents for open adoption.
29
Low self-esteem is commonly seen in adoptees in closed adoption. Adoption
professionals claim that this is a result of adoptees growing up believing that
something must be inherently wrong with them because they were given away and
rejected by their birth parents (Baran & Pannor, 1993). Because they do not have
contact with their birth parents, or knowledge of the circumstances of their adoption,
adoptees in closed adoption tend to create fantasies and distortions about their birth
parents, and about why they were relinquished. In contrast, open adoption helps
adoptees to feel less rejected by their birth parents because they have access to their
birth parents, and can obtain answers to their questions about why they were
relinquished (Berry, 1993). Furthermore, with the continued presence of the birth
parent in their life, adoptees are less likely to feel abandoned and rejected (Baran &
Pannor, 1993).
Adoptees in closed adoption also are likely to experience many problems
during adolescence that adoptees in open adoption and nonadoptees will not
(Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1984). It is argued that for adoptees in closed adoption,
developing an individual identity is more complicated at this time because they do
not know even the most basic facts about who they are and where they came from
(Baran & Pannor, 1993). Similarly, Berry (1993) argues that "adjustment issues are
particularly salient for adoptees in adolescence, as they experience numerous
physical and psychological changes and wrestle with identity" (p. 128). And, it is
further argued that because adoptees in open adoption know their biological parents
are, during adolescence, they are able to compare their own development and
changes with those of their parents, whereas adoptees in closed adoption are not,
further making this time of transition and identity formation difficult for them
(Berman & Bufferd, 1986).
30
As discussed, one of the main reasons closed adoption practices were
challenged was because of the influx of adoptees returning to adoption agencies
wanting to locate their birth parents and/or to obtain such information as their
medical and genetic histories, or the circumstances regarding their adoption (Baran
& Pannor, 1993). Oftentimes, adoptees will spend years, if not their entire adult
lifetime, on a painful, fruitless search for this information. Open adoption saves
adoptees from the need for this search (Berry, 1991).
Conclusion of the Debate
As this discussion makes clear, there exist many arguments in of both open
and closed adoption practices. As a consequence, there is no agreement regarding
which adoption practice is in the best interest of the members of the adoption
triangle. This debate is far from resolved.
Although most of the arguments presented so far were based on opinion and
theory, some empirical research has examined these arguments. Unfortunately, this
research had been scant and that research which has been done has been
inconclusive and contradictory.
Although empirical research investigating the effects of both open and closed
adoption on all members of the adoption triangle does exist, for the purposes of this
investigation, which will be discussed, only research that explored the effects of
open and closed adoptions in relation to the adoptee will be reviewed.
Review of Empirical Evidence
Adoptees' Behaviors
There is a dearth of empirical research investigating the consequences of
open adoptions on adopted children's' behaviors and functioning, and most of it is
quite recent. (Berry, Cavazos Dylla, Barth, & Needel1,1998). That which exists is
presented.
Research Comparing Open and Closed Adoption
31
Some studies have investigated the behavioral outcomes for adoptees in open
and closed adoptions. Berry (1993), for instance, examined the differences in 1,296
adoptive families in open and closed adoptions, two years post-placement. In this
study, both foster parent and non-foster parent adoptive families were investigated,
and at the time of placement, the adopted children ranged in age from infant to 16
years old. One important finding from this study was that adoptees in open
adoptions had significantly better behavior scores (as rated by their adoptive parents)
than did children in closed adoptions.
Another finding in this study was that adoptive parents in open adoption had
more positive opinions of their adoptee's birthparents. In relation to this finding,
Berry (1993) cautioned that because this is a cross-sectional survey, it is ''unknown
whether parents in open adoptions rated their children's behavior more positively
because of those positive impressions of the birth parents, whether parents were in
32
open adoptions precisely because of those positive impressions, or whether open
adoption is truly related to more positive behavior in children" (Berry, 1993, p. 133).
Thus, from these findings, one can only tentatively infer that open adoption
positively affects adoptee's overall behaviors.
In another study using the same sample as Berry's 1993 study, Barth and
Berry (1988) investigated 120 families who had adopted older children. They found
that when the adoptions were open, such that contact did occur between adoptees
and their birth families, it weakened the adopted child's relationship with their
adoptive parents. But at the same time, these adoptees were significantly less likely
than adoptees in closed adoption to demonstrate serious behavior problems such as
hyperactivity or aggressiveness.
The findings from these studies suggest that open adoption practices
positively affect adoptees' behavioral outcomes. However, it is important to note
that the adoptees in the Barth and Berry study were all adopted as older children,
and therefore these findings cannot be generalized to those adoptees who were
adopted as infants. This is so because adoptions of older children require
considerations for adoption practice that typically do not exist in traditional, infant
adoptions such as exposure to neglect and abuse, and knowledge of and relationships
with their birth families prior to the adoption taking place that could be affecting
their behaviors (Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998).
In yet another study, Demick (1993), looked at infant adoptees and their
families for 30 adoptive couples: 15 in closed adoptions; and, 15 in open adoptions.
33
All of the couples were Caucasian, middle class, with an average age of 34, and
were married an average of 6 years. The couples were comparable in their education
level, occupational status, and religion.
Few significant differences were found between those families in open and
closed adoptions. However, adoptive parents in closed adoptions did perceive their
infant to be more demanding and bothersome. However, the study's small sample
size and the restricted characteristics of the sample indicate caution in generalizing
to the larger population of adoptive families.
These few studies suggest that open adoption is not negatively affecting
adoptees' behavioral outcomes, and, perhaps is actually having a positive impact.
With these studies, however, there was no acknowledgement that openness exists on
a continuum. That limitation was then addressed in other studies.
Research Investigating Degree of Openness
Openness of adoptions should be viewed on a continuum where at one end
there is no contact at all, and on the other end, there is frequent, direct, in-person
contact and communication (Grotevant, 2000). Therefore, not all open adoptions
can be thought of as the same. The level of contact, type of contact (i.e. telephone,
in-person, letters), frequency of contact, as well as who has contact (birth families
and the adoptive parents only or among all members of the triangle) differ so much
among those adoptive families in open adoption, that some researchers have decided
to investigate how this variability impacts the adoptee.
34
Grotevant, Ross, Marchel, and McRoy (1999), for instance, studied the
effects that different levels of openness (confidential, mediated, and fully open) had
on adoptees' developmental outcomes (i.e. child behavior, emotional control, social
isolation). Confidential adoptions were defined as the adoptive families having
neither direct nor indirect with the birth families. Mediated adoptions were defined
as adoptive families and adoptive families communicating with one another through
a third party intermediary. Fully open adoptions were defined as involving direct
contact and communication between the members of the adoptive and birth families.
Subjects were 190 two-parent adoptive families, and 169 birth mothers. The
children had been adopted in infancy from private adoption agencies, and ranged in
ages from 4 to 12 years (M=8).
After assessing the adoptees for18 possible risk factors (i.e. prenatal toxin
exposure, genetic risks), the researchers first looked at those adoptees who were
determined to be low risk (mean of3.2 risk factors). For this group, the range of
openness was not found to be related to adoptees' socio-emotional or developmental
outcomes.
The researchers then focused on those adoptees who were determined to be
high risk (at least 7 risk factors), examining the relationship between level of
collaboration between the adoptive and birth families and adoptees' developmental
outcomes. Level of collaboration was determined by measuring such things as
empathy for others, and mutual respect. Highly collaborative relationships were
such that the adoptive parents and birth families adjusted their relationships with
each other to do what they felt was in the best interests of the adoptee. Negative
correlations were observed between birth family and adoptive family collaboration
and adoptees' social isolation and symptoms; also between collaboration and
adoptees' emotional control.
35
Thus, from these findings it appears that for low-risk adoptees in open
adoption, level of openness does not have an impact on their behavioral outcomes.
And, for high-risk adoptees in open adoption, the level of collaboration between the
adoptive and birth families impacts adoptees' behavioral outcomes. However,
because the latter group was very small, with only 8 male and 4 female adoptees,
there is need for caution in generalizing these findings.
In yet another study, Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, Me Roy, and
Friedrick (1996) investigated the relationship between the various types of
communication found in the differing levels of openness and children's
development. The child outcome variables that were examined were: the child's
self-esteem; the child's curiosity about their birthparents; the child's satisfaction
with the current levels of openness; the child's understanding of adoption; and
several aspects of socio-emotional adjustment, such as : emotional control, social
isolation, and intellectual engagement.
This information was gathered from interviews with the adopted child and
with the adoptive parents. Parents as well as children were assigned openness codes,
meaning the degree of openness of the adoption. The codes between children and
parents did not always match because sometimes the parents had contact with the
birthparents of which the child was unaware. Openness was also coded in another
way to take into account those adopted children who were being included or
excluded from contact that was taking place among the adoptive parents and the
birth families. This was called the inclusion/exclusion code.
36
The 190 adoptive families in this study all were participants of the
Minnesota-Texas Adoption Project (McRoy, Grotevant, & Ayers-Lopez, 1994),
which consists of a nationwide sample of adoptive families and birthmothers. All
child subjects were adopted from a private adoption agency before the age of 1, and
were between the ages of 4 and 12 years of age at the time of that study. Of the 190
adoptees in this sample, only 171 (90 male and 81 female) participated. Of the 190
adoptions, 57 were closed, 14 were time-limited mediated adoptions, 45 were in on
going mediated adoptions, and 55 were fully-disclosed (Grotevant, McRoy, Elde, &
Fravel, 1994).
The authors concluded that differences in child outcomes across openness
levels were very weak. Out of 24 mean comparisons, differences by openness were
not statistically significant in 21 of the tests. For those differences that were
significant, openness was determined through the eyes of the children and not the
adults. Thus, when significant differences were found, they were on variables
related to adoption (curiosity about birth parents, understanding of adoption), and
not on socio-emotional adjustment variables such as self-esteem, emotional control,
and social isolation.
37
From this investigation, the researchers concluded that "overall, it does not
appear that providing information about a child's birthparents will confuse the child
about the meaning of adoption or lower their self-esteem, but neither will it move
them to levels of understanding that are beyond their cognitive capabilities to reach"
(Wrobel et. al, pp. 2372-73). However, the authors also acknowledged that because
the data for this investigation were obtained from the adopted children when most of
them were very young, there is a need to follow-up with these adopted children as
they age in order to better evaluate the longer-term effects of openness on adoptees.
They further suggested that longitudinal research of adopted children needs to be
done in order to gain a better understanding of the impact that open adoption has on
their development over time.
Although the degree, or level, of openness in open adoption practices have
been investigated in terms of how different levels effect adopted children, there are
still aspects of open adoption practices that other researchers have investigated.
Research Investigating Changes in Open Adoptions
The degree of openness of an adoption can change over time. The impact of
such changes on adopted children has been investigated in a few studies.
Siegel (2003), for instance, found that over this 7 year period, that changes in
open adoptions occurred in 4 areas: a) the type of contact (by letter, through
photographs, by telephone, through an intermediary or directly, or through visits on
neutral contact (before, after or before and after placement); and d) whom had
contact. Her findings were that "no two situations were alike, since permutations
38
varied along a continuum on all four of these variables. Changes in openness over
time took the form of expansion or contraction on each dimension" (pp. 413). This
study, therefore, found that open adoptions do change over time. And, other studies
have also investigated these changes, and had similar findings.
Frasch, Brooks, and Barth (2000), for instance, investigated openness and
contact in 231 foster care adoptions. They measured amount of contact between
adoptive family members and biological family members three times (at 2 years 4
years, and 8 years post-placement). They found that contact between adoptive
parents and biological family members decreased in the 2 years post-placement, yet
stabilized at the fourth and then eighth post-placement years. Moreover, contact
between adoptees and their biological parents was uncommon 2 years post
placement and remain as such even four years later. However, eight-years post
placement, contact with other biological family members was greater, with 20
percent of adoptees had contact with a biological family member other than their
parents.
Berry, Dylla Cavazos, Barth, and Needell (1998) also used the same data as
Frasch, et al. (2000) to evaluate questionnaire responses from 764 non-foster
adoptive parents in their first and fourth year of adoption. These families were
primarily Caucasian, the majority of adopted children had been infants at the time of
placement, and most of the adoptions were through independent adoption agencies.
The data received from the questionnaires indicated that 68 percent of the families
initially planned to have contact with the birth families, yet only 54 percent
39
continued to during the 2 years prior to follow-up. For those families who did have
contact, 37 percent had personal contact, 79 percent had mail contacts, and 55
percent had contact over the phone. For those adoptive families who did have
contact, the manner of contact was personal contact (3 7% ), mail contact (79% ), and
phone contact (55%). For those adoptive families who had contact with the birth
families during the first few years after the adoption took place, 14 percent no longer
had any contact, and 30 percent had less frequent contact, while only 4 percent had
an increase in contact. Two percent of adoptive parents in closed adoptions had
been in contact with their adoptive child's birth parents.
That study also examined the adopted child's academic performance and
behavior problems, as well as many family characteristics. The data indicated that
there were no differences in adoptees' measured outcomes in open or closed
adoptions, or in families in open or closed adoptions. In fact, most of the adoptees
and families were adjusting well to the adoption. This suggests that there is not
much short-term advantage or disadvantage for either type of adoption. The only
difference found was that parents in open adoption were more likely to accept their
differences as adoptive parents, and less likely to think of themselves as the only
parents of the child.
The results of these studies indicate that the frequency of contact between the
birth families and adoptive families changes over time. However, the relationship
that these changes in frequency have with adopted children's behavior was not
investigated. And, the longer-term consequences that changes in the frequency of
40
contact for adopted children remains unknown. Further, although these studies look
at the change in frequency of contact among adoptive and birth parents, they do not
take into account possible changes in type of contact (i.e. in person, mail, phone, etc)
that occurred between the adoptive and birth families, and how, if there is a change,
that this change might affect adopted children's behaviors.
Conclusions
The debate regarding which adoption practice, open or closed, is in the best
interests of adopted children is unresolved for several reasons. One is the dearth of
'-·--'"1·-'l..t.:· .
empirical research that specifically or adequately investigates the effects of open and
closed adoption on adopted children. Although there are plenty of opinions and
theories regarding which adoption practice is in the best interests of adopted
children, there is a definite lack of empirical research that fully support any of them.
Although some research has specifically investigated the effects of open and
closed adoption practices on adopted children, these studies have several
methodological problems,~ their findings are not helpful in resolving the debate. \
-- --~-.)
For instance, there lacks empirical research investigating the effects of open
adoption on adoptees across time. This is partially due to the fact that open adoption
is a relatively novel concept, and did not becoming more commonplace until the late
1980s. Additionally, there has~ot been enough research done that with samples
sufficiently large and diverse to be able to generalize the findings. Furthermore,
open adoption practices often are fluid in nature, with the frequency and type of
contact that occurs between the birth and adoptive families changing with time, there
41
is no longitudinal research that has adequately investigated how these changes affect
adopted children. For these reasons, there is a ~~k of empirical evidence that
L-
clearly depicts which practice truly is in the best interest of the child (Reitz &
Watson, 1992}:)Thus, more research, especially longitudinal research, must be done.
,,
/
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to address the question of whether type of adoption
(open versus closed) differentially predicted adoptees' behavioral outcomes. Most
research on this topic has been flawed methodologically, cross-sectional (versus
longitudinal), or have employed small sample sizes. This study was developed to
address those methodological concerns. Specifically, it employs a large,
longitudinally data base to contrast these two adoption types. As well, it examined
phenomena that have not previously been the subject of inquiry: ,lli~ relationships
among the changes in the type of contact, level of contact, amount of contact, and
frequency of contact between adoptive family members and birth family members
and adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
Research Questions
In addressing the following questions, behavioral outcomes were measured
by adoptive parents' rating of their adopted children on the Behavior Problem
Inventory (BPI; Peterson & Zill, 1986). The BPI yields ratings of the following
types of children's behaviors: a) antisocial; b) anxious/depressed; c) headstrong; d)
hyperactive; e) immature dependency; and f) peer conflict/social withdrawal.
The following six questions were the focus of this study:
42
I. Does type of adoption (open versus closed) differentially predict changes in
adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
2. In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between the number of
contacts adoptees have with their birth parents and changes in their
behavioral outcomes over time?
3. In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between amount of mail,
phone, and in person contact that the adoptive parents have with the birth
parents and changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
4. In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between adoptee and
adoptive parents' contact with other biological family members and change
in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
5. In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between changes in the
frequency of contact among adoptive family members and birth family
members and changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
6. In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between changes in the
level of contact between the adoptive parents and birth parents and changes
in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
CHAPTER II
METHOD
This chapter presents information regarding the participants, the measures,
and the procedure used in this study.
Participants
43
Participants were the 410 families who responded to all 3 waves of the
survey, and adopted infants. Of these families, 299 (72.9%) participated in an open
adoption, whereas 103 (25 .1%) participated in a closed adoption. The vast majority
of the returned surveys (83.4%) were completed by adoptive mothers; 16.3 percent
were completed by adoptive fathers. The adopted children are primarily Caucasian
(86.6%), with the remainder being Hispanic (17.6%), Asian (8.3%), African
American (6.1%), Native American (4.9%), and the remainder of some other race
(2.9%). The adoptive parents who completed the surveys also were primarily
Caucasian (93.4%) and 88.8 percent of the respondents' spouses also being
Caucasian. As a group, the adoptive parents were highly educated, with 66.5
percent of the respondents and 63.9 percent of their spouses having at least a four
year college education.
Most (55.6%) of the adoptions were done independently, whereas 23.2
percent were done through a private adoption agency, 20.5 percent through a public
adoption agency, and .5 percent through and international placement agency.
44
Instruments
Respondents completed three questionnaires: One at two years post-adoption
(1990); a second one at five years post-adoption (1993); and a third at eight years
post-adoption (1996). Although the content of the questionnaires varied across time,
the purpose in each case was to assess a variety of aspects of adoption and of the
adoptive family. The following types of data were gathered: a) child and adoptive
parent information (health status, problems, demographics); b) adoptive family
constellation and support; c) the decision to adopt; d) knowledge of the child's
background; e) knowledge of the adoptee's biological family (including contact with
and opinions of them); f) the adoption process; g) the child's placement (including
pre and post placement services and preparation); h) the child's school performance;
i) the adoptive family's lifestyle and rules; j) a child behavioral problem inventory;
k) foster parent adoptions; 1) intercountry adoptions; m) transracial adoptions; m)
satisfaction with the adoption; and n) comparison of the adoption experience with
expectations (Frasch, Brooks, & Barth, 2000).
Data for the present investigation were limited to those from the categories
of (1) the adoption process and, (2) the child behavioral problem inventory. The
specific data used in this study are described in the material that follows.
The Adoption Process
Openness
For this study, status of the adoption (open versus closed) was based on the
adoptive parents' report. This was in response to a question on the first survey.
Type and Amount of Contact
In each of the three questionnaires they completed, adoptive parents were
asked to indicate with a response of yes or no if they had contact in any form with
either birth parent since the last time they received a questionnaire. Adoptive
parents who responded with yes were then asked to fill in the number of times that
they had: a) contact by mail; b) contact by phone; or c) contact in person.
Level of Contact
45
Using the information adoptive parents provided in the same question
described above, the level of contact between adoptive parents and birth parents was
determined. The different types of contact were coded such that 1 =contact by mail,
2 =contact by phone and 3 =contact in person. The higher number indicates a more
personal level of contact between the adoptive families and the birth families,
whereas a lower number indicates a lower level of personal contact. Adoptive
parents who responded that they had multiple types of contact received a single
score, which reflected the highest level of contact that they had with the birth
parents.
Frequency of Contact
In the initial (1990) questionnaire, adoptive parents were asked to indicate
with a yes or no response whether there had been any contact between them and the
birth parents. Those parents who responded with yes, then were asked to indicate
how many times this contact had occurred. In the following surveys, adoptive
parents were asked if the frequency of contact between them and the birth parents
46
changed during the last time since the previous survey. Parents were given the
following choices for their responses: 0 =no change; 1 =more frequent; 2= less
frequent; and 3 =stopped altogether. The change in the frequency of contact
between adoptive parents and birth parents was therefore determined by the adoptive
parents' responses to these questions.
Adoptive parents also were asked to indicate with a yes or no response if
their adopted child had any contact with their birth parents. If the response was yes,
then the adoptive parents also were asked to indicate the number of times that this
contact had occurred since placement. The frequency of contact between the
adopted child and the birth parents was determined from the responses provided.
Adoptee's Behavioral Outcomes
The Behavior Problem Inventory
Each of the three mailings included the Behavior Problems Index (BPI)
(Peterson & Zill, 1986). (Please refer to Appendix A for a complete list of the
questions asked in this assessment). The BPI was derived from the Achenbach
Behavior Problems Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981 ), and was designed to
evaluate children's behavior problems in large-scale interview surveys (Lara
Cinisomo & Pebley, 2003), ideally for children ages 4-17 (Zill, 1985). It has been
used in several national surveys such as the National Survey of Children, the
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and the National Longitudinal Survey or
Youth's 1979 cohort (NLSY79) (Moore, Halle, Vandivere, Mariner, 2002).
47
Three response categories ("often true," "sometimes true," and "not true") are
used in the questionnaire, but responses to the individual items were dichotomized
and summed to produce an index score for each child. Each item answered "often"
or "sometimes true" were given a score of one, and each item answered "not true"
was given a score of zero. The index has an overall mean of 6.6 and a standard
deviation of 5.4 for children age 4-11. Factor analysis of the 28 items has produced
six behavioral subscales: a) antisocial; b) anxious/depressed; c) headstrong; d)
hyperactive; e) immature dependency; and f) peer conflict/social withdrawal. Scores
for each of these behavioral dimensions range from 3 to 6 points each (Berry,
Cavazos Dylla, Barth, & Needell, 1998). Lower scores on this inventory indicate
less behavior problems, whereas higher scores indicate more behavior problems.
Normed data scores have been produced for the BPI based on the 1981 NHIS
data. Two independent samples have evidenced the BPI's internal reliability to be
comparable. In the 1981 NHIS, Cronbach's alpha's were .89 for children, and .91
for adolescents, and Cronbach's alpha's in the 1990 NLSY79 were .88 for children
both "never in school", and "ever in school" (Moore et. al, 2002). And, the
Cronbach's alpha coefficients were found to be similar for the BPI across the 1986,
1988, and 1990 NLSY79 samples (Baker, Keck, Mott, & Quinlan, 1993). The strong
relationship between BPI scores and a variety of social and demographic variables in
the NLSY79 sample is seen as evidence of the BPI's construct validity (Dubow and
Luster, 1990).
48
In order to assess a more specified understanding of adoptees' behavioral
functioning, each of the six individual subscale scores, rather than the overall BPI
score, are used in this investigation. In previous studies, children's overall
behavioral outcomes have tended to be the focus of investigation. However,
because one of the main purposes of this study was to help adoption professionals to
better understand and work with adoptive families, more specific information, such
as can be derived thorough analyzing the six subscales, is seen as more useful in
understanding how to achieve this purpose.
Attrition Across Waves of the Study
Attrition analyses have been conducted to determine whether the respondents
to the last questionnaire differed significantly from those respondents to the first and
second questionnaires. Simmel, Brooks, Barth, and Hinshaw (200 1 ), for instance,
conducted a logistic regression analysis of the 8 variables from the second
questionnaire. Their only significant finding was that those parents who indicated
that their adoption was open at the time of placement were 1.2 times less likely to
respond to the questionnaire (p<.05). Their conclusion based on this analysis was
that because the selection bias was minimal in the third questionnaire, they did not
believe that the difference between the rates of openness at the time of placement
would have a significant impact on the results of their investigation.
Similarly, in this investigation, although there may exist a small variance
across waves in response to whether a child is considered to have an open versus
closed adoption, these changes were not considered to significantly impact the
results.
Procedure
49
Between July 1988 and June 1989, 2, 589 children were placed for adoption
in California. The adoptive parents of these children were contacted by their social
workers to ask if they would participate in the California Long-Range Adoption
Study (CLAS). They were informed this participation would involve being
contacted approximately once every three to five years by mail or in person, and
asked about a variety of aspects of their family life, as well as about the life of their
adopted child. A total of2,238 (86%) families agreed to participate. Of those, the
2,058 who had complete address information were mailed questionnaires in mid
May, 1990. From this mailing, 1,268 (62%) adoptive parents completed and
returned questionnaires about their 1,396 adopted children two years post-placement
(Frasch, Brooks, & Barth, 2000).
Four years post-placement, in 1993, participants completed a second, mailed
questionnaire. Of those adopted children studied in the first wave, 1,059 (76%)
were followed up first with the second wave. Then in 1997, at eight years post
placement, participants from both previous waves were contacted and mailed
questionnaires. At this time, there also was an attempt to contact those adoptive
parents who initially (in 1988-1989) had expressed willingness to participate in the
CLAS study, but had not yet done so. A total of 1,455 questionnaires were sent to
those adoptive parents for whom mailing address information was available. Of
those questionnaires sent, 61 percent were sent back completed, providing
information for 888 adopted children. Of those adopted children, 679 ( 49% ), also
had completed questionnaires from the first two waves (Frasch, Brooks, & Barth,
2000).
This study employed a subset of the CLAS data from those three waves.
50
Two criteria were used in selecting this subset. The fust criterion was that the
families of those adopted children had completed questionnaires from all three
waves (n= 679 families). The second criterion was that the families had adopted
infants (which reduced the sample for this study to 410 families). To have included
children who had been adopted from foster care, after infancy, or by a biological
relative would have introduced possible confounds. In particular, it is possible that
those children could (a) have been subjected to prior abuse or trauma and/or (b) have
prior knowledge of and relationships with their birth families. Either of these could
affect these adoptees' behavioral functioning.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
51
This chapter provides the descriptive data of the variables in this study,
including means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations. Results from the
repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) and hierarchical
multiple regression analyses for the six major research questions are presented.
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses
The variable of interest in this study was adoption status (open versus closed)
as a predictor of child behavior. Reasonably, though, family environment factors
might confound interpretation of any obtained findings. Thus, several factors were
examined in order to rule out that possibility.
With respect to education and family income (see Tables 1 and 2), the groups
seemed essentially equivalent. There was however, a greater proportion of the
fathers in the open adoption condition who had at least a college degree (70.94
percent versus 52.69 percent for fathers in the closed adoption condition). This may
account for the higher proportion of open adoption parents who made $70,000 or
more (24.90 percent versus 15.79 percent). Interestingly, however, among the
mothers, more of those in the closed adoption condition had at least some college
degree.
In relation to adoption history's by status (see Table 3), there were some
expected findings. For instance, slightly more open adoption parents had been foster
parents (9 %) or were related to the child (3%) than the parent in the closed condition
52
(0 % in each case). Also unsurprising was that open adoptions were much more
likely than closed to have been arranged independently (51.2% versus 15.5%).
Table 1
Parents' Education Level
Mother Father
Closed Open Closed Open
Eighth grade or less 1.53 1.10 0 0
Some high school 23.66 8.79 1.89 0
High school graduate 36.26 23.08 4.91 12.90
Some college 25.57 38.46 22.26 34.41
College graduate 8.02 23.08 35.85 29.03
Post graduate degree 4.96 5.49 35.09 23.66
Note: Data are expressed in percentages.
Table 2
R dF ·z l eporte amuy ncome
Open Closed
Below $40,000 20.83 29.82
$40,000 to $49,999 16.67 15.79
$50,000 to $59,999 18.75 22.81
$60,000 to $69,999 16.67 17.54
$70,000 to $89,999 10.42 8.77
$90,000 and above 14.58 7.02
Note: Data are expressed m percentages.
Table 3
Adoption History's by Status
Open Adoption Closed
Adoption
Was a foster parent 9 0
Was related to the child 3 0
Independent Adoption 51.2 15.5
Note: Data are expressed in percentages.
The adoptees' behaviors were determined using the six subscales of the
Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI). The means, standard deviations, and
correlations of all the variables for the overall sample are presented in Table 4.
53
Table 4
Means, Standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson product correlations for measured variables
Variables M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Type of Adoption .09 .09 .06 .06 -.01 .15*
1990 2. Antisocial 1.06 1.13 .38••• .58••• .48••• .38••• .so•••
3. Anxious/Depressed 1.04 .90 .so••• .38••• .42••• .28•••
4. Headstrong 2.19 1.52 .58••• .56••• .38•••
5. Hyperactivity 1.72 1.36 .46••• .39•••
6. Immature 1.68 1.17 .24•••
7. Withdrawal .34 .63
1993 8. Antisocial 1.68 1.52
9. Anxious/Depressed 1.36 1.12
10. Headstrong 2.59 1.58
11. Hyperactivity 1.83 1.42
12. Immature 1.90 1.24
13. Withdrawal .56 .79
1996 14. Antisocial 1.42 1.65
15. Anxious/Depressed 1.84 1.66
16. Headstrong 2.44 1.80
17. Hyperactivity 1.92 1.66
18. Immature 1.21 1.24
19. Withdrawal .72 1.00
Table 4 (continued)
Means, Standard Deviations, And Zero-Order Pearson Product Correlations fjr Measured Variables
Variables 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Type of Adoption -.01 .09 .01 .07 .04 .05 .00 .11* .06
1990 2. Antisocial .56*** .40*** .40*** .43*** .20** .36*** .37*** .29*** .36***
3. Anxious/Depressed .28*** .49*** .27*** .22** .26*** .23** .18*** .22*** .23**
4. Headstrong .46*** .41••• .57*** .41*** .31*** .32*** .38*** .41*** .54***
5. Hyperactivity .42*** .28••• .44*** .57*** .19** .30*** .29*** .33*** .38***
6. Immature .29*** .30••• .36*** .36*** .37*** .16* .23*** .24*** .27***
7. Withdrawal .34*** .25*** .30*** .30*** .06 .44*** .16* .22** .19**
1993 8. Antisocial
--
.45*** .56*** .53*** .33*** .54*** .58*** .37*** .so•••
9. Anxious/Depressed
-- .43*** .39*** .43*** .42*** .26*** .38*** .34***
10. Headstrong
--
.53*** .40*** .44••• .42*** .40*** .57***
11. Hyperactivity
--
.38*** .44*** .42*** .36*** .42***
12. Immature
-- .33*** .16** .28*** .25***
13. Withdrawal
--
.33*** .30*** .34***
1996 14. Antisocial
-- .49*** .65***
15. Anxious/Depressed
-- .67***
16. Headstrong
-
17. Hyperactivity
18. Immature
19. Withdrawal
Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1: Type of Adoption (1 =open, 2 =closed);* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
17
.09
.40***
.22**
.38***
.38•••
.20**
.18**
.46•••
.28***
.43***
.53•••
.24•••
.29***
.59•••
.60•••
.67•••
--
18
.08
.24***
.14*
.37***
.29***
.31***
.11
.29***
.26***
.33***
.35***
.37***
.19***
.40***
.62***
.56**
.58***
--
19
-.01
.37***
.22**
.39***
.29***
.23**
.30***
.51***
.29***
.40***
.37***
.18***
.39***
.67***
.57***
.60***
.59***
.43***
VI
~
55
Type of adoption was significantly correlated with BPI Peer Conflict/Social
Withdrawal subscale reported in 1990 (r = .15,p = .03) and BPI Anxious/Depressed
subscale reported in 1996 (r = .11,p = .04), which indicate that those adoptees from
closed adoption were perceived by the parent who completed the surveys to have
more behavior problems in the area of Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal two years
after adoption (1990) and in the area of Anxious/Depressed eight years after
adoption (1996). Significant correlations among the subscales were found within
each surveyed year. Significant correlations were also found between the same
subscales measured in three different years.
Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1
Does type of adoption (open versus closed) differentially predict changes in
adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
To address that question, 2 (type of adoption) X 3 (repeated measures for
time) MANOVAs were conducted. Descriptive results are presented in Table 5.
Results from multivariate tests showed that effect ofbetween-group (type of
adoption) was significant, Wilks' A= .94, F (6, 203) = 2.21,p < .05, and the within
group effect (time) was also significant, Wilks' A= .50, F (12, 197) = 16.16,p < .00.
However, there was no interaction effect between type of adoption and behavior
outcome change over time. These results suggested that the adoptees behavioral
outcomes are different based on their type of adoption, and their behavioral
56
outcomes also change over time. However, their behavioral outcome change did not
change in different ways.
In follow-up univariate tests, possible between group differences were
examined in the specific areas of behavioral outcomes. On average, those adoptees
in open adoption were rated lower on the Anxious/Depressed, F (1, 208) = 6.58,p <
.05, and the Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal, F (1, 208) = 5.63, p < .05 scales.
When time was the salient factor, regardless of type of adoption, adoptees
were reported to have significant changes on the Antisocial, F (1.91, 396.62) =
18.75,p < .00, Anxious/Depressed feelings, F (1.65, 342.83) = 43.08,p < .00,
Headstrong, F(l.95, 404.71) = 4.12,p < .05, Immature, F(2, 416) = 14.20,p < .00,
and Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal, F (1.89, 392.77) = 17.44,p < .00 scales.
More specifically, in the area of Antisocial behavioral outcomes, adoptees
had significantly more problems in both 1993 and1996 then they had in 1990.; but
fewer problems in 1996 than in 1993. In the area of Anxious/Depressed behavioral
outcomes, there were significant increases between every surveyed year. In other
words, adoptees had significantly more problems in 1993 than in 1990 and more in
1996 than in 1993.
In the area of Headstrong behavioral outcomes, even though the changes
between 1990 and 1993 were significant, changes between 1993 and 1996 were not.
This suggests that adoptees had significantly more problems in 1993 than in
1990; however, they did not have any significant changes after 1993.
57
Adoptees showed no changes on the Immature behavioral scale between
1990 and 1993, but scores on this measure dropped between 1993 and 1996.
Finally, changes in scores on the Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal scale were
similar to those of the Headstrong scale. Although there were no significant changes
between 1993 and 1996, the adoptees had significantly more problems in 1993 or
1996 than in 1990.
Table 5
Descrte,tive Statistics (mean and SD2 o[.BPI Subsca/es in Three Surv2ed Years!?.!;;: Tf.ee o[. Adoe,tion
Time
1 2 3
1990 1993 1996
M SD M SD M SD
Open Antisocial .98 1.07 1.69 1.49 1.42 1.65
Anxious/Depressed .97 .80 1.30 1.08 1.76 1.63
Headstrong 2.12 1.47 2.59 1.56 2.39 1.79
Hyperactivity 1.68 1.27 1.78 1.40 1.84 1.67
Immature 1.70 1.15 1.88 1.22 1.17 1.29
Withdrawal .28 .57 .54 .76 .73 .99
Closed Antisocial 1.20 1.24 1.64 1.65 1.42 1.63
Anxious/Depressed 1.15 1.03 1.51 1.20 2.17 1.72
Headstrong 2.31 1.62 2.63 1.64 2.64 1.80
Hyperactivity 1.85 1.62 2.02 1.50 2.18 1.61
Immature 1.67 1.22 1.98 1.29 1.39 1.10
Withdrawal .49 .74 .63 .90 .71 1.02
Overall Antisocial 1.06 1.13 1.68 1.52 1.42 1.65 2>3>1
Anxious/Depressed 1.04 .90 1.36 1.12 1.84 1.66 3>2>1
Headstrong 2.19 1.52 2.59 1.58 2.44 1.80 2, 3 > 1
Hyperactivity 1.72 1.36 1.83 1.42 1.92 1.66 n.s.
Immature 1.68 1.17 1.90 1.24 1.21 1.24 1, 2 > 3
Withdrawal .34 .63 .56 .79 .72 1.00 2, 3 > 1
Note: All scores are scaled scores
58
Research Question 2
In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between the number of contacts
adoptees have with their birth parents and changes in their behavioral outcomes
over time?
For this question, only data from the 299 families involved in open adoptions
were considered. Two sets of six hierarchical multiple regression analyses were
conducted. The first set examined possible relationships between the number of
contacts adoptees have with their birth parents and changes in their behavioral
outcomes from 1990 to 1993, with the six subscales of BPI in 1993, each serving as
a DV. Behavioral outcomes in 1990 were entered first, and the number of contact
adoptees have with their birth parents was entered next.
Another six hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to
examine possible relationships between the number of contacts adoptees had with
their birth parents and changes in their behavioral outcome from 1993 to 1996, with
the six subscales of BPI in 1996 each serving as a DV. Behavioral outcomes in
1993 were entered first, and the number of contacts adoptees had with their birth
parents were entered next. Summaries of results are provided in Tables 6 and 7.
Results indicated that adoptees level of contact with birth parents between
1990 and 1993 did not significantly predict their changes in behavioral outcome
between 1990 and 1993; neither did their contact between 1993 and 1996
significantly predict changes in behavioral outcome between 1993 and 1996 in any
areas.
59
Table 6
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Adoptee's Contact with Birth Parents and
Behavioral Chan e om 1990 to 1993
Variables Change Fchange p p
Antisocial 93
Antisocial 90** * .28 20.97 .53 .00
Contact .00 .09 -.04 .76
Anxious/Depressed 93
Anxious/Depressed 90*** .14 8.19 .37 .01
Contact .02 .89 -.12 .35
Headstrong 93
Headstrong 90*** .28 21.40 .53 .00
Contact .03 1.91 -.16 .17
Hyperactivity 93
Hyperactivity 90*** .31 24.02 .56 .00
Contact .02 1.22 .13 .27
Immature 93
Immature 90*** .18 11.53 .42 .00
Contact .02 1.00 .13 .32
Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal 93
Withdrawal 90 .51 2.86 .23 .10
Contact .00 .20 .06 .66
Note. * p < .05; "'* p < .01; *** p < .001
Table 7
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Adoptee's Contact with Birth Parents and
Behavioral Chan e om 1993 to 1996
Variables Change Fchange p p
Antisocial 96
Antisocial93*** .40 109.63 .58 .00
Contact .00 1.00 .06 .32
Anxious/Depressed 96
Anxious/Depressed 93*** .14 35.78 .38 .00
Contact .00 .08 .02 .78
Headstrong 96
Headstrong 93*** .31 93.83 .55 .00
Contact .00 .72 .05 .40
Hyperactivity 96
Hyperactivity 93*** .22 58.74 .46 .00
Contact .00 .06 .01 .81
Immature 96
Immature 93*** .13 32.45 .36 .00
Contact .00 .00 -.00 .99
Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal 96
Withdrawal93*** .13 32.83 .36 .00
Contact .00 .00 -.00 .99
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *"'* p < .001
60
In addition, adoptee's behavioral outcomes in 1990 significantly predicted
their behavioral outcomes in 1993 in the areas of Antisocial, Anxious/Depressed,
Headstrong, Hyperactivity, and Immature. In other words, those adoptees who had
more behavioral outcome problems in the area of antisocial behaviors in 1990 also
had more problems with antisocial behaviors in 1993. The only behavioral outcome
area in 1990 that was not predictive of behavioral outcomes in 1993 was in the area
of Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal. When examining the relationship between the
behavioral outcomes reported in 1993 and 1996, results indicated that behavioral
outcomes in 1993 significantly predicted those in 1993 for all six areas measured. In
other words, those adoptees who had more antisocial behaviors in 1993 also had
more antisocial behaviors in 1996. This predictive relationship between behaviors
reported in 1993 and 1996 were true across all six areas.
Research Question 3
In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between amount of mail, phone,
and in person contact that the adoptive parents have with the birth parents and
changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
To address this question, two sets of six hierarchical multiple regressions
were conducted . The first set of regression analysis examined the behavioral
changes from 1990 to 1993. Each hierarchical multiple regression took one area of
behavioral outcome reported in 1993 as the DV (e.g., Antisocial behavior in 1993),
the same area of behavioral outcome reported in 1990 as the first IV to be entered
into the regression (e.g., Antisocial behavior in 1990), and the number of mail,
61
telephone, and in-person contact between 1990 and 1993 were entered into the
regression next. A total of six hierarchical multiple regression analyses were
administered in the first set, each addressing one area of behavioral outcome
(Antisocial, Anxious/Depressed, Headstrong, Hyperactivity, Immature, Peer
Conflict/Social Withdrawal). The second set of regression analyses examined the
behavioral changes from 1993 to 1996. Similar to the first set, each hierarchical
multiple regression took one area of behavioral outcome reported in 1996 as the DV,
the same area of behavioral outcome reported in 1993 as the first IV to be entered
into the regression, and the number of mail, telephone, and in-person contact
between 1993 and 1996 were entered into the regression next.
For behavioral outcome changes from 1993 to 1996, the six areas of
behavioral outcomes in 1996 were DV s, behavioral outcomes in 1993 were entered
first, and the number of mail, telephone, and in person contacts between 1993 and
1996 were entered next. Results revealed that the number of adoptive parents'
contact with birth parents through mail, telephone, and in person did not predict
changes in behavioral outcomes from 1990 to 1996, or from 1993 to 1996, after
Bonferroni corrections for significance values. The p value is set to .05/6 = .008
because six regression analyses were conducted for behavioral outcomes changes
from 1990 to 1993, and from 1993 to 1996.
It is interesting to note, however, that the relationship between changes in
level of Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal from 1990 to 1996 and the number of
adoptive parents' contact with birth parents were close to be significant, F change
62
(3, 93) = 3.64,p = .016, K change= .093. More specifically, adoptive parents'
contact via mail, p = .478,p = .007, via telephone, P = -.385,p = .034, and via in
person, p = .242,p = .020, were related to changes in adoptees' levels of Peer
Conflict/Social Withdrawal from 1990 to 1993, although the variances explained
were not significant, after Bonferroni correction. These results suggest that the
higher number of mail and in person contact and the lower number of telephone
contact adoptive parents have with birth parents between 1990 and 1993 was related
to increases in adoptee's behavioral outcomes in Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal
from 1990 to 1993; however, the changes due to these factors were not significant.
Research Question 4
In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between adoptee and adoptive
parents' contact with other biological family members and change in adoptees'
behavioral outcomes over time?
To address the question of a possible relationship between adoptee and
adoptive parents' contact with other biological family members and changes in
adoptee's behavioral outcomes over time, two sets of2 (time) X 2 (the person in
contact with the biological family members: adoptee versus adoptive parents)
MANOV As were conducted with the six behavioral outcomes as DV s. In the first
set, time was 1990 versus 1993; in the second, it was 1993 versus 1996). Results
are presented in Table 8.
63
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics (mean and SD) of Changes in Behavioral Outcomes by Contact with Other
Biolo&ica/ F amil[. Members
Time
1 2
1990 1993
M SD M SD
Overall Antisocial .98 1.07 1.69 1.49 2>1
Anxious/Depressed .97 .80 1.30 1.08 2>1
Headstrong 2.12 1.47 2.59 1.56 2>1
Hyperactivity 1.68 1.27 1.78 1.40
Immature 1.70 1.15 1.88 1.22
Withdrawal .28 .57 .54 .76 2>1
Time
1 2
1993 1996
M SD M SD
Overall Antisocial 1.69 1.49 1.42 1.65
Anxious/Depressed 1.30 1.08 1.76 1.63 2>1
Headstrong 2.59 1.56 2.39 1.79
Hyperactivity 1.78 1.40 1.84 1.67
Immature 1.88 1.22 1.17 1.29 1>2
Withdrawal .54 .76 .73 .99
Note. All scores are scaled scores
From 1990 to 1993
Results from the multivariate tests showed no main effect of the between-
subject variable of party in contact with biological parents. Neither was there an
interaction effect. There was, however, a significant effect for the within subject
variable oftime. Wilks' A.= .63, F (6, 73) = 7.20,p < .00. Follow-up univariate
tests revealed significant increases on the Antisocial F (1, 78) = 22.2l,p < .00,
Anxious/Depressed, F (1,78)=16.80, p<.OO, Headstrong, F (1, 78) = 10.25,p < .01,
and in the area of Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal, F (1, 78) = 8.19,p < .01 scales.
64
From 1993 to 1996
As with the 1990-1993 analyses, no main effect was obtained for the
between-subject factor (adoptee's contact with other biological family members,
versus adoptive parents contact with other biological family members) neither was
there an interaction between time and between-subject factors. But, as before,
changes over time was significant, Wilks' A.= .72, F (6, 208) = 13.64,p < .00.
Follow-up univariate tests revealed a significant increase on the Anxious/Depressed,
F (1, 213) = 16.58,p < .00, and a significant decrease on the Peer Conflict/Social
Withdrawal scale, F (1, 213) = 26.10,p < .00.
Research Question 5
In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between changes in the
frequency of contact among adoptive family members and birth family members and
changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time?
To address this question, two sets of one-way repeated measures MANOV As
were conducted with six areas ofbehavioral outcomes as DVs, times as the within
subject variable (1990 and 1993 in the first set, and 1990 and 1996 in the second
set), and changes in frequency of contact as the between-subject factor (no change,
less frequent, more frequent, and stopped contact). Results from the multivariate
tests showed again that even though there were significant changes in adoptees
behavioral outcomes overtime, as discussed before, the effects of changes in
frequency of contact among adoptive and birth family members was not significant.
65
Research Question 6
In the case of open adoption, is there a relationship between changes in the level of
contact between the adoptive parents and birth parents and changes in adoptees'
behavioral outcomes over time?
To address this question two sets of 2 (time) X 3 (level of contact: less
intimate, no change, more intimate) MANOVAs were conducted with six areas of
behavioral outcomes as DV s. Time for the first MANOV A was 1990 versus 1993,
for the second, it was 1990 versus 1996. If adoptive parents reported the highest
level of contact was via mail in 1990 and the highest level of contact was via
telephone in 1993, the change in the level of contact is considered to be more
intimate.
As before, results again showed the same significant changes in adoptees'
behavioral outcomes over time. However, there was no main effect for level of
contact; neither was there an interaction effect.
Additional Analyses
The preceding material addressed the research questions that drove this
study. In order to obtain information that would have added interpretive value,
additional analyses were conducted.
Between-Group and Gender Differences by Year
While being male has been associated with having behavioral problems
distinct from those associated with being female (Andrews, Goldberg, Wellen,
Pittman, & Struening, 1995; Crick, & Grotpeter, 1995; Newcom, Halperin, Arnold,
66
Abikoff, & Cantwell, et al., 2001; Smith & Howard, 1999), previous research
investigating between-gender differences in behavioral outcomes to adoption (Barth
& Brooks, 1997; Bimmel, Juffer, van Ijzendoom, & Bakermans-Kranenberg, 2003;
Collishaw, Maughan, & Pickles, 1998; Fiegelman, 1997) have had contradictory,
and therefore inconclusive, findings. Considering this, in addition to Research
Question 1, which examined changes in behavioral scores (as per the BPI) in
adoptees over time based on the status of adoption (closed vs. open), a reasonable
alternative question is whether there are between-group (adoption status) and gender
differences or the interaction of the two in behavioral outcomes measured at
different time after the adoption. To answer this question, three Two-Way
MANOVAs were run, one for each wave, with six areas of behavioral functioning as
DVs for 1990 and 1993, and with overall adjustment as a seventh DV for 1996. In
each case, the independent variables were adoption status (open vs. closed) and
gender (male vs. female). The results of this analysis and the descriptive statistics
by gender are summarized in Table 9.
In 1990, no interaction effect between adoption status and gender. No
significant main effect differences were found based on gender or adoptive status,
Wilks' A= .992, F (6, 209) = .267,p > .05; Wilks' A= .979, F (6, 209) = .764,p >
.05, and Wilks' A= .971, F (6, 209) = 1.048,p > .05, for interaction, gender, and
adoption status respectively.
67
Table 9
Descrie,tive Statistics (mean and SD2 oL Behavioral Outcomes b.;!:: Gender
Open Ado~tion Closed Ado~tion
Male Female Male Female
M SD M SD M SD M SD
1990 Antisocial 1.15 1.17 .85 .99 1.28 1.26 1.13 1.23
Anxious/Depressed 1.06 .89 .91 .73 1.25 1.16 1.04 .81
Headstrong 2.24 1.41 2.10 1.51 2.44 1.66 2.21 1.53
Hyperactivity 1.79 1.32 1.60 1.23 2.00 1.69 1.71 1.52
Immature 1.92 1.10 1.57 1.19 1.81 1.31 1.50 1.10
Withdrawal .29 .64 .29 .53 .56 .81 .42 .65
1993 Antisocial 1.84 1.53 1.53 1.43 1.59 1.76 1.76 1.52
Anxious/Depressed 1.29 1.04 1.31 1.12 1.55 1.29 1.49 1.08
Headstrong 2.54 1.55 2.70 1.57 2.79 1.68 2.49 1.56
Hyperactivity 1.92 1.41 1.67 1.38 2.12 1.53 1.91 1.49
Immature 2.01 1.27 1.78 1.15 1.98 1.26 2.00 1.36
Withdrawal .58 .79 .50 .73 .52 .88 .81 .91
1996
Antisocial 1.60 1.74 1.28 1.59 1.53 1.68 1.31 1.57
Anxious/Depressed 1.88 1.74 1.62 1.50 2.17 1.78 2.17 1.67
Headstrong 2.49 1.79 2.33 1.78 2.63 1.67 2.60 1.98
Hyperactivity 2.02 1.71 1.62 1.59 2.40 1.61 1.88 1.58
Immature 1.21 2.30 1.11 1.28 1.66 1.04 1.17 1.12
Withdrawal .85 1.03 .64 .95 .75 1.12 .69 .92
Overall Adjustment 4.27 .92 4.52 .76 4.04 1.07 4.36 .93
Note. All scores are scaled scores
In 1993, an interaction effect was found between adoptive status and gender,
Wilks' A= .963, F (6, 383) = .2.428,p < .05. Follow-up univariate analyses
revealed that male and female adoptees reported significantly different patterns of
withdrawal symptoms based on their adoptive status. More specifically, for males,
those who are in closed adoption reported fewer withdrawal symptoms than those
who are in open adoptive. However, for females, those who are in open adoption
reported fewer withdrawal symptoms than those who are in closed adoption. This
may suggest that male and female adoptees react differently to different type of
adoption, particularly in their withdrawal behavioral functioning. Figure 1
68
illustrates the interaction effect. No main effects were found. Wilks' A.= .983, F (6,
383) = .1.075,p > .05; and Wilks' A.= .983, F (6, 383) = 1.126,p > .05, for, gender
and adoption status respectively. In other words, gender or adoption status alone did
not effect adoptees' behavioral functioning in 1993.
Figure 1. Interaction Between Gender and Adoption Status on Withdrawal
Symptoms in 1993
Female
.578
········
········•
·······
····• Male
.517
.500
Open Closed
In 1996, no interaction or main effects were found, Wilks' A.= .984, F (7,
365) = .843, p > .05; Wilks' A.= .963, F (7, 365) = 2.013, p > .05, and Wilks' A.=
.968, F (7, 365) = 1.705,p > .05, for interaction, gender, and adoption status
respectively. It should be noted that the significance level of the main effect of
gender was very close to .05 (i.e., .043). Because this analysis is conducted after the
research are formatted and it is more exploratory in nature, follow-up univariate
analyses were conducted. Results of the univariate analyses revealed that male
adoptees reported more hyperactivity symptoms and immature symptoms than
female adoptees, F (1, 371) = 5.47,p < .05; F (1, 371) = 4.03,p > .05, respectively.
However, female adoptees reported more overall adjustment symptoms than their
male counterparts, F (1, 371) = 7.07,p < .01.
69
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter discusses the fmdings of the study, comparing the results with
previous research. As well, it addresses the fmdings' implications, the study's
limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Discussion
Research Question 1
The first research question asked if type of adoption (open versus closed)
would differentially predict changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
The results suggested that some of the adoptees' behavioral outcomes are different
based on their type of adoption, and their behavioral outcomes also change over
time. However, their behavioral outcome change did not change in different ways.
70
In comparison to their behavioral outcomes 2 years post-placement, adoptees
in both open and closed adoptions had significantly more antisocial, headstrong,
withdrawal, and anxious and depressive symptoms, and significantly less symptoms
of immaturity 5 and 8 years post-placement. In comparing adoptees' behavioral
outcomes between 5 and 8 years post-placement, adoptees were more antisocial and
immature 5 years post-placement. Thus, there is no interaction effect between time
and type of adoption. Results also indicate that although adoptees' behavioral
outcomes change in the same way across time, adoptees' behavioral outcomes were
significantly lower for those adoptees in closed adoption than for those adoptees in
open adoption in the areas of anxiety, depression, and withdrawal. Thus, in 3 of the
71
6 areas of behavior measured, adoptees in open adoption showed significantly lower
levels of symptoms, and in the other 3 of the 6 areas of behavior measured, there
were no significant differences.
Potential reasons for adoptees' behavioral changes over time could be due to
a common limitation of self-report measures: social desirability, whereby the
responder provides what he/she considers to be the socially-acceptable answer,
whether or not it is accurate (Johnson & Fendrich, 2002). Dalton (1994), for
instance, investigated the social desirability behavior of adoption applicants.
Adoption applicants were administered the MMPI and the Marlowe-Crowne social
desirability scale. Adoption applicants were found to be defensive and to present an
image ofvirtuousness and strong moral character. Dalton's interpretation of the
results was that "although it was possible that defensive people are more likely to
apply to adopt children, a more likely interpretation was that the screening process
for adopting a child creates a defensive attitude" (p. 865).
In this survey, then, adoptive parents, regardless of adoption type, may have
initially reported less behavior problems with their adopted children because they
had just recently been through the adoption process. Perhaps they felt that they were
still being evaluated for their ability to be good parents, and if their children were
well behaved, then they may believe that they would be perceived as good parents.
And, as time went on, and they were further removed from the adoption process and
being evaluated, perhaps they felt more able to be honest with the responses given,
which is why adoptees in both open and close adoption evidence more behavioral
symptoms over time.
72
Social desirability also could explain the differences in anxiety, depression,
and withdrawal seen in children in open and closed adoptions. Theorists have
postulated that adoptive parents in open adoption feel as if the birth parent is
watching over them, making sure they do an adequate job of raising their child
(Kraft, Palombo, Mitchell, Woods, & Schmidt, 1985b ). Findings from a study in
which adoptive parents were interviewed supported this theory. Sykes (2001) found
that adoptive parents reported feeling criticized, judged, and that they had to justify
their rearing practices to the birth parents, especially during initial contacts.
Accordingly, then, adoptive parents may erroneously rate their child as behaving
well because they feel they are being evaluated, and believe that if their child is
behaving well, then they will be seen as being good parents. Adoptive parents in
closed adoption may be more honest in their rating of their adoptee because they do
not feel the evaluative pressure that parents in open adoptions do. In short, it is
possible that there are not actual differences in adoptees' behaviors, but rather,
differences in the level of honesty with which adoptive parents report their adoptees'
behaviors.
Another potential reason for the differences found in behavioral outcomes
over time could reflect the developmental stages in which the adoptees were at the
time that the surveys were sent out. When the second and third surveys were sent
out, the adoptees were in a different developmental stage than when the first survey
73
was sent out. The adoptees were just entering the developmental stage of middle
childhood during the time that the second survey was sent out, and were in this still
in this developmental stage at the time that the third survey was sent out.
Typically, before children enter the stage of middle childhood, they define
family in terms of who is around them and who cares for them. However, during
middle childhood, children begin to understand that family is typically defined
through biological connections (Newman, Roberts, & Syre, 1993). As adopted
children start to realize that their family is different, and that their family is not
biologically connected, they typically express anxiety and confusion (Brodzinsky,
Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998). Also during this developmental stage, children are
developing logical reciprocity. And, for adopted children, this means that they are
now able to understand that in order to have been taken in by one family, they must
have been given up by one as well (Brodzinsky et. al, 1998). This is a realization
that leads to a sense of loss in the adoptee that is theoretically believed to be the
cause of increased psychological problems among adopted children in middle
childhood (Brodzinsky, 1990). And, although adoptees in this study evidenced
similar levels of anxiety and depression, headstrong, and withdrawal in the second
and third surveys, perhaps their having more antisocial and immature symptoms
during the second survey than in the third reflects the initial responses children have
to the new realizations they are having during this stage of development.
And, although fmdings from this investigation indicate that children in open
and closed adoptions have similar behavioral changes over time, on average,
74
children in open adoption reported fewer anxious, depressed and withdrawal
symptoms than did those children in closed adoption over time. Potential reasons for
this fmding could be that, in relation to developmental changes discussed above,
children in open adoption do not feel such a profound sense of loss because they
have not actually lost their birth parents. They are just not being raised by them.
And, since this sense of loss has been related to psychological problems, if children
in open adoptions do feel less of a sense ofloss, then this could explain why anxiety,
depression and withdrawal symptoms are greater for those adoptees in closed
adoption, because they do lose their birth parents by the mere nature of having a
closed adoption. And, also, as discussed above, perhaps adoptees in open adoption
having continued connections with their birth family allows them to feel as if they
are not much different from a typical family, and therefore they express less anxiety,
depression, and confusion over time.
Research Question 2
The second research question addressed whether there is a relationship
between the number of contacts adoptees have with their birth parents and changes
in their behavioral outcomes over time. The results of this analysis indicate that the
number of contacts between adoptees and their birth parents was not significantly
related to changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
These results are contradictory to theoretical lore, which predicts both
positive and negative relationships between adoptees having contact with their birth
parents and changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
75
Theorists in favor of open adoption have postulated that one of the main
reasons for the disproportionate amount of adoptees seen in mental health clinics is
"genealogical bewilderment," or lack of knowledge of one's natural parents (Sants,
1964; Wellish, 1952). This results in a variety of mental health problems, which
Kirschner (1995), a clinical psychologist, termed the "adopted child syndrome."
Other theorists similarly postulate that adoptees who have no contact with their birth
parents grow up believing that something must be wrong with them because they
were given away and rejected by their birth parents (Baran & Pannor, 1993), which
results in low self-esteem. The theoretical argument is that if the birth parent and
adoptee continue to have contact after the adoption takes place, then the adoptee will
feel less abandoned and rejected, and therefore have higher self esteem. From these
theories, then, it would seem that if adoptees had more contact with their birth
parents, then they would have more knowledge about them, and therefore have
better behavioral outcomes.
Theorists in favor of closed adoptions, however, have warned that if adoptees
have contact with their birth parents, they may be confused over who their parents
are, which can cause adoptees undue amounts of stress and anxiety (Brodzinsky,
Schechter, & Henig, 1992). Thus, from this theory, it would seem that adoptees
who had more contact with their birth parents would evidence worse behavioral
outcomes over time.
The findings of this study, however, are consistent with previous research
concerning adoptees' level of inclusion or exclusion in the contact with their birth
76
parents. For example, Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, McRoy, and Friedrick, 1996
found no significant relationship between adoptees who were included in having
contact with their birth parents and the adoptees' self-esteem. Thus, the lack of
significance for adoptees' behavioral outcomes indicates that the results of this study
are not consistent with statements raised by those who believe that open adoption
will harm a child, nor is it consistent with those statements that open adoptions will
help a child.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked if there is a relationship between the
amount of mail, phone, and in-person contact that the adoptive parents have with the
birth parents and the changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. Only the
preliminary results of this analysis were significant, indicating that between 1990
and 1993, more mail and in-person contacts were significantly related to more
withdrawal symptoms, and more telephone contacts were significantly related to less
withdrawal symptoms. However, after the Bonferroni correction, the 9.3percent
variance explained by these contacts, after controlling for functioning in 1990,
became insignificant. Thus, the results of this investigation indicate that there is no
significant relationship between the amount of mail, phone, and in person contact
that the adoptive parents have with the birth parents and changes in adoptees'
behavioral outcomes over time.
While previous research has only found that the amount and type of contact
that adoptive families have with birth families does change over time (Siegel, 2003),
no previous research has looked specifically at how these changes in type and
amount of contact relates to adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. Therefore,
these findings are novel and add to the growing literature in the area of adoption.
77
Potential reasons for these fmdings could be explained by findings from
previous research (Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, McRoy, and Friedrick, 1996)
which found that just because adoptive parents have contact or share information
with the birth parents, that does not mean that the adoptees are also having the same
contact, or are even aware that this type of exchange is occurring between their
adoptive and birth parents. Similarly, then, in this study, just because the adoptive
parents are having contact with the birth parents does not mean that the adoptive
children are, or that they are even aware that it is occurring. Accordingly, perhaps
there is no significant relationship between the type of contact parents have with
birth parents on adoptees' behavioral outcomes because they did not directly have
mail, phone, or in person contact with the birth parents.
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked if there was a relationship between
adoptee and adoptive parents' contact with other biological family members and
change in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. The results of this analysis
indicate that there is no significant relationship between adoptees' contact with their
birth relatives and adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. There is also no
significant relationship between adoptive parents' contact with birth relatives and
adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. And, there is no relationship between the
78
interaction of the contact that adoptees and adoptive parents have with birth relatives
and adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. Thus, for those families in which
adoptees have contact with their birth relatives and the adoptive parents do not, there
is no relationship between this contact and adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
For those families in which adoptees have no contact with their birth relatives, but
the adoptive parents do have contact with them, there is no relationship between this
contact and adoptees' behavioral outcomes across time. And, for those families in
which both the adoptees and the adoptive parents both have contact with the birth
relatives, there is no relationship between this contact and adoptees' behavioral
outcomes over time.
A potential reason for these findings could be related to a statement made by
Sykes (2001) which summarized findings from previous studies done on adoptees'
in open adoptions: "many children did not know the identity of their birth mother
despite meeting her, while indirect communications may not be shared (p. 300)."
Thus, if adopted children do not even know the identity of their birth mother when
they have been having contact with her, perhaps, then, in this study, adoptees who
were having contact with their birth relatives may not even aware of who they
actually were in relation to them. Which would explain why, even if adoptees were
having contact with their birth relatives, this contact may hold no significant
meaning for the adoptees, and therefore have no relationship with their behavioral
outcomes.
79
And, a potential reason for why adoptive parents' contact with birth relatives
has no relationship with adoptees' behavioral outcomes could be related to what was
discussed in the third question regarding fmdings from past studies (Wrobel, Ayers
Lopez, Grotevant, McRoy, and Friedrick, 1996) which indicate that even if adoptive
parents have contact with birth parents, that does not mean that the adoptees have
awareness of this. Thus, if the adoptees are not having direct contact with or
awareness of their birth relatives, then the contact that the adoptees and their
adoptive parents have with birth relatives may not have any relationship with their
behavioral outcomes.
Research Question 5
The fifth research question asked if there is a relationship between changes
in the frequency of contact among adoptive family members and birth family
members and changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. Results of the
analysis indicate that there is no significant relationship between changes in
frequency of contact among adoptive family members and adoptees' behavioral
outcomes over time.
While previous research has found that the frequency of contact between
members of adoptive and birth families does change over time (Grotevant, McRoy,
Elde, & Fravel, 1994; Sykes, 2001), the relationship of these changes over time with
adoptees' behavioral outcomes has not been investigated. Thus, there are no
previous studies' findings from which to compare and relate this study's findings.
However, potential reasons for these findings could be related to the discussion in
80
research question four, in that adoptees do not always know the identity of their birth
relatives, even if having direct contact with them. Nor are adoptees always aware
that their adoptive parents are meeting with members of the birth family.
With direct contact alone, if adoptees do not know who the person is when
they have contact with them, the contact may have no special meaning for the
adoptee. And, even if the adoptee knows who the person is, if they are not meeting
with them directly, perhaps the adoptive parents' contact has no relationship on the
adoptees' behavioral outcomes. Perhaps, then, both direct contact with the adoptee
and their birth relatives need to be done when the adoptees know who they in order
for contact with the birth relatives have a significant relationship on adoptees'
behavioral outcomes over time. Furthermore, if the adoptive parents are meeting
with the birth relatives and the adoptee is not, then that does not mean that they are
telling the adoptee about the contact, which would have no relationship to the
adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
Research Question 6
The sixth research question asked if there is a relationship between changes
in the level of contact between the adoptive parents and birth parents and changes in
adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. Results of this analysis indicate that there
is no relationship between changes in level of contact between the adoptive parents
and the birth parents and changes in adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
While the results of these findings are not consistent with warnings made by
critics of open adoptions that having openness will result in negative behavioral
outcomes for adoptees, these results are also no consistent with the beliefs of
proponents of open adoptions that openness will result in positive behavioral
outcomes for adoptees. However, these findings are consistent with previous
research, which found that differences in levels of openness do not have a
relationship with adopted children's' self esteem (Grotevant, Ross, Marchel, and
McRoy, 1999; Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, McRoy, and Friedrick, 1996). A
potential reason for the finding in this study could be, as discussed in relation to
fmdings for other research questions, that if the contact is not directly between the
adoptee and the birth parent, perhaps there is no effect on the adoptees' behavioral
outcomes.
Additional Analyses
81
Additional analyses were run to see if they might provide information that
would add interpretive richness or distinctness to the results obtained in the testing
of the research questions. In particular, gender had not been a factor in the primary
study, even though research suggests that it can moderate adoptees' behavioral
responses to adoption (Bimmel, Juffer, van ljzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenberg,
2003; Collishaw, Maughan, & Pickles, 1998). Furthermore, in the primary study,
the variable of interest had been changes in symptomology that had occurred
between assessment periods. Yet, absolute, between-group scores were a reasonable
alternative way to examine the data.
As a consequence, a factorial MANOV A was run that looked at gender,
adoption status (open versus closed), and the interactions between them. In this
82
case, the dependent measures were the scores on the behavioral outcomes for those
particular years (versus between-period changes).
The results indicate that type of adoption (open or closed) did not have a
main effect on adoptees' reported behavioral functioning in 1990, 1993, or in 1996.
This fmding differs from the results of the main analyses in which changes in type of
adoption (open or closed) over time were significantly related to changes in
adoptees' behavioral outcomes. Whereas the first question concerned whether kids
in either open or closed adoption changed more than the other group between testing
periods, the latter question looked simply at whether there were between-group
differences at the particular time of testing. Thus, due to the differences in the
nature of the questions posed, it is not necessarily surprising that the analyses
yielded these results.
Perhaps there are variables, other than type of adoption, which have a more
significant effect on adoptees' behaviors. Fletcher (1997), for instance, found that
many variables, such as the age at which an adoptee learns of their adoptive status,
maternal caring, and knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the adoption, had
significant relationships with adoptees' behavioral outcomes.
Also in this analysis, gender and adoption did not interact for two of the time
periods: the first and the last. However, for the middle period (1993}, such an effect
was obtained. In particular, males were found to be more hyperactive and immature
than were females, while females were found to have worse overall functioning than
were males. These results are consistent with previous research that found that
83
males tend to score higher on assessments that measure hyperactivity (Morgan,
2003) and immature than females, and that females in grades 3 through 6 tend to be
more lonely, depressed, and isolated than are boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), but no
prior research has looked at how adoption status might differentially affect boys
versus girls on this behavior.
And, in 1993, males in open adoption were found to be more withdrawn than
were those males in closed adoption. Potential reasons for these fmdings could be
due to the fact that mothers were the majority of the respondents to the surveys in
this investigation. Past research has found that mothers' mental health and well
being differentially effect their relationships with their sons and daughters, and are
related to their sons' or daughters' behaviors (Tavoulareas-Karahalios, 2000).
Past research, for instance, has found that mothers' mental health has a
relationship with their sons' behaviors such that school-age sons of depress~d
mothers have a higher incidence of withdrawal symptoms (Henderson, Sayger, &
Home, 2003).
Perhaps, if, as opponents of open adoption contend, open adoption negatively affects
adoptive parents, then, accordingly, the mothers in this study could have been prone
to depression, thereby accounting for the findings that males in closed adoptions
were found to be more withdrawn than were those in closed adoption.
In contrast, in 1993, females in closed adoption were found to be more
withdrawn than were those females in open adoption. Past research has found that
mothers sometimes rely on their children, particularly their daughters, for emotional
support (Houser, Berkman, Bardsley, 1985). When this happens, mothers and
daughters form a close, friendship-like relationship (Arditti, 1999). Thus, if, as
critics of open adoption argue, open adoption negatively affects adoptive parents,
then the mothers in this investigation could have been emotionally upset, and
therefore more likely than those mothers in closed adoption to rely on their
daughters for emotional support, and form this close, friendship-type relationship.
Perhaps it was this type of relationship which resulted in the mothers rating their
daughters as less withdrawn than did those mothers in closed adoption.
Additionally, a potential reason for these fmdings could be accounted by
experiment-wise Type I error. Because of the multiple analyses being conducted,
even with the use ofMANOVA, this is a potential reason for these fmdings, and
must be considered while considering these results.
Limitations
Several limitations must be taken into consideration when discussing the
findings of this study, such as those €>ncerning generalizability, design, and
measurement issues.
84
Findings of this study may not be generalizable to other adopted children in
open and closed adoptions due to limitations of the sampling procedure. First,
\ participants of this study were recruited only from the state of California during a
,_
--1
specific time period, 1988 to 1989. \_Responses given by the group in this particular
sample may not reflect the experiences of other adoptive parents who were from
other states, or who adopted children during other time periods. Secondly,
·participants were predominately Caucasian and of middle class socio-economic
status. Thus, the fmdings of this study may not be generalizable to those adoptive
families who are not Caucasian, and also not of middle socio-economic status.
Furthermore, because this is a longitudinal study, the influence that subject
attrition may be having on these findings must also be taken into consideration.
According to Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky (1998), "researchers have long
known that there is often a "selective dropout" in longitudinal studies, with those
subjects who remain in the study being more motivated and better adjusted than
those individuals who discontinue their involvement in the research" (p.44 ). And,
just by looking at the total number of adopted parents who were involved in
responding to the surveys in 1990, compared to how many continued to respond
again in 1993 and 1996, 51 percent dropped off over time, leaving only 49 percent
of the adoptive parents who had responded to all three surveys sent. Perhaps if the
51 percent who had dropped out had not, these findings would be very different.
One limitation with th~havioral measure used in this study, the BPI, is
that is ideally intended for use with children ages 4-17. Whereas the adopted
85
children in this study were within these age ranges for the last 2 questionnaires sent
out, they were only 2 years old at the time that the initial questionnaire was sent out.
Thus, behavioral outcomes, as reported by adoptive parents in the first
questionnaire, must be interpreted with caution.
And, caution must be taken into consideration in interpreting these results
because the behavioral outcomes were measured only by parentalt:~PQrts. Whereas
~ .. -' ~-"· -... ·-. ' .
86
parental ratings are important, without other reports available (i.e. teacher reports,
in-home visit reports, other family member reports) they cannot be ~~n as a
; • .,:.:.;::r .~.-·~,-.. ,.,.,_.<1>'~ •. . .. ':..
completely accurate description of adoptees' behaviors.
Implications
Practice Implications
Findings from this study hold several important implications for those
professionals who work with adoptive parents and adoptees, as well as for future
adoption legislation.
From the fmdings of this study, it is apparent that professionals who work
with adoptive parents may need to emphasize that if they choose to have an open
adoption, they need not get too worried that the type, level, frequency, or amount of
contact between their family and the birth family will negatively affect the adoptee
because these vary significantly from family to family, and a "perfect" or "ideal"
way to have an: open adoption does not exist. What professionals can encourage
adoptive parents to do, then, is to focus on what feels comfortable for them. And,
they can also educate these parents about the typical developmental stages that
children go through, and also what to expect in terms of their adoptees' behaviors in
relation to these stages. Perhaps having prior awareness that these changes are to be
expected will help the adoptive parents to not view their child as disturbed or
abnormal. And, if they know what behaviors are expected at certain times, if their
child is evidencing behavior that is not expected, then they could get them any
professional help or support that they may need at that time.
87
Furthermore, for those mental health professionals who work with adoptees,
having awareness of the different behavioral changes across time may enable them
to assess whether the children with whom they are working are evidencing normal or
abnormal behaviors in relation to what would be expected. This could help with
diagnostic clinical work, so that adoptees are not over-diagnosed with mental
disorders, but, rather, seen as behaving as would normally be expected given their
adoptive status and developmental stage in life.
From the findings of this study, future adoption legislation could be best
influenced by taking into consideration that that the types, levels, frequencies, and
amount of contact between adoptive families and birth families differ from family to
family, and that they do change over time. Any future attempts, for instance, to pass
legal statutes at the time of adoption to hold adoptive and birth families to specific
types, levels, frequencies, or amounts of contact will probably not be easily
enforceable or adhered to.
Recommendations for Further Research
This investigation uses data from the CLAS samples' first three surveys. A
fourth survey has recently been sent to adoptive families, and will be available in the
near future to further investigate the research questions in this study. Future analysis
using this fourth data set will allow for adoptees' behavioral outcomes to be studied
into adolescence, which is the next developmental stage after middle childhood.
Understanding adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time, through adolescence, may
provide adoption professionals with the ability to more effectively work with
adoptive parents and adoptees. And, it may help adoptive parents to understand
what to expect from their adoptee during this stage of development.
88
Further areas of research may include adoptees who were adopted by parents
who are culturally or ethnically different from their birth parents. Perhaps there are
special considerations with regard to adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time in
relation to being in an adoptive family that phenotypically looks different. Given
that international adoptions are becoming more common, this research may
particularly timely.
In this study, the vast majority of the adoptive parents who responded were
mothers. And, only one parent responded, not both. Thus, it was difficult to study
any potential gender effects that were affecting the results. Perhaps future research,
then, could involve adoptive mothers and fathers rating their same child's behaviors
to investigate any gender effects on the parents' rating of adoptees' behaviors.
Perhaps adoptive mothers and fathers rate their adopted sons and daughters
differently due to gender effects. Studying this is important in order to have a better
perspective on parental reports of their adopted children, since parental reports are
often the primary means by which adoptees' behaviors are assessed in research as
well as by mental health professionals.
Similarly, because this study only had one parent's perspective of their
child's behavioral outcomes, perhaps future research could include the perspectives
of other important people in the adoptees' lives. This could involve teachers as well
89
as close extended family members. Doing this could allow for more comprehensive
and accurate assessments of adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
The area of adoption, particularly open adoption, has only begun to be
explored. As open adoption becomes more common, the need for research is
important to further understand the implications that it has on all members of the
adoption triangle, particularly for the adoptee.
Conclusions
This study investigated the relationships between children in open and closed
adoptions and their behavioral outcomes over time. It also investigated the
relationships between changes in the level, type, frequency, and amount of contact
between members of adoptive and birth families and adoptees' in open adoptions,
and adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time.
Results from this study indicate that children in open adoptions reported
fewer symptoms in areas of anxiety, depression and withdrawal than did those
children in closed adoption. However, children in open and closed adoptions did not
significantly differ in areas of being antisocial, headstrong, hyperactive, or
immature. Furthermore, while previous research had identified that changes in the
type, frequency, and amount of contact between members of adoptive and birth
families do change over time, there had been no previous investigation of how these
changes relate to adoptees' behavioral outcomes over time. Findings from this study
indicate that there were no significant relationships with these changes and adoptees'
behavioral outcomes over time.
90
The only consistent finding among all of the analysis done in this study is
that there are significant changes in the 6 different behavioral outcomes measured
across time. In comparison to their behavioral outcomes 2 years post-placement,
adoptees had significantly more antisocial, headstrong, withdrawal, and anxious and
depressive symptoms 5 and 8 years post-placement. Adoptees in open and closed
adoption also had less symptoms of immaturity 5 and 8 years post-placement than
they did 2 years post-placement, however. In comparing adoptees' behavioral
outcomes 5 and 8 years post-placement, adoptees were more antisocial and
immature 5 years post-placement. One potential reason for these findings could be
due to the developmental stages that adoptees were in during the time in which the 3
surveys were sent out.
From the results, it is apparent that open adoption does not seem to help or
hurt adoptees' behavioral outcomes. The findings from this study confirm what has
been found in previous studies, however, which is that there exists a great amount of
variety within families who have open adoptions in terms of the level, type, and
frequency of contact that they have with birth families. Because there exists such a
variety, and none of the differences have been found to have a relationship, positive
or negative, with adoptees' behavioral outcomes, it seems as if adoptive parents can
feel free to choose any type, amount, level, or frequency of contact that is
comfortable for them, and that it will not harm nor necessarily benefit their adopted
child.
91
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and
competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four
through sixteen Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 46(1), 82.
Anderson, S., Piantanida, M., & Anderson, C. (1993). Normal processes in adoptive
families. In F. Walsh (Ed.) Normal Family Processes (2nd ed. pp. 254-281).
New York: Guilford Press.
Andrews, H., Goldberg., Wellen, N., Pittman, B., Struening, E. (1995). Prediction
of special-education placement from birth certificate data. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 11 (3), 55-61.
Arditti, J.A. (1999). Rethinking relationships between divorced mothers and their
children: Capitalizing on family strengths. Family Relation: Interdisciplinary
Journal of Applied Family Studies, 48(2), 109-119.
Avery, R.J. (1998). Information disclosure and openness in adoption: State Policy
and empirical evidence. Children and Youth Services Review, 20 (1-2), 57-
85.
Baker, P.C., Keck, C.K., Mott, F.L., & Quinlan, S.V. (1993). The NLSY child
handbook, revised edition: A guide to the 1986-1990 national longitudinal
survey of youth-child data. Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource
Research.
Baran, A., & Pannor, R. (1990). Open adoption. In D.M. Brodzinsky and M.D.
Schechter (Eds.). The Psychology of Adoption(pp. 316-331). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Baran, A., & Pannor, R. (1993). Perspectives on open adoption. The Future of
Children, 3(1), 119-124.
Baran, A., Pannor, R., & Sorosky, A. (1976). Open adoption. Social Work, 21, 97-
100.
Barth, R.P., & Berry, M. (1988). Adoption and disruption: Rates, risks, and
responses. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Barth, R.P., & Brooks, D. (1997). A longitudinal study of family structure, family
size, and adoption outcomes. Adoption Quarterly, 1, 29-56.
92
Bauman, C. (1997). Examining where we were and where we are: Clinical issues in
adoption 1985-1995. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14( 5), 313-
323.
Belbas, N. (1986). Staying in touch: Empathy in open adoptions. Smith College
Studies in Social Work, 57, 184-198.
Berman, L.C., & Bufferd, R.K. (1986). Family treatment to address loss in adoptive
families. Social Casework, 67, 3-11.
Berry, M. ( 1991 ). The effects of open adoption on biological and adoptive parents
and the children: The arguments and the evidence. Child Welfare League of
America, 70(6), 637-651.
Berry, M. (1993). Risks and benefits of open adoption. The Future of Children, 3(1),
125-138.
Berry, M., Barth, R.P., Needell, B. (1996). Preparation, support, and satisfaction of
adoptive families in agency and independent adoptions. Child and
Adolescent Social Work, 13, 157-183.
Berry, M., Cavazos Dylla, D. J., Barth, R.P., & Needell, B. (1998). The role of open
adoption in the adjustment of adopted children and their families. Children
and Youth Services Review, 20(1/2), 151-171.
Bimmel, N., Juffer., van ljzendoom, M.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (2003).
Problem behavior of internationally adopted adolescents: A review and meta
analysis. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 11, 64-77.
Brodzinsky, A.B. (1990). Surrendering an infant for adoption: The birthmother
experience. In D. Brodzinsky & M. Schechter (Eds.) The Psychology of
Adoption. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brodzinsky, D.M. (1990). A stress and coping model of adoption adjustment. In D.
Brodzinsky, & M. Schechter (Eds.), The psychology of adoption (pp. 3-24).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Brodzinsky, D. M., Schechter, M.D., & Henig, R. M. (1992). Being adopted: The
lifelong search for self New York: Doubleday.
Brodzinsky, D.M., Singer, L.M., & Braff, A.M. (1984). Children's understanding of
adoption. Child Development, 55, 869-878.
Brodzinsky, D. M., Smith, D. W., & Brodzinsky, A. B. (1998). Children's
adjustment to adoption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
93
Bussiere, A. (1998). The development of adoption law. Adoption Quarterly, 1(3), 3-
25.
Byrd, A.D. (1988). The case for confidential adoption. Public Welfare, 46 (4), 20-
23.
Caplan, L. (1990). An open adoption. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Carp, E.W. (1992). Adoption disclosure of family information: A historical
perspective. Child Welfare, 74, 217-239.
Cole, E. (1983). Advocating for adoption services. In M. Hardin (Ed.) Foster
Children in The Courts (pp. 449-487). Boston, MA: Butterworth Legal
Publishers.
Cole, E., & Donley, K. (1990). History, values, and placement policy issues in
adoption. In D. Brodinsky, & M. Schechter (Eds.) The Psychology of
Adoption (pp. 273-294). New York: Oxford University Press.
Collishaw, S., Maughan, B., Pickles, A. (1998). Infant adoptions: Psychosocial
outcomes in adulthood. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33,
57-65.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social
psychological aggression. Child Development., 66, 710-722.
Dalton, J.E. (1994). MMPI-168 and Marlowe-Crowne profiles of adoption
applicants. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50 (6), 863-866.
Demick, J. (1993). Adaptation of marital couples to open versus closed adoption: A
preliminary investigation. In J. Demick, Bursik, K., & DiBiase, C. (Eds).
Parental Development (pp. 175-201). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Deykin, E. Y., Campbell, L., & Patti, P. (1984). The post-adoption experience of
surrendering parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(2), 271-280.
94
Dickson, L. R., Heffron, W. M., & Parker, Cydney (1990). Children from disrupted
and adoptive homes in an inpatient unit. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 60(4), 594-602.
Dubow, E. F., & Luster, T. (1990). Adjustment of children born to teenage mothers:
the contribution of risk and protective factors. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 52, 394-404.
Etter, J. (1993). Levels of cooperation and satisfaction in 56 open adoptions. Child
Welfare, 72, 257-268.
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute (1997). Retrieved March 25, 2003, from
http://www .adoptioninstitute.orgl
Fiegelman, W. (1997). Adopted adults: Comparisons with persons raised in
conventional families. Marriage and Family Review, 25, 199-223.
Flango, V., & Flango, C. (1995). How Many Children Were Adopted in 1992. Child
Welfare, LXXW (5), 1018-1024.
Fletcher, J.F. (1997). Correlates of psychosocial adjustment among adopted children.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences, 58(1-A), 290. (AAT 9717722)
Frasch, K.M., Brooks, D., & Barth, R.P. (2000). Openness and contact in foster care
adoptions: An eight-year follow-up. Family Relations, 49, 435-446.
Fravel, D.L., McRoy, R.G., & Grotevant, H.D. (2000). Birthmother perceptions of
the psychologically present adopted child: Adoption openness and boundary
ambiguity. Family Relations, 49, 425-433.
Gilman, L., & Freivalds, S. (2001). Adopting Smart. Adoptive Families Magazine.
Adoption Guide, 13-14.
Gross, H. E. (1993). Open adoption: A research-based literature review and new
data Child Welfare Special Issue: Adoption, 72(3), 269-284.
Grotevant, H. D. (2000). Openness in adoption: research with the adoption kinship
network. Adoption Quarterly, 4(1), 45-65.
Grotevant, H. D., & McRoy, R. G. (1998). Openness in adoption: Exploringfamily
connections. New York: Sage Publications.
95
Grotevant, H.D., McRoy, R.G., Elde, C.L., & Fravel, D.L. (1994). Adoptive family
system dynamics: Variations by level of openness in adoption. Family
Process, 33 (2), 125-146.
Grotevant, H.D., Ross, N.M., Marchel, A.M., & McRoy, R.G. (1999). Adaptive
behavior in adopted children: Predictors from early risk, collaboration within
the adoptive kinship network, and openness arrangements. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 14, 231-247.
Hartman, A. (1993). Secrecy in Adoption. In E. Imber-Black (ed.) Secrets in
Families and Family Therapy (pp. 86-105). New York: W.W. Norton.
Haugaard, J. J., West, N. M., & Moed, A. M. (2000). Open adoptions: attitudes and
experiences. Adoption Quarterly, 4(2), 89-99.
Henderson, A.D., Sayger, T.V., Home, A.M. (2003). Mothers and sons: A look at
the relationship between child behavior problems, marital satisfaction,
maternal depression, and family cohesion. Family of Journal-Counseling &
Therapy for Couples & Families, 11(1), 33-41.
Hollingsworth, L. D. (2000). Who seeks to adopt a child? Findings from the national
survey of family growth(l995). Adoption Quarterly, 3(3), 1-23.
Houser, B, B., Berkman, S. L.; Bardsley, P. (1985). Sex and birth order differences
in filial behavior. Sex Roles, 13(11-12), 641-651.
Howe, R. (1983). Adoption practice: Issues and laws. Family Law Quarterly, 17,
173-197.
lmber-Black, E. (1993). Secrets in families andfamily therapy. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Johnson, T.P., & Fendrich, M. (2002). A validation of the Crowne-Marlowe social
desirability scale. Retrieved April 2, 2004, from the University of Illinois at
Chicago Web site:
http://www.srl.uic.edu/publist/Conference/crownemarlowe.pdf
Karpel, M. (1980). Family secrets: 1. Conceptual and ethical issues in the relational
context. 2 Ethical and practical considerations in therapeutic management.
Family Process, 19, 295-306.
Kaye, K., Warren, S. (1988). Disclosure about adoption in adoptive families.
Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 406-433.
Kim, W., Davenport, C., Joseph, J., & Zrull, J. (1988). Psychiatric disorder and
juvenile delinquency in adopted children and adolescents. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(1), 111-115.
96
Kirk, H. D. (1984). Shared fate: A theory and method of adoptive relationships (rev.
ed.) Brentwood Bay, British Columbia: Ben-Simon Publications.
Kirschner, D. (1995). Adoption: Psychopathology and the "adopted child syndrome".
Directions in Child and Adolescent Therapy, 2( 6), 3-11.
Kirschner, D., & Nagel, L.S. (1988). Antisocial behavior in adoptees: Patterns and
dynamics. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 5 (4), 300-314.
Kraft, A., Palombo, J., Woods, P., Mitchell, D., & Schmidt, A. (1985a). Some
theoretical considerations on confidential adoptions, Part 1: The birth mother.
Child & Adolescent Social Work, 2(1), 13-21.
Kraft, A., Palombo, J., Mitchell, D., Woods, P., & Schmidt, A. (1985b). Some
theoretical considerations on confidential adoptions. Part 2: The Adoptive
Parent. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 2, 69-82.
Kraft, A. D., Palombo, J., Mitchell, D. L., Woods, P. K., Schmidt, A. W., & Tucker,
N. G. (1985c). Some theoretical considerations on confidential adoptions part
Ill: The adopted child. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 2, 139-153.
Kuhns, J. (1994). The sealed adoption records controversy: Breaking down the walls
of secrecy. Golden Gate University Law Review, 24 (1), 259-297.
Lara-Cinisomo, S., & Pebley, A.R. (2003). Los Angeles county young children's
literacy experience, emotional well-being, and skills acquisition: results from
the Los Angeles family and neighborhood survey. Los Angeles, CA: Rand
labor and population working paper series 03-19.
Lifton, B. (1977). Twice Born: Memoirs of and adopted daughter. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McRoy, R.G., & Grotevant, H.D. (1988). Open adoptions: Practice and policy issues.
Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 6(3), 199-132.
McRoy, R.G., Grotevant, H.D., & Ayers-Lopez, S. (1994). Changing practices in
adoption. Austin: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.
McRoy, R.G., Grotevant, H.D., & White, KL. (1988). Openness in adoption: new
practices, new issues. New York: Praeger.
97
Mech, E. V. (1973). A policy perspective. In B. Caldwell, & H. Ricuitti (Eds.)
Review of Child Development Research (pp. 467-507). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Menlove, F. L. (1965). Aggressive symptoms in emotionally disturbed adopted
children. Child Development, 36, 519-532.
Moore, K.A., Halle, T.G., Vandivere, S., Mariner, C.L. (2002). Scaling back survey
scales: how short is too short? Sociological Methods and Research, 30 (4),
530-567.
Mosher, W.D. and Bachrach, C.A. (1996). Understanding U.S. fertility: continuity in
and change in the national survey of family growth, 1988-1995. Family
Planning Perspectives, 28(1).
National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (2003, May 14). Adoption Statistics.
Retrieved May 15,2003, from http://www.calib.com.naic/stats/
Nemovicher, J. A. (1960). A comparative study of adopted boys and nonadopted
boys in respect to specific personality characteristics. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 20, 4122. (AAT 6001922)
Newcom, J. H., Halperin, J. M., Arnold, L. E., Abikoff, H. B., Arnold, E. L., &
Cantwell, D.P. et al. (2001). Symptom profiles in children with ADHD:
Effects of comorbidity and gender. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 40, 13 7-146.
Newman, J.L., Roberts, L.R., 7 Syre, C.R. (1993). Concepts of family among
children and adolescents: Effects of cognitive level, gender, and family
structure. Developmental Psychology, 29, 951-962.
Pannor, R., & Baran, A. (1984). Open adoption as standard practice. Child Welfare
League of America, LXIIJ(May-June), 245-247.
Peterson, J .L., & Zill, N. ( 1986). Marital disruption, parent -child relationships, and
behavioral problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
295-307.
Postwar Society and Culture: Changes and Adjustment (n.d.). Retrieved March 2,
2003 from http://www.holton.k12.ks.us/staff/abeam/highlandlch25.html/
Presser, S. (1972). The historical background of the American law of adoption.
Journal of Family Law, 11, 448-460.
Reitz, M., & Watson, K. (1992). Adoption and the family system: Strategies for
Treatment. New York: The Guilford Press, Inc.
Rillera, M.J., & Kaplan, S. (1985). Cooperative adoption: A handbook.
Westminster, CA: Triadoption Publications.
Rogeness, G. A., Hoppe, S. K., Macedo, C. A., & Fischer, C. (1988).
98
Psychopathology in hospitalized, adopted children. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(5), 628-631.
Sabalis, R.F., & Burch, E.A., Jr. (1980). Comparisons ofpsychiatric problems of
adopted and nonadopted patients. Southern Medical Journal, 73,867-869.
Sants, H. J. (1964). Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 3 7, 133-141.
Schecter, M., Carlson, P., Simmons, J.III, & Work, H. (1964). Emotional problems
in the adoptee. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry, 10, February, 109-118.
Schwartz, L. L. ( 1984). Adoption custody and family therapy. The American Journal
of Family Therapy, 12(4), 51-58.
Siegel, D. H. (1993). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents' perceptions and
advantages and disadvantages. Social Work, 38(1), 15-23.
Siegel, D.H. (2003). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents' feelings seven
years later. Social Work, 48(3), 409-419.
Silber, K., & Domer, P. M. (1990). Children of open adoption. San Antonio, TX:
Coronal Publishing Company.
Simmel, C., Brooks, D., Barth, R.P., & Hinshaw, S.P. (2001) Externalizing
symptomatology among adoptive youth: Prevalence and preadpotion risk
factors-statistical data included. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 29(1), 57-
69.
Simon, N.M., & Senturia, A. G. (1966). Adoption and psychiatric illness. American
Journal of Psychiatry. 122 (8), 858-868.
Smith, J. (1997). The realities of adoption. Lanham, MD: Madison Books.
99
Sobol, M.P., Daly, K.J., & Kelloway, E.K. (2000). Paths to the facilitation of open
adoption. Family Relations, 49, 419-424.
Sokoloff, B. (1993). Antecedents of American adoption. The future of children, 3,
17-25.
Sorosky, A. D., Baran, A., & Pannor, R. (1984). The adoption triangle: Sealed or
open records: How they affect adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents
(2nd ed.). Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Stein, l. M., & Hoopes, J. L. (1985). Identity formation in the adopted child. New
York: Child Welfare League of America.
Stolley, K. S. (1993). Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of
Children: Adoption, 3(1 ).
Sykes, M.R. (2001). Adoption with contact: A study of adoptive parents and the
impact of continuing contact with families of origin. The Association for
Family Therapy, 23, 296-316.
Taichert, L. C., & Harvin, D. D. (1975). Adoption and children with learning and
behavior problems. The Western Journal of Medicine, 122, 464-470.
Tavoulareas-Karahalios, M. (2000). The relationship among parenting styles, level of
maternal depressive symptomology and adjustment of preadolescent boys.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,
60(12-B), 6386. (AAT 9954842)
Watson, K. (1996). Families in society. The Journal of Contemporary Human
Services, 77(9), 523-534.
Weiss, A. (1985). Symptomatology of adopted and nonadopted adolescents in a
psychiatric hospital. Adolescence, 20 (Winter), 763-774.
Wellisch, E. (1952). Children without genealogy. Mental Health, 13(1).
Wrobel, G.M., Ayers-Lopez, S., Grotevant, H.D., McRoy, R.G., & Friedrick, M.
(1996). Openness in adoption and the level of child participation. Child
Development, 67, 2358-2374.
Yankowitz, D. (n.d.). Turn of the century. Retrieved July 13, 2002, from
http://www. ushisotry.net/toc/timeline.html.
100
Zill, N. (1985). Behavior problems scales developed from the 1981 Child Health
Supplement to the National Health Interview Survey. Washington, DC.: Child
Trends, Inc.
101
APPENDIX A
Behavior Problems Inventory
1. Has sudden changes in mood or feelings.
2. Feels or complains that no one loves him or her.
3. Is rather high-strung, tense or nervous.
4. Cheats or tells lies.
5. Is too fearful or anxious.
6. Argues too much.
7. Has difficulty concentrating, cannot pay attention for long.
8. Is easily confused, seems to be in a fog.
9. Bullies or is cruel or mean to others.
10. Is disobedient at home.
11. Is disobedient at school.
12. Does not seem to feel sorry for misbehaving.
13. Has trouble getting along with other children.
14. Has trouble getting along with teachers.
15. Is impulsive, or acts without thinking.
16. Feels worthless or inferior.
17. Is not liked by other children.
18. Has difficulty getting his or her mind off certain thoughts, has obsessions.
19. Is restless or overly active.
20. Is stubborn, sullen, or irritable.
21. Has a very strong temper and loses it easily.
22. Is unhappy, sad, or depressed.
23. Is withdrawn, does not get involved with others.
24. Breaks things on purpose, deliberately destroys his/her own or other's things.
25. Clings to adults.
26. Cries too much.
27. Demands a lot of attention.
28. Is too dependent on others.
29. Feels others are out to get him or her.
30. Hangs around with kids who get into trouble.
31. Is secretive, keeps things to himself/herself.
32. Worries too much.
Antisocial: 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 30
Anxious/Depressed: 1, 2, 5, 16, 32
Headstrong:3,6, 10,20,21
Hyperactive: 7, 8, 15, 18, 19
ImmatureDependency:25,26,27,28
Peer Conflict/Social withdrawal: 13, 17, 29

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship between changes in the type and frequency of contact in open and closed adoptions and behavioral outcomes of adopted children

PDF

The development and validation of the group supervision scale

PDF

Development and validation of the group supervision impact scale

PDF

Characteristics of college males who are likely to sexually harass women: a test of a mediated model

PDF

The general characteristics of covert resistance mechanisms and their relationship to attitude change and speaker perception

PDF

The effect of physical exercise on cognitive and psychological functioning in community aged

PDF

Cardiovascular disease, the coronary-prone behavior pattern, and central nervous system function

PDF

The effects of race, gender, and family background on children's educational attainment: contemporary patterns and historical change

PDF

An investigation of the relationship between Cattell's 16PF second-order personality factors and marital satisfaction

PDF

Religiosity and its relationship to self-concept, locus of control, and dogmatism

PDF

Outer sphere electron transfer reactions of some main group substrates

PDF

The relationship between student characteristics and work rate and between work rate and performance in programmed instruction with two different subject matter fields

PDF

The economics of tenure: understanding the effects of ethnicity, status and discipline on faculty attitude, workload and productivity

PDF

The influence of child day care on cognitive and phychosocial functioning in adolescence

PDF

Verbal rehearsal and the imitation of aggression in five- and seven-year-old children

PDF

A longitudinal study of anxiety: noted relationships between anxiety, depression, parenting style, and academic achievement

PDF

The writing laboratory in colleges and universities

PDF

Discourse features in the compositions of Mexican, English-as-a-second-language, Mexican-American/Chicano, and Anglo high school students: considerations for the formulation of educational policies

PDF

The relationship between the average cosine of the underwater light field and the inherent optical properties of the ocean

PDF

Therapeutics and science in the history of occupational therapy

Asset Metadata

Creator Castagnini, Cristina Ann (author)

Core Title The relationship between changes in the type and frequency of contact in open and closed adoptions and behavioral outcomes of adopted children

Contributor Digitized by Interlibrary Loan Department (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Counseling Psychology)

Defense Date 08/01/2004

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-489905

Unique identifier UC11286662

Identifier etd-Castagnini-586013.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-489905 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Castagnini-586013.pdf

Dmrecord 489905

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Castagnini, Cristina Ann

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA