Family Structural Openness
and Communication Openness
as Predictors in the Adjustment
of Adopted Children
David Brodzinsky, PhDABSTRACT.The current study examined the relative contribution of family structural openness versus communication openness in the ad-justment of adopted children. Seventy-three adopted children, placed predominately in inracial families within 18 months of their birth, were the focus of the study. Parental ratings of family structural openness and children’s ratings of communication openness served as the primary pre-dictor variables and children’s ratings of their self-esteem and parental ratings of children’s behavior problems were the outcome measures. Al-though family structural openness and communication openness were positively correlated, only communication openness independently pre-dicted children’s adjustment. The findings are consistent with research suggesting that family process variables generally are more predictive of children’s psychological adjustment than family structural variables. Im-David Brodzinsky is affiliated with Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, 53 Avenue E, Piscataway, NJ 08854 (E-mail: [email protected]).
Portions of this article were presented at the annual conference of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development in Ghent, Belgium in July 2004.
Adoption Quarterly, Vol. 9(4) 2006 Available online at http://aq.haworthpress.com
©2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
plications for social casework and clinical practice in adoption are dis-cussed.doi:10.1300/J145v9n04_01 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS.Adopted children, open adoption, adoption communica-tion, children’s adjustment
Of all the changes that have taken place in the field of adoption over the past few decades, perhaps none has altered the face of adoption or changed the nature of adoptive family life as much as the emergence of open adoption. Researchers and practitioners have conceptualized open-ness in adoption in two different, but related, ways (Brodzinsky, 2005). The first, and most common, way of defining open adoption focuses on a specific type of family structural arrangement existing between the adoptive and birth families, involving mutual sharing of identifying in-formation, plus some degree of contact between the parties, which may or may not involve the child. Grotevant and McRoy (1998) refer to this type of placement as a fully disclosed adoption. A second way in which openness in adoption has been discussed is in terms of a communication continuum involving the exploration of adoption issues, both within and between adoption triad members (Brodzinsky, 2005; Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 1998, 2003).
A growing body of research has examined the relationship between open adoption, as a family structural arrangement, and the adjustment of adoptive parents, birth parents, and adopted children. Contrary to the critics of open adoption who have postulated significant adverse con-sequences associated with this type of family kinship system (Byrd, 1988; Cocozzelli, 1989; Kraft, Palumbo, Mitchell, Woods, & Schmidt, 1985a,b; Kraft, Palumbo, Woods, Schmidt, & Tucker, 1985), the data suggest that adoptive parents who choose an open placement generally are quite satisfied with the arrangement and have positive and empathic relationships with their child’s birth relatives (Belbas, 1987; Gross, 1993; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Silverstein & Demick, 1994). In ad-dition, they experience a greater sense of entitlement to their child (McRoy & Grotevant, 1988; Siegel 1993), worry less about birth par-ents reclaiming their youngster (Belbas, 1987) and feel more secure about the attachment to their child compared with parents in more con-fidential placement arrangements (Silverstein & Demick, 1994).
Re-search also suggests that adoptive parents in structurally open adoptions communicate more with their child about adoption and are more em-pathic regarding their child’s feelings and curiosity about his or her ori-gin (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998). On the other hand, Siegel (1993) points out that adoptive parents in open placements tend to worry about the impact of contact with birth family on their children.
Structurally open adoptions also appear to be quite satisfying to most birth parents and to benefit them by increasing their sense of control, re-ducing unresolved grief issues, and diminishing depression and other postplacement adjustment difficulties (A. Brodzinsky, 1992; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Henney, Ayers-Lopez, McRoy, & Grotevant, 2004). Even when the adoption involves a nonvoluntary placement, there is reason to believe that birth relatives may find contact with the adoptive family to be helpful, comforting, and supportive of healthier emotional adjustment (Young & Neil, 2004).
In contrast to the predictions of negative outcomes for children asso-ciated with open adoptions as opposed to confidential placements (Kraft et al., 1985), researchers have found either few adjustment differences between the two groups of children (Berry, Cavazo, Dylla, Barth, & Needell, 1998; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Kohler, Grotevant, & Mc-Roy, 2002), or benefits associated with open adoption. For example, compared with children with little or no contact with birth family, those living in open placements have a better understanding of adoption (Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, & Friedrick, 1996), display more curiosity about their origins and ask more adoption-related questions (Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 1998), and are more likely to be actively involved in a search for birth family members (Wrobel, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2004). In addition, one study of adopted children coming out of the foster care system indicated that children who had more contact with birth family were rated by parents as having fewer behavioral problems (Berry, 1991). Although the latter finding is en-couraging, Neil and Howe (2004) point out that contact between adopted children and their birth family can be detrimental to these youngsters when they have experienced trauma at the hands of birth family mem-bers (see also Beek & Shofield, 2004; Selwyn, 2004; and Thoburn, 2004 for differing findings regarding contact between later-placed adopted children and foster children and their biological families).
The concept of adoption communication openness derives from the work of Kirk (1964) who was the first researcher to emphasize the im-portance of open communication within the adoptive family system. Specifically, he suggested that adoptive parents who are better able to
acknowledge the inherent differences associated with adoptive family life would be more likely to facilitate healthier adjustment in their chil-dren, and the family as a whole, than parents who tended to deny or re-ject these differences. The construct of communication openness has been supported by other recent theoretical trends in the adoption field, most notably adoptive family life cycle theory (Brodzinsky, 1987; Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002; Hajal & Rosenberg, 1991) and the multisystemic, developmentally based work of Brodzinsky (2005) and Grotevant, McRoy, Wrobel and their colleagues (Grotevant, Perry, & McRoy, 2005; Wrobel et al., 1998, 2003).
Communication openness is assumed to occur on three separate lev-els (Brodzinsky, 2005). The first level isintrapersonal, reflecting the individual’s self-exploration of their thoughts and feelings about adop-tion. For the adopted child, this process is assumed to emerge after they have been informed about their adoption status and begin to understand its implications; for the adoptive parent, the process begins when they first consider adoption as an option for achieving parenthood; and for the birth parents, the process is assumed to begin when they are con-fronted with an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy and first consider adoption as a solution for their dilemma. As Brodzinsky, Schechter, and Henig (1992) suggest, the exploration of the personal meaning of adop-tion for each of these groups of individuals is likely to be a lifelong process. The second level of adoption communication isintrafamilial, re-flecting the exploration of adoption issues among adoptive family members, as well as among birth family members. The importance of maintaining an open, active, and emotionally attuned dialogue between adoptive parents and their children has been a reoccurring theme in the writings of many adoption experts (Brodzinsky, 2005; Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002; Kirk, 1964; Nickman, 1985; Wrobel et al., 2003). The third level of adoption communication openness isinterfamilial, re-flecting the exploration of adoption issues between adoptive and birth family members. Grotevant, Ross, Marchel, and McRoy (1999), in par-ticular, have pointed out the importance of collaborative involvement between these two family systems as a basis for the emotional well-be-ing of the adopted child. Finally, adoptive communication theory em-phasizes not only the mutual sharing of adoption information within the adoption kinship system, but also the expression and support of adop-tion-related emotions. For example, the ability of children to express their feelings about being adopted, and the empathic sensitivity of par-ents to those feelings, is viewed as a critical process in healthy adoption adaptation (Kirk, 1964; Brodzinsky, 2005; Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes,
2002). For a more in-depth analysis of adoption communication theory, the reader should consult Brodzinsky (2005) and Wrobel et al. (2003). Although relatively little research has been conducted on the impact of communication openness in adoption on adoption triad members, the data gathered, to date, generally support the notion that adopted individ-uals who experience more open, direct, and nondefensive communica-tion about adopcommunica-tion with their parents show more positive adjustment, not just in the childhood years, but even into adulthood. For example, Stein and Hoopes (1985) found that adoptive families with a more open communication style had adolescents who manifested fewer identity problems. Furthermore, Kohler, Grotevant, and McRoy (2002) found that adolescent adoptees, who perceived greater communication open-ness in the family, reported more trust of their parents, less alienation from them, and better overall family functioning. On the other hand, communication openness was not related to the extent to which the teen-agers had contact with birth family or the degree to which these young-sters were preoccupied with adoption issues. Still other research has found that adult adoptees who grew up in families in which there was greater openness in adoption communication reported being more satis-fied with their adoption experience (Howe & Feast, 2000). Further-more, open adoption communication has been related to adult adoptees feeling closer to their adoptive parents (Sobol, Delaney, & Earn, 1994).
To date, research on structural openness and communication open-ness in adoptive families has followed parallel paths. No study has di-rectly examined the relationship between these two aspects of adoption openness or compared their relative contribution with the adjustment of adopted children. Because of the growing trend toward increased open-ness in the adoption field (Brodzinsky, 2005; Grotevant et al., 2005) and the continued controversy that surrounds this construct, it was consid-ered important to examine both of these issues. Specifically, there were two goals in the current study. The first was to examine the relationship between the extent of structural openness characterizing adoptive fami-lies and the extent to which these famifami-lies supported open, direct, and emotionally attuned communication about adoption. It was hypothe-sized that adoptive parents who choose an open adoption placement also would be more likely to facilitate greater communication openness with their children. The second goal was to compare the relative influ-ence of family structural openness versus communication openness as predictors of adjustment of adopted children. It was hypothesized that both aspects of openness would be related to positive adjustment in chil-dren, but that communicative openness would carry greater predictive
power than structural openness. This hypothesis was based on family research suggesting that family process variables such as parental warmth, emotional sensitivity, extent of parental involvement, disci-plinary style, quality of marital relations, and family communication style generally are more predictive of children’s adjustment than the specific type of family structure within which the child lives; for example, single versus two-parent family, intact versus nonintact family, mother-headed versus father-headed household, heterosexual-headed versus homosexual-head household, and so forth (Hetherington & Stan-ley-Hagan, 2002; Parke, 2002; Patterson, 2002; Weinrub, Horvath, & Gringlas, 2002).
METHOD Subjects
Seventy-three children (38 boys and 35 girls) between the ages of 8 and 13 years (M = 11.1 years; SD = 1.41) and their parents were in-cluded in the study. With the exception of six children, all subjects lived in intact, two-parent families. Three of the children were from divorced families and lived primarily with their mothers; the other three children were adopted by single women and lived in families with only one parenting figure. The mean age of the adoptive mothers was 43.4 years; for adoptive fathers, it was 47.6 years. Seventy-five percent of the chil-dren were adopted within the United States and 25 percent from other countries–primarily from Southeast Asia and Russia. Of the domesti-cally born children, 85 percent were placed inracially and 15 percent transracially. For those youngsters adopted from other countries, 39 percent were placed inracially and 61 percent transracially. All children were placed in their family prior to 18 months of age, with a mean age of placement of 3.8 months (SD = 3.65). Subjects were recruited from adoption agencies, adoptive parents organizations, and by word of mouth.
Procedure and Assessment Instruments
Data were collected during home visits as part of a larger study on adoption adjustment. Initially, parents and children were seen together during which time the goals of the study were explained, and consent and assent forms were signed by the parents and children respectively.
After this meeting, each party was interviewed separately and was asked to respond to the following assessment instruments:
Family Structural Openness Inventory. Family structural openness was assessed with a newly developed 20-item, true-false, parent-report instrument measuring the extent to which adoptive family members had information about and contact with the child’s birth mother and/or birth father. Higher scores reflect a greater degree of structural openness between the adoptive and birth family. Examples of items include: “I know the name of my child’s birth mother; I know where my child’s birth mother lives; I have met my child’s birth mother; I have communi-cated with my child’s birth mother through the adoption agency or an-other intermediary; I have communicated directly with my child’s birth mother by telephone, e-mail, or letter; I have visited with my child’s birth mother on one or more occasions within the past year.” Compara-ble items were included in relation to the birth father, as well as items re-lated to the child’s knowledge and contact with birth family members. Pilot testing revealed a high degree of test-retest reliability for the in-strument over a one-week time period,r= .82. Furthermore, for those families in which both mother and father were available to fill out the questionnaire (n = 43), a moderately high degree of interparental agree-ment was achieved using this measure, r = .63. For purposes of this study, only the mothers’ ratings of structural openness were used since they reported more often being in contact with the birth family than did fathers.
Although for data analytic purposes, structural openness was defined numerically as the parent’s total number of affirmative responses on this scale, to provide a categorical description of the families, and thus a basis for comparison with other research on open adoption, these scores were translated into the openness categories defined by Grotevant and McRoy (1998). Adoptive families who had never met their child’s birth mother or birth father and who had never been in contact with them fol-lowing the placement, either directly or through an intermediary such as the adoption agency, were considered to be involved in a confidential adoption–even if they knew the birth parents names and where they lived. Forty-five percent of the families fell into this category. Adoptive families who had some type of contact with the birth mother or birth fa-ther following the placement, eifa-ther ongoing or not, through the adop-tion agency or another intermediary, were considered to be involved in a mediated adoption. Approximately 27 percent of the families fell into this category. It may be noted that in some cases of mediated adoption, the adoptive parents had met one or both birth parents prior to the
place-ment, but none of these families maintained ongoing direct contact with birth family members. Finally, adoptive parents who had met one or both birth parents and maintained direct contact with these individuals, either through the mail, by e-mail, and/or in person, were considered to be involved in a fully disclosed adoption. In most cases, but not all, the children also were in contact with their birth parents. Approximately 27 percent of the families fell into this category.
One hundred percent of the fully disclosed adoptions, 85 percent of the mediated adoptions, and 55 percent of the confidential adoptions in-volved placements from within this country. As would be expected, the vast majority of intercountry adoptions (94%) involved confidential placements, although adoptive parents and/or their children often knew the birth parents’ names, but seldom where they lived. Only one family with a foreign born child had been in touch with birth family members, with the aid of the adoption agency.
Adoption Communication Openness Scale. Adoption communication openness was assessed with a newly developed 14-item, child-report instrument, adapted from the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale developed by Barnes and Olsen (1984) [see Lanz, Iafrate, Rosnati, & Scabini, 1999, for additional validity data on this scale in relation to adoptive families]. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, the instrument measured the extent to which children experience their parents as being open and sensitive in adoption communication, as well as the extent to which children felt comfortable discussing adoption with their parents. Children’s mean ratings across the 14-item scale represented their per-ception of communication openness in the family, with higher ratings reflecting a greater degree of openness. Examples of scale items in-clude: “My parents are good listeners when it comes to my thoughts and feelings about being adopted; My parents have difficulty understanding adoption from my point of view; If there is something I need to know about my adoption, my parents are always there for me, trying to answer my questions.” Pilot testing revealed moderately high test-retest reli-ability for children over a one week time period,r= .70. Cronbach’s al-pha for the scale was .79.
Child Adjustment Measures. Two measures of children’s adjustment were used in the study. The first was a child, self-report measure, the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985). The SPPC is a well-regarded, reliable, and valid instrument frequently used by re-searchers investigating children’s self-perception and consists of 36 items that yield scores for six domains of perceived self-adequacy: scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical
appearance, behavioral conduct, and global self-worth. For each item, two types of children are described and subjects must indicate which type of child they most resemble and then decide whether they are “sort of” or “really” like that child. Items are scored from 1 to 4, with higher scores reflecting greater levels of perceived self-competence. Items within each subscale are averaged to yield six separate subscale scores. For this study, only the global self-worth subscale was used.
The second measure of children’s adjustment was the parent-report, Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL consists of 113 behavior problem items which convert to a number of narrow band scales, two broad band scales (internalizing and externalizing behav-iors) and a total behavior problem scale. For this study, only the t scores for total behavior problems were used. The CBCL is the most widely used research-based measure of children’s behavior problems and is known to be reliable and to have good content and construct validity (Achenbach, 1991).
RESULTS Preliminary Analyses
No differences between boys and girls were found for any of the vari-ables in the study. Consequently, the data were collapsed across gender. As might be expected, children adopted from within the United States were placed at an earlier age (M = 2.8 months; SD = 2.78) compared with intercountry adoptees (M = 7.9 months; SD = 4.75), t(71) = 3.84,
p< .0001. They also experienced greater structural openness (M = 6.80; SD = 4.51) than intercountry adoptees (M = 2.00; SD = 1.46), t(71) = 4.38,p< .0001, but not communication openness (M = 3.95; SD = .59 vs. M = 3.58; SD = .66). Given that the majority of intercountry adop-tions involved transracial placements, it is not surprising that children adopted tranracially also experienced less structural openness (M = 2.89; SD = 2.01) compared with those youngsters adopted inracially (M = 6.57; SD = 4.57), t(71) = 3.25,p< .002. In addition, they experi-enced less communication openness (M = 3.50; SD = .74 vs. M = 3.99; SD = .56), t(71) = 3.14,p< .002, and lower self-esteem (M = 3.13; SD = .39 vs. M = 3.34; SD = .41), t(71) =p< .05.
Relationship Among Predictor and Dependent Variables
Pearson Product correlations were computed among the various pre-dictor and dependent variables. Inspection of Table 1 indicates that chil-dren’s age was unrelated to any of the study variables. Age at adoption placement, however, was negatively associated with structural open-ness, but not communication openness or the two-child adjustment measures. Thus, children placed at a younger age lived in families with a greater degree of contact with birth family members than children adopted at an older age. Structural openness also was positively corre-lated with both communication openness and children’s self-esteem. In short, the more contact children had with birth family, the more open the communication about adoption within their family and the more posi-tive they felt about themselves. No relationship was found between structural openness and parental ratings of children’s behavior prob-lems. In contrast, communication openness was significantly correlated with both-child adjustment measures. Specifically, children experienc-ing more open adoption communication in their family not only rated themselves higher in self-esteem, but were rated by their parents as manifesting fewer adjustment difficulties. Finally, as would be expec-ted, a significant negative correlation was found between children’s self-esteem and behavior problems.
Predicting Self-Esteem and Behavior Problems
Two separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the relative contribution of structural openness and communication open-TABLE 1. Pearson Correlations Among Demographic Data, Adoption Open-ness Measures and Child Adjustment Measures
PA SO CO SE BP Child’s age ⫺.21 .16 ⫺.03 .20 ⫺.06 Placement age ⫺.24* .03 ⫺.20 ⫺.02 Structural openness .25* .24* ⫺.16 Communication openness .38** ⫺.40*** Self-esteem ⫺.59***
PA = Placement age; SO = Structural openness; CO = Communication openness; SE = Self-esteem; BP = Behavior problems.
ness as predictors of children’s self-esteem and behavior problems. To control for the influence of children’s age, gender, placement age, type of adoption (domestic versus intercountry), and family racial status (inracial vs. transracial), these variables were entered first as a single block in each regression analysis (labeled demographics), followed by a second block which included structural openness and communication openness. Communication openness, but not structural openness, sig-nificantly predicted children’s ratings of their self-esteem, as well as pa-rental ratings of children’s behavior problems (see Table 2).
DISCUSSION
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study to directly exam-ine the relationship between family structural openness and communi-cation openness in adoptive families, as well as the relative contribution of these two variables for adopted children’s adjustment. As expected, structural openness and communication openness were positively cor-related, although the degree of the relationship was quite modest. What might contribute to this positive relationship? On the one hand, it makes sense that adoptive parents involved in open placements would find themselves more often confronting adoption issues than parents in con-TABLE 2. Adoption Openness as a Predictor of Children’s Self-Esteem and Behavior Problems Predictor Variables R R2 ⌬R2  ⌬F(df) Self-Esteem Demographics .20 .04 .04 2.05 (5,67)ª Adoption openness .41 .17 .13 6.92 (2,65)*** Structural openness .15 Communication Openness .34** Behavior problems Demographics .15 .02 .02 .89 (5,67) Adoption openness .42 .18 .16 6.94 (2,65)*** Structural openness ⫺.07 Communication Openness ⫺.39***
Note: Demographic variables (children’s age, gender, placement age, type of adoption and family racial status) were entered first as a single block to control for their effects in predicting adjustment outcome mea-sures, followed by a second block which included the two measures of adoption openness;
fidential placements. For one thing, open placements, by definition, in-volve direct communication between adoptive parents and birth family members, which in turn is likely to facilitate greater adoption-related communication within the family, especially as adoptive parents makes plans for contact with the birth family, prepare their child for such tact, and respond to the child’s inevitable questions resulting from con-tact. In short, structurally open adoptions are simply more likely to require a greater level of openness in communication about adoption issues than are more traditional, closed adoptions.
It is also possible that the relationship between structural openness and communication openness derives, in part, from a common associa-tion with parental characteristics that leads one to choose and embrace openness in adoption. For example, Brodzinsky (2005) speculated that adoptive parents with a more “open, empathic, and secure personality style” may be more likely to choose an adoption arrangement that is structurally open, as well as be more prone to explore adoption issues within themselves and with others, including their children. In contrast, individuals with a more “closed, cautious, and self-protective personal-ity style” might be expected, on average, to choose a more confidential placement arrangement that minimizes contact between adoptive and birth family members, and to display more resistance to exploring adop-tion issues or discussing them with their children. This speculaadop-tion, of course, requires empirical verification.
The current study provides additional support for the benefits of open adoption for children (see also Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Grotevant et al., 2005; Wrobel et al., 2003). Children living in families with more information about, and contact with, birth family members, and chil-dren who experience more open and sensitive communication about adoption within their family, displayed greater self-esteem and fewer behavior problems. Of importance, however, is the finding that commu-nication openness appears to be a stronger and more consistent predic-tor of children’s adjustment than the extent of structural openness that exists between the adoptive and birth families. In fact, structural open-ness did not predict children’s adjustment independently of communi-cation openness. This finding supports other research suggesting that family process variables such as parent-child communication patterns, parental disciplinary practices, interparental conflict, and quality of pa-rental emotional attunement generally are more important for children’s long-term adjustment than the type of family in which the child is raised (Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 2002; Parke, 2002; Patterson, 2002; Weinrub et al., 2002).
There are a number of important implications that follow from the current findings. First, adoption researchers need to focus more on pa-rental and family characteristics associated with communication style and other process variables that are likely to account for the high degree of variability in psychological adjustment observed among adopted chil-dren. Although it is well documented that adopted children are more at risk for adjustment difficulties than their nonadopted agemates (Brodzin-sky & Pinderhuges, 2002), it is also clear that, as a group, these young-sters display a wide range of adjustment patterns, with the vast majority well within the normal range. It is time for researchers to move beyond questions focusing on the relative risk associated with adoption status per se and to begin to examine those vulnerability and resilience factors found within the general population of adoptees and their families that are linked to varying patterns of psychological adjustment (Palacios & San-ches-Sandoval, 2005).
The current data also suggest that adoption agency personnel and cli-nicians should pay more attention to those parental and family charac-teristics associated with communication style in their work with adoptive families. Despite concerted efforts by adoption professionals over the past two decades to better educate adoptive parents about the nature of adoptive kinship dynamics, many parents continue to have difficulty ac-knowledging and/or discussing the inherent differences associated with adoptive family life, as well as the meaning of being adopted for their children. Too often, children’s curiosity about their heritage goes un-supported and their feelings about being adopted remain suppressed because of parents’ discomfort in addressing these issues. In fostering greater self-exploration about adoption issues within their clients, as well as facilitating more open, direct, and empathic communication between adoptive parents and their children, adoption agency personnel and cli-nicians are likely to support better long-term adjustment in all adoption family members (Grotevant et al., 2005; Wrobel et al., 2003).
Adoption professionals and mental health professionals also need to ensure that structurally open adoptions are truly communicatively open as well. One cannot assume that this will always be the case. In fact, the current study suggests that these two factors are only modestly posi-tively correlated. Clinical experience suggests that many families choos-ing an open placement, although havchoos-ing good intentions regardchoos-ing fos-tering ongoing contact and communication about adoption issues, do not consistently maintain a reasonably high level of openness with the passage of time. Part of the reason for this shift in openness is that the needs of adoption triad members change over time and not always in
ways that are consistent with one another (Brodzinsky, 2005; Wrobel et al., 2003). Whereas adoptive parents and birth parents may agree on a certain level of contact and communication at the time of placement, changes in life circumstances often result in one of the parties needing to change their involvement with the other–that is, either seeking to de-crease contact or perhaps inde-crease it. When confronted with this type of conflict, adoption professionals need to help families understand the normality of the changes taking place and, at the same time, help them negotiate a level of contact and communication that preserves mutual trust and respect. Similarly, although adoptive parents may begin by be-ing very open with their children in the initial stages of tellbe-ing them about their adoption, especially when there is some degree of contact between the adoptive and birth families, the child’s growing interest in their origins sometimes is experienced as threatening to adoptive par-ents, which may lead them to become more defensive and closed in their communication, and perhaps even reduce the amount of contact with the birth family. In this case, adoption professionals need to help adop-tive parents recognize the basis for their discomfort and the importance of maintaining open communication with their child about adoption is-sues, as well as contact with birth family members. In short, adoption professionals need to ensure that structurally open adoptions remain communicatively open.
It is also important for adoption professionals to ensure that adoptive parents who choose a confidential placement or an international adop-tion–both of which usually are associated with limited information about the child’s background–do not fall into the trap of believing that the lack of information about their child’s origin precludes openness in adoption. Adoptive parents not only need to recognize the fundamental importance of open adoption communication, but also how to discuss adoption with their child when there is a lack of information about the birth family or when the available information is of a highly sensitive nature (e.g., when the history includes abuse, abandonment, parental psychopathology, etc.). For example, when there is a lack of verifiable knowledge about the child’s birth history, adoptive parents need to en-courage their child to share his or her thoughts, beliefs, fantasies, and/or feelings about the birth parents and the reasons for the adoption place-ment. Not only does this approach allow adoptive parents access to their child’s mental and emotional life related to adoption, but it also implic-itly normalizes the child’s curiosity about his or her heritage and facili-tates greater openness in communication, even in circumstances when there is limited information about the child’s birth history. In short,
adoptive parents must remember that a structurally closed adoption need not be, and should not be, a communicatively closed adoption. This is an area in which adoptive parents are likely to need much help from adoption professionals and clinicians.
All research is characterized by some limitations. This one is no ex-ception. The sample size, although adequate for meaningful statistical analyses, was somewhat small and raises the question of the generali-zability of the findings to the broader population of adoptive families. Another limitation is related to the diversity of the sample. Approxi-mately 25 percent of the sample were adopted from foreign countries, with the majority of these youngsters placed transracially. Although regression analyses controlled for the influence of type of adoption (do-mestic vs. international) and family racial status (inracial versus trans-racial), it is possible that the diversity of the sample has influenced the findings in some unknown way. Furthermore, the sample size is much too small to adequately examine the question of whether adoption com-munication differs within inracial adoptive families versus transracial adoptive families. Our findings also are limited to children placed rela-tively early in life. Although Neil and Howe (2004) suggest that in older child placements, contact between adoptive and birth families can be beneficial for the child, they also warn that when there has been a his-tory of abuse at the hands of the birth family such contact can be trau-matic. The current study also does not allow for an assessment of the similarity or difference in parents’ and children’s perception of struc-tural and communication openness, as well as the relationship between perceived differences and children’s adjustment. Clinical experience suggests that parents and their children often have quite different views on the extent to which adoption issues are discussed in the family. Such differences may have important implications for family adjustment. Fi-nally, the current study also employed a limited range of outcome mea-sures and, consequently, needs to be replicated with a focus on other measures of adjustment, including those assessing quality of family re-lationships, as well as parents’ and children’s adjustment to adoption per se.
Despite these limitations, the current study provides new and valu-able information on the relationship between openness in adoption and children’s psychological adjustment. Moreover, it is the first study to examine the relative contribution of family structural openness versus communication openness in relation to child outcome measures. Future research needs to expand on the current findings and examine its rele-vance for social casework and clinical practice.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T.M. (1991).Manual for the CBCL/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Press.
Barnes, H.L. & Olsen, D.H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the cir-cumplex model.Child Development,56, 438-447.
Beek, M. & Schofield, G. (2004). Promoting security and managing risk: Contact in long-term foster care. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.),Contact after adoption and per-manent foster care(pp. 124-143). London: BAAF.
Belbas, N. (1987). Staying in touch: Empathy in open adoptions.Smith College Studies in Social Work,57, 184-198.
Berry, M. (1991). The practice of open adoption: Findings from a study of 1,396 fami-lies.Children and Youth Services Review,13, 379-395.
Berry, M., Cavazos Dylla, D., Barth, R.P. & Needell, B. (1998). The role of open adop-tion in the adjustment of adopted children and their families.Children and Youth Services Review,20, 151-171.
Brodzinsky, A.B. (1992).The relation of learned helplessness, social support, and avoidance to grief and depression in women who have placed an infant for adop-tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
Brodzinsky, D.M. (1987). Adjustment to adoption: A psychosocial perspective. Clini-cal Psychology Review,7, 25-47.
Brodzinsky, D.M. (2005). Reconceptualizing openness in adoption: Implications for theory, research, and practice. In D.M. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psycho-logical issues in adoption: Research and practice(pp. 145-166). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Brodzinsky, D.M. & Pinderhughes, E.E. (2002). Parenting and child development in adoptive families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Chil-dren and parenting(2nd ed., pp. 279-311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates.
Brodzinsky, D.M., Schechter, M.D. & Henig, R.M. (1992).Being adopted: The life-long search for self. New York: Doubleday.
Byrd, A.D. (1988). The case for confidential adoption.Public Welfare,46, 20-23. Cocozzelli, C. (1989). Predicting the decision of biological mothers to retain or
relin-quish their babies for adoption: Implications for open placement.Child Welfare,68, 33-44.
Gross, H.E. (1993). Open adoption: A research-based literature review and new data.
Child Welfare,77, 269-284.
Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (1998).Openness in adoption: Exploring family con-nections. New York: Sage.
Grotevant, H.D., Ross, N.M., Marchel, M.A. & McRoy, R.G. (1999). Adaptive behav-ior in adopted children: Predictors from early risk, collaboration in relationships within the adoptive kinship network, and openness arrangements.Journal of Ado-lescent Research,14, 231-247.
Grotevant, H.D., Perry, Y.V. & McRoy, R.G. (2005). Openness in adoption: Outcomes for adolescents within their adoptive kinship networks. In D.M. Brodzinsky & J.
Palacios (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption: Research and practice
(pp. 167-186). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hajal, F. & Rosenberg, E.G. (1991). The family life cycle in adoptive families. Ameri-can Journal of Orthopsychiatry,61, 78-85.
Harter, S. (1985).What am I like: Self-perception profile for children. Denver: Univer-sity of Denver.
Henney, S.M., Ayer-Lopez, S., McRoy, R.G. & Grotevant, H.D. (2004). A longitudinal perspective on changes in adoption openness: The birth mother story. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.),Contact in adoption and permanent foster care(pp. 26-45). London: BAAF.
Hetherington, E.M. & Stanley-Hagan, M. (2002). Parenting in divorced and remarried families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of parenting: Vol 3. Being and becoming a parent(2nd ed., pp. 287-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Howe, D. & Feast, J. (2000).Adoption, search and reunion: The long term experience
of adopted adults. London: The Children’s Society.
Kirk, H.D. (1964).Shared fate: A theory and method of adoptive relationships. New York: Free Press.
Kohler, J.K., Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (2002). Adopted adolescents’ preoccu-pation with adoption: The impact on adoptive family relationships.Journal of Mar-riage and the Family,64, 93-104.
Kraft, A., Palumbo, J., Mitchell, D., Woods, P. & Schmidt, A. (1985a). Some theoreti-cal considerations on confidential adoptions: Part 1: The birth mother.Child and Adolescent Social Work,2, 13-21.
Kraft, A., Palumbo, J., Mitchell, D., Woods, P. & Schmidt, A. (1985b). Some theoreti-cal considerations on confidential adoptions: Part 2: The adoptive parents.Child and Adolescent Social Work,2, 69-82.
Kraft, A., Palumbo, J., Woods, P., Schmidt, A. & Tucker, N. (1985). Some theoretical considerations on confidential adoptions: Part 3: The adopted child.Child and Ado-lescent Social Work,2, 139-153.
Lanz, M., Iafrate, R., Rosnati, R. & Scabini, E. (1999). Parent-child communication and adolescent self-esteem in separated, intercountry adoptive and intact non-adop-tive families.Journal of Adolescence,22, 785-794.
Neil, E. & Howe, D. (2004). Conclusions: A transactional model for thinking about contact. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.),Contact in adoption and permanent foster care(pp. 224-254). London: BAAF.
Nickman, S.L. (1985). Losses in adoption: The need for dialogue. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,40, 365-398.
Palacios, J. & Sanchez-Sandoval, Y. (2005). Beyond adopted/nonadopted compari-sons. In D.M. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.),Psychological issues in adoption: Research and practice(pp. 117-144). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Parke, R.D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of par-enting: Vol 3. Being and becoming a parent(2nd ed., pp. 27-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Patterson, C.J. (2002). Lesbian and gay parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),Handbook of parenting: Vol 3. Being and becoming a parent(2nd ed., pp. 317-338). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Selwyn, J. (2004). Placing older children in new families: Changing patterns of con-tact. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.),Contact after adoption and permanent foster care
(pp. 144-164). London: BAAF.
Siegel, D.H. (1993). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents’ perceptions of ad-vantages and disadad-vantages.Social Work,38, 15-23.
Silverstein, D.R. & Demick, J. (1994). Toward an organizational-relational model of open adoption.Family Process,33, 111-124.
Sobol, M.P., Delaney, S. & Earn, B.M. (1994). Adoptees’ portrayal of the development of family structure.Journal of Youth and Adolescence,32, 385-401.
Stein, L.M. & Hoopes, J.L. (1985).Identity formation in the adopted adolescent. New York: Child Welfare League of America.
Thoburn, J. (2004). Post-placement contact between birth parents and older children: The evidence from a longitudinal study of minority ethnic children. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.),Contact after adoption and permanent foster care(pp. 184-202). London: BAAF.
Weinrub, M., Horvath, D.L. & Gringlas, M.D. (2002). Single parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol 3. Being and becoming a parent. (2nd ed., pp. 109-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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 Develop-ment,67, 2358-2374.
Wrobel, G.M., Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (2004). Adolescent search for birth-parents: Who moves forward?Journal of Adolescent Research,19, 132-151. Wrobel, G.M., Kohler, J.K., Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (1998). Factors related to
patterns of information exchange between adoptive parents and children in medi-ated adoptions.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,19, 641-657. Wrobel, G.M., Kohler, J.K., Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (2003). The family
adop-tion communicaadop-tion model (FAC): Identifying pathways of adopadop-tion-related com-munication.Adoption Quarterly,7, 53-84.
Young, J. & Neil, E. (2004). The “Contact after Adoption” study: The perspective of birth relatives after non-voluntary adoption. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.),Contact after adoption and permanent foster care(pp. 85-104). London: BAAF.
Received: 09/06/05 Revised: 01/02/06 Accepted: 03/31/06 doi:10.1300/J145v9n04_01
