According to Koerner and Fitzpatrick, Family Communication Is Most Effective When They Engage in

J Marriage Fam. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 Aug ane.

Published in final edited course equally:

PMCID: PMC2600517

NIHMSID: NIHMS74108

The Issue of Family Communication Patterns on Adopted Adolescent Aligning

Martha A. Rueter

Department of Family Social Scientific discipline, 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Artery, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108 (ude.nmu@reteurm)

Ascan F. Koerner

Department of Communication Studies, 244 Ford Hall, 224 Church St. S.East., Academy of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN 55455

Abstract

Adoption and family unit communication both bear on boyish adjustment. We proposed that adoption status and family communication collaborate such that adopted adolescents in families with sure communication patterns are at greater adventure for adjustment bug. We tested this hypothesis using a community-based sample of 384 adoptive and 208 nonadoptive families. Adolescents in these families were, on average, 16 years of age. The results supported our hypothesis. Adopted adolescents were at significantly greater hazard for adjustment issues compared to nonadopted adolescents in families that emphasized conformity orientation without chat orientation and in families that emphasized neither conformity nor chat orientation. Adolescents in families emphasizing conversation orientation were at lower risk for adjustment bug, regardless of adoption status.

Keywords: adjustment, adolescents, adoption, family communication patterns

Recent changes in the modern family accept led researchers to pay closer attention to the growing complication of family structures, such as step-families, families formed through assisted reproduction, and adoptive families. Recent reviews attest to detail interest in adoptive families and in adopted child adjustment (cf. Bimmel, Juffer, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2003; Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2005; Lee, 2003; O'Brien & Zamostny, 2003; van IJ-zendoorn, Juffer, & Klein Poelhuis, 2005). These reviews compared adopted, nonadopted, domestically adopted, and internationally adopted youth on several adjustment dimensions, including internalizing and externalizing problems, attachment to parents, and academic achievement. Overall, these reviews reported that most adopted children and adolescents were well adapted. A minor merely notable group, nevertheless, experienced pregnant behavioral or mental health issues. Information technology is this group that may account for mean differences in adjustment that frequently are observed in studies comparing adopted to biological children (Bimmel et al.; Brand & Brinich, 1999).

Differences in adjustment for this small grouping have generally been attributed to a number of factors unique to adopted children. For example, relative to nonadoptees, adopted children accept more likely experienced early childhood adversity that can issue in developmental delays and negatively affect early childhood attachment to parents (Haugaard & Hazan, 2003). Besides, the identity evolution process can be particularly challenging for adopted youth, who may look and act differently from their parents and siblings and who may be trying to come to terms with limited information about their birth parents and cultural origins (Brodzinsky, Schechter, & Henig, 1992; Lee, 2003). In regard to mental health outcomes, there also might be differences in parental thresholds for making treatment referrals, with adoptive parents more than likely than nonadoptive parents to refer children for mental health or behavioral problems (Juffer & IJzendoorn, 2005).

These factors, still, do not fully explain the adjustment difficulties observed in some adopted children. First, they do not utilize uniformly to all adoptive families nor to all adopted children in the pocket-size grouping with adjustment problems. Second, the external factors described in a higher place suggest fairly straight cause-effect relationships. Such simplistic associations are unlikely to correspond the circuitous causal processes that underlie adopted children's aligning problems. To better understand aligning among adopted children, we need a more thorough agreement of the circuitous underlying processes as they occur in most, if not all, adoptive families.

Adolescent Adjustment and Family Communication

In general population studies, more than three decades of research has established a strong association between parent-kid interactions and boyish adjustment (Reiss, 2000; Steinberg, 2001). Research on parent-child communication has consistently demonstrated that parent-child interactions characterized by open up communication, warm and supportive behavior, and firm, consistent enforcement of developmentally appropriate expectations positively influence child adjustment. Hostile, aroused, and conflictual interactions, on the other paw, are associated with poorer aligning. Various labels have been employed to describe these different types of parenting, including Baumrind's (1971) authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and neglecting parenting, Burleson, Delia, and Applegate'southward (1995) person-versus position-centered parenting, and Koerner and Fitzpatrick's (2002b) conversation orientation and conformity orientation.

Cartoon from this overwhelming evidence, we expect that parent-child interaction plays a similarly relevant office in adopted children'due south aligning. We argue that family interaction is a proximate influence on child and boyish adjustment, regardless of adoption condition. Further, family structure and the factors already identified every bit associated with adopted children'south adjustment are, compared to family interaction, more than distal factors whose bear on on aligning is moderated by family interaction. That is, adoption and its correlates define a particular context that interacts with family interaction processes to determine child aligning.

Family Advice Patterns Theory

A theoretical framework that expands upon existing theories (e.thou., Baumrind, 1971; Burleson et al., 1995; Reiss, 1981) to provide a stronger explanation of the clan between family interactions and kid aligning in complex families like adoptive families is Koerner and Fitzpatrick's (2002a, 2002b, 2004b, 2006) Family Advice Patterns Theory (FCPT). FCPT is based on the fundamental insight that creating a shared social reality is primal to family functioning. Shared reality exists when family members' cognitions well-nigh an object are accurate, congruent, and in agreement. Sharing social reality with others makes agreement and being understood easier, leading to more efficiency and coordination and fewer misunderstandings and conflict. Consequently, families that share social reality should communicate with one another more accurately and with less conflict, supporting child aligning.

According to FCP Theory, families create a shared reality through two processes, conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Conversation orientation is characterized by frequent, spontaneous, unconstrained interactions that let family members to codiscover the meaning of symbols and objects. This orientation encourages all family members to participate in defining social reality. Conformity orientation is characterized past uniformity of beliefs and attitudes. Family interactions focus on maintaining harmonious relationships that reverberate obedience to parents, frequently manifest in pressure to concord and maintain the family bureaucracy. This orientation allows family members in authority roles (i.e., parents) to define social reality.

Theoretically orthogonal, these two orientations define iv family types: consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire. Consensual families are high in both conformity and conversation orientation. Communication in consensual families reflects a tension between exploring ideas through open chatty exchanges and a pressure to agree in support of the existing family bureaucracy. Pluralistic families are low in conformity orientation and high in conversation orientation. Family communication is characterized equally open up and unrestrained, focusing on producing independent ideas and fostering communication competence in children. Protective families are loftier in conformity orientation and low in conversation orientation. Advice in these families functions to maintain obedience and enforce family unit norms; little value is placed on the commutation of ideas or the development of communication skills. Laissez-faire families are low in both conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Family members do not oft appoint each other in conversation, and they place fiddling value on communication or the maintenance of a family unit.

Sharing Reality in Complex Families

The concept of a shared reality among family members is not new. Others describe similar concepts using similar terms. Reiss (1981) described shared reality as a family image guiding how members respond to challenges from the external world and Eccles et al. (1993) used phase-environment fit theory to explain the importance of compatibility betwixt parental control attempts and adolescents' growing desire for autonomy. Deater-Deckard and Petrill (2004) used dyadic mutuality to draw synchronized, mutually warm, and responsive parent-kid interactions and Grotevant, Wrobel, van Dulmen, and McRoy (2001), referring specifically to adoptive families, used parent-child compatibility or goodness of fit to refer to the similarity betwixt parental expectations and actual or perceived child behavior. The connexion betwixt these conceptualizations of shared reality and FCP Theory is that in each case, increased shared reality is expected to chronicle to improved family unit performance or kid aligning or both.

Several sources suggest that, compared to genetically related families, sharing social reality is likely to exist more challenging in adoptive families (Brodzinsky, Lang, & Smith, 1995; Deater-Deckard & Petrill, 2004; Grotevant et al., 2001). Amidst the possible reasons for the added challenge is that the cognitive processes involved in perceiving the social earth are at least partially a function of genetic predispositions. Research supporting this contention has shown medium to large furnishings of genetics on attitudes ranging from taste for sweets, preferences for leisure activities, endorsement of moral and ethical positions, and political attitudes (Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005; Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang, 2001; Tesser, 1993). Abrahamson, Baker, and Caspi (2002) have shown that these effects are not express to adults. They reported significant genetic furnishings on political attitudes in children as young as 12 years one-time.

This enquiry suggests that although genetically related family members tin can sometimes rely on similar cognitive processes to achieve a shared reality, genetically unrelated family unit members must rely on other processes. We and others (Brodzinsky et al., 1995; Grotevant et al., 2001; Stein & Hoopes, 1985) suggest that how family members communicate with one another is especially of import to creating a shared social reality amid adoptive family members.

Adoption, Family Communication Patterns, and Kid Adjustment

To appointment, studies of adoptive family communication by and large accept examined adoption-specific communication (e.g., parents talking with an adopted child nearly his or her adoption; Brodzinsky, 2006; Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2003) or examined the direct effect of adoption status on family communication. Directly-outcome studies accept compared various aspects of communication (due east.k., levels of conflict, amount of verbal interaction) across adoptive and nonadoptive families (Lansford, Ceballo, Abby, & Stewart, 2001; Lanz, Ifrate, Rosnati, & Scabini, 1999; Rosnati, & Marta; 1997). For the most role, these studies reported few differences in advice on the ground of adoption status.

In dissimilarity to direct-outcome studies, the FCPT suggests that adoption status and communication design interact to influence kid adjustment. On the basis of research of parent-child communication in the full general population (Baumrind, 1971; Burleson et al., 1995; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004; Steinberg, 2001), we expect that family communication patterns directly affect kid adjustment. On the basis of the greater challenges to creating a shared reality amid adoptive family unit members, we also await that in adoptive families the effects of family unit advice on adjustment will be amplified in specific means. The purpose of the electric current written report, then, was to test the application of the FCP Theory to explicate adolescent adjustment amidst adopted adolescents. To reach this, nosotros tested a series of hypotheses:

H1:	Adopted children will take more than adjustment problems than nonadopted children.
H2:	Adoption condition is not associated with a family'south FCP.
H3:	FCP is associated with child aligning.
H3a:	Consensual families will experience the fewest, Laissez-Faire families the about, and Protective and Pluralistic families a moderate level of child adjustment bug.
H4:	Adoption status and FCP interact to influence child adjustment.
H4a:	FCPs that favor conversation orientation (Consensual and Pluralistic) will take similar levels of adjustment problems across adoptive and nonadoptive families.
H4b:	FCPs that favor control over conversation (Protective) or use neither orientation (Laissez-Faire) will show more than kid adjustment problems in adoptive families relative to nonadoptive families.

Method

Sample

Participants were 592 families recruited to a longitudinal research project designed to investigate sibling influences on boyish drug and alcohol use (McGue et al., 2007). All study families included 2 parents, the target child (referred to as the adolescent; M age = 16.01 years, SD = one.44), and a younger sibling (referred to every bit the sibling; M age = 13.69 years, SD = 1.57) who was within v years of the boyish'due south historic period. In 284 families, both children were adopted, in 100 families, the adolescent was adopted and the sibling was biologically related to the parents, and in 208 families both children were biologically related to the parents.

Adoptive families were identified through records from three large adoption agencies (600 and 700 placements each year). Biological families were identified using state nascence records. Researchers located ninety% of the identified adoptive families and 85% of the identified biological families. Once located, a parent in each family was interviewed to establish written report eligibility. In addition to the children'south age requirement, report eligibility was limited to families living inside driving distance of the research lab and to children with no concrete or mental handicap that would forbid completing the twenty-four hour period-long intake assessment, and all adopted children had to have been placed for adoption prior to 2 years of age (M = iv.vii months, SD = 3.4 months).

Participating were 63% of the eligible adoptive families and 57% of the eligible biological families. To determine the representativeness of participating families, a cursory telephone interview assessing parents' education, occupational status, marital condition, and the number of parent-reported behavioral disorders in the participating children was administered to 73% of nonparticipating but eligible families. Results showed that the study sample is generally representative of the population of eligible families from which it was drawn and is not markedly different from families with parents living with 2 or more children in the metropolitan region where the university is located (McGue et al., 2007).

Procedures

Participating family members visited the research lab to complete informed consent forms, self-written report surveys, two five-minute videotaped family interactions, and the revised Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA-R) (Welner, Reich, Herjanic, Jung, & Amado, 1987). Self-report surveys were independently completed past each family unit member. Amongst other things, these surveys assessed boyish externalizing behavior and family and individual demographic characteristics. The videotaped family interactions were designed to elicit family interactions, including conversation and control behaviors. Videotaping took place in a room decorated to look like a living room or dining room, with family unit members seated around a dining tabular array. Although the video camera was inconspicuously placed in a bookcase, family members were aware that they were being videotaped. A trained interviewer explained the tasks to the family members, but left the room for videotaping. For the kickoff chore, families were presented with a novel object, a Rorschach inkblot, and asked to come to a consensus about what the inkblot resembled. For the 2d task, families were presented with a moral dilemma (Kohlberg, 1981). In the story, a human being whose married woman has been diagnosed with a fatal disease but cannot afford to buy the only drug that tin can relieve her life. Families were asked to make up one's mind (a) whether the man should steal the drug for his wife and (b) whether he should as well steal the drug for a stranger in demand.

Trained interviewers administered the DICA-R (Welner et al., 1987) to the adolescents and their mothers. The DICA-R had been modified to include additional questions and probes necessary for complete coverage of DSM-IV babyhood disorders. Adolescents' symptoms were reported by themselves and by their mothers. All interview data were reviewed past at to the lowest degree two individuals with advanced clinical training who were blind to other family members' symptoms and diagnoses. These reviewers coded every symptom and diagnostic criterion. A symptom was considered present if either the boyish or the mother reported it. Kappa co-efficients for disorders are as follows: Attending deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, .77), Acquit Disorder (CD, .80), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD, .73).

During their visit, the adolescents also nominated teachers to provide information about the kid'south behavior at school. Nominated teachers were mailed a rating form, and teacher reports were received for 69% of the adolescents. Participants were compensated for their travel expenses and given a modest honorarium as compensation for their time.

Measures

FCP

A family'south communication pattern is determined by observing the extent to which the family relies on conversation orientation and conformity orientation to create a shared reality. We used Latent Grade Assay to estimate each family's nearly probable communication pattern (encounter Analysis Plan, beneath). The measures used to appraise conversation orientation and conformity orientation, which are described below, were used every bit indicators of a FCP latent gene.

Trained observers viewed the two family unit interaction tasks and globally rated 12 family unit interaction characteristics using the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study Rating Scales, adapted from the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998). Each family unit member'southward behavior toward each of the other family members was rated using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all feature of the person) to 9 (mainly characteristic of the person). Earlier viewing study videotapes, observers received 100 hours of training and were required to pass written and observation examinations. Trained observers attended biweekly coder meetings for ongoing training and to prevent "rater drift." Observer reliability was assessed past randomly assigning 25% of all tapes to be rated past a second observer, and so comparison the main and secondary ratings using intraclass correlations (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979; Suen & Ary, 1989). Intraclass correlations for scales used in this study ranged from .5 to .viii, a level of reliability considered acceptable for these types of data (Kenny, 1991; Mitchell, 1979).

The nowadays study used three observational scales to appraise conversation orientation, Communication, Listening, and Warmth. Because observers rated a family member'southward behavior toward each of the other three family members, every family fellow member received three scores for each scale. For example, using the Communication scale, observers rated the female parent's ability to clearly and appropriately limited her ain betoken of view, needs, and desires when speaking to the male parent, to the adolescent, and to the sibling. Family unit members who expressed their views in a manner that encouraged conversation with other family unit members received higher scores than those who did non. The Listening calibration assessed the extent to which a family member verbally or nonverbally or both verbally and nonverbally attended to each of the other family members when the other member was speaking. Here again, each family member received three Listening scores. The Warmth scale assessed each family unit member's verbal and nonverbal expressions of caring, concern, and support toward each of the other family members, for a total of three Warmth ratings per family member. The Control scale was used to assess conformity orientation. This calibration measured the extent to which a family member attempted or succeeded in controlling or influencing the attitudes, behavior, and interactions of other family members.

Adolescent externalizing behavior

Adolescent adjustment problems were operationalized as externalizing behavior in a variety of contexts including general malversation, symptoms of behavioral disorders, conflictual relations with parents, and trouble at schoolhouse. To obtain this wide cess of boyish externalizing behavior, nosotros used 5 measures derived from multiple information that were combined every bit a latent factor with five indicators. Because nosotros were primarily interested in the pocket-sized subset of adolescents who experience significant adjustment bug as compared to adolescents who experience relatively few problems, we used Latent Class Analysis (see Assay Program) to place two groups differing in externalizing characteristics.

For the starting time indicator, we used the Delinquent Behavior Inventory (DBI; Gibson, 1967). This self-written report questionnaire contains a list of 36 behaviors. For each behavior, adolescents reported if they had never (1), one time (2), or more than than once (3) engaged in the beliefs. Example DBI items included "cracking, slashing, or damaging things," "cutting classes at school," "stealing things," and "using any kind of weapon in a fight." DBI responses were summed to create a self-report externalizing behavior measure (α = .89).

Symptom counts obtained from the ADHD, CD, and ODD sections of the DICA-R (Welner et al., 1987) were used to create an externalizing symptoms measure (range = 0 – 28 symptoms). As described above, adolescents and mothers completed the DICA-R. A symptom was considered nowadays if either the adolescent or the female parent reported it.

Trained observers rated adolescent beliefs toward each parent, as described above, to create the third and 4th externalizing beliefs measures. Using the hostility calibration, observers assessed the extent to which the adolescent's behavior toward the mother and toward the father was characterized by conflict, anger, defiance, and contempt.

Instructor ratings of adolescent in-class behavior were used to create the concluding externalizing measure. Using a 67-item behavior checklist adapted from the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale (Conners, 1969) and the Rutter Child Scale B (Rutter, 1967), teachers compared the adolescent to the average student and rated how feature a beliefs was of the adolescent (1 = not at all feature to four = very much feature). Case checklist items included "is defiant," "has difficulty concentrating on school-work," "is frequently truant," "initiates concrete fights," and "obeys the rules" (reverse coded). Responses were summed (α = .97, Spearman-Brown interteacher reliability = .82).

Analysis Plan

Testing our study hypotheses required that nosotros develop two chiselled latent variables, the FCP variable and the Adolescent Externalizing Behavior variable, and examine associations between these 2 variables and adoption status. Both chiselled latent variables were created through Latent Form Analysis (LCA) performed using the statistical program Mplus 4.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 – 2006).

The FCP LCA model was created using a second-order latent gene construction. A set of 16 start-club latent factors, each with iii indicators, served as indicators of the second lodge FCP latent factor. The xvi first-social club latent factors assessed each family members' interaction with the three other family members for the 3 conversation orientation measures and the one control orientation measure out (4 family members × 4 measures). For instance, the female parent'southward Advice factor assessed her communication to the other family members and was indicated by the observer ratings of her communication to the father, to the adolescent, and to the sibling. The boyish's and the sibling's gender were entered as covariates of the FCP latent gene.

The adolescent'south Externalizing Behavior latent factor had five observed variables as indicators: (ane) self-reported delinquency, (2) externalizing disorder symptoms, (3) observed hostility to the mother, (four) observed hostility to the male parent, and (5) teacher ratings. The adolescent's historic period and gender were entered as covariates of the Externalizing Behavior latent cistron.

We had hypothesized the presence of four FCP and two Externalizing Behavior classes. To be confident that these were the about likely number of classes, we tested LCA models that had fewer and more than classes than the hypothesized number. Because no unmarried criterion is however accepted for deciding the most likely number of classes within a population, we used a combination of theoretical and statistical criteria. First, we relied upon theory to provide the starting point for our model tests. Thus, to create the FCP variable, we tested models specifying 1, ii, three, 4, and five classes. For the Externalizing Behavior variable, we tested one, two, and iii classes. Statistical criteria included the Bayesian data benchmark (BIC; Hagenaars & McCutcheon, 2002) and the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted LRT (LMR; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001). The BIC is a measure of model fit based on the −2 log likelihood statistic with a penalization for modest samples and increasing parameters. A large subtract in the BIC value when the number of classes is increased indicates an improved fit for the model specifying the additional class. The LMR tests the null hypothesis that reverting to a model with one less class than specified would amend model fit. A statistically significant LMR suggests that this hypothesis can be rejected and that the model being tested produced a significant improvement in model fit relative to a model with one less grade. We also considered class sizes and model convergence. Models that produced classes with few or no members or that did non converge were rejected.

For each of our report hypotheses, we estimated the probability that an adolescent would be placed in the high externalizing subgroup on the basis of family communication patterns or adoption status or both. All probabilities were calculated equally posterior probabilities, and all analytical models were run as mixture models using Mplus 4.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 – 2006). The following provides a description of how we tested each of the study hypotheses.

Testing H1 required that we regress the two-grade Externalizing Behavior latent variable on adoption condition and two covariates, adolescent's age and sex using logistic regression. H1 would be supported if adopted adolescents had significantly greater odds of being placed in the high externalizing subgroup relative to nonadopted adolescents.

To test H2, nosotros estimated the proportion of adoptive and nonadoptive families for each FCP form and statistically compared the adoptive and nonadoptive pairs of proportions using Fisher's verbal tests. H2 would be supported if the tests showed that adoptive and nonadoptive families were distributed similarly across family communication patterns. Additionally, we regressed the FCP latent variable on adoption status and two covariates, boyish and sibling gender, using multinomial logistic regression with the Laissez Faire family advice pattern as the reference grouping. H2 would exist supported past this test if adoptive and nonadoptive families had even odds of placement inside each family communication pattern.

Testing H3 required that we approximate the proportion of adolescents in the high versus the low externalizing subgroups for each family unit communication design. Proportions were compared statistically using Chi Foursquare and Fisher's exact test. H3 would be supported if Consensual families had the smallest proportion of adolescents placed within the high externalizing subgroup, the Protective and Pluralistic families had similar, midlevel proportions, and the Laissez Faire families had the largest proportion of adolescents placed in the high externalizing subgroup.

To exam H4, nosotros estimated the models used to exam H3 two more than times, one time using the sample of adoptive families and a 2d time using the sample of nonadoptive families. Thus, we obtained the proportion of adopted and nonadopted adolescents estimated to be in the high externalizing subgroup for each family unit communication pattern. Proportions were statistically compared using Fisher's verbal test. H4 would be supported if adoptive Laissez Faire and Protective families had significantly higher proportions than nonadoptive Laissez Faire and Protective families and adoptive and nonadoptive Consensual and Pluralistic families had like proportions.

Missing Values Analyses

Information from 592 families were available for these analyses, 318 of which had complete data on all study variables. Almost all missing data were due to missing teacher reports or fathers who did not participate in the observation tasks. Equally noted above, 31% of the teacher externalizing behavior ratings were missing. Also, in 23% of the families, fathers did not participate in the observational tasks. All other study variables had no more than 3% missing data.

Current research indicates that when missing data are unrelated to the study consequence (i.e., missing at random), recovering missing data using a reliable estimation procedure is preferable to case deletion (Schafer & Graham, 2002). For each externalizing beliefs mensurate, we compared mean values for adolescents whose father did and did not participate in the observational tasks or who did and did not have teacher report data. T test results showed no statistically significant differences on the basis of father participation. Adolescents without instructor study data, notwithstanding, did written report significantly college externalizing beliefs (t = 3.14, p = .002) and externalizing symptoms (t = 4.fifteen, p < .00). To examine the possibility that our results could exist biased past missing data, we tested each study hypothesis with and without listwise deletion of missing information. For every hypothesis, the pattern of findings was similar, although the smaller sample produced fewer statistically significant results.

Mplus handles missing information by adjusting model parameter estimates using full-information maximum-likelihood interpretation (FIML; Muthén & Shedden, 1999; Schafer & Graham, 2002). To obtain reliable estimates, Mplus requires that the proportion of bachelor data for each study variable and between each pair of variables be at least .ten. These proportions were all above .53 and the majority were in a higher place .97. Therefore, nosotros used the FIML choice to deal with missing data.

Results

Estimating FCP Classes and Externalizing Beliefs Classes

LCA results produced the strongest support for the four-class FCP model. The pattern of reject in the BIC statistic supported the four-class model over either the iii- or v-class model. The class sizes estimated by the four-class model (Consensual = half dozen.7%, Pluralistic = 31.8%, Protective = 21.9%, Laissez Faire = 39.half-dozen%) were the most evenly distributed of all models tested, and almost importantly, the patterns of family unit behavior estimated by the iv-class model varied in theoretically expected ways. We rejected the five-class LCA model because it estimated a class containing just 1% of the families and produced a relatively modest drop in the BIC (four- to five-course BIC alter = 68.02) and a statistically insignificant LMR (LMR = 182.85, p = .14). The 2-grade model was likewise rejected considering the relative decrease in the BIC statistic from the ane- to the ii-class model (BIC change = 1441.21) and the LMR statistic (LMR = 952.55, p = .008) supported the presence of more than than two classes. The three-form model produced a skillful fit (two-to three-class BIC change = 258.94, LMR = 376.76, p = .002). But iii bug with this model led united states to decline it. First, the hateful family unit behaviors produced by this model showed few interpretable patterns. Second, the model produced an uneven class distribution of two quite big classes and one minor class. Finally, the BIC declines substantially from the three- to the 4-class model (three- to four-class BIC change = 122.69), suggesting the possibility of a quaternary class.

Evidence of the extent to which the four-class model estimated the expected family unit communication patterns is presented in Figure 1. Each bar in Figure one represents ane family member'southward mean gene score. The first bar in every set up depicts the mother's mean factor score. Thus, the left-most white bar represents the Command factor score hateful of .38 estimated for mothers placed within the Protective family unit advice design. The second bar in every set depicts the father'southward mean. The third bar is the boyish's mean, and final bar in every set is the sibling's mean factor score. (Standard errors and t values for the scores presented in Figure 1 are bachelor upon request from the first author.)

Graphical Presentation of Mean Factor Scores for the First-Order Factor Indicators of the Family Advice Patterns Latent Variable.

Note: Showtime bar in every set: mother'due south mean factor score. Second bar: father's mean cistron score. Third bar: adolescent's hateful gene score. Fourth bar: sibling's mean cistron score. Bars rise above 0 stand for behavior levels above the overall hateful. Confined falling below 0 stand for behavior levels beneath the overall mean.

As shown in Figure i, Consensual families had two parents who were relatively high on control behavior and all family unit members tended to appoint in high levels of communication, listening, and warmth. No one in the typical Pluralistic family showed high command, and members engaged in moderate levels of communication and listening and relatively little warmth. Protective families had one controlling parent and engaged in relatively lilliputian communication and moderate levels of listening and warmth. Finally, Laissez-Faire families consistently engaged in the everyman levels of all measured behaviors.

LCA estimation of adolescent externalizing behavior subgroups showed that a ii-grade model fit the data best (one-class BIC = 15709.66, two-course BIC = 12610.97, three-class BIC = 12454.54; 2-class LMR = 529.37, p < .00, 3-course LMR = 240.15, p = .17). The two-class model placed 79.9% of the adolescents in the low externalizing behavior subgroup and twenty.1% in the loftier externalizing subgroup.

Hypothesis Testing

Logistic regression results showed that adopted adolescents were more probable to be placed in the loftier externalizing subgroup relative to nonadopted adolescents (odds ratio (OR) = three.21, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.75 – v.90), supporting H1. Adolescents' gender and age also predicted externalizing subgroup placement. Boys (OR = 5.68, CI = 3.07 – 10.51) and older adolescents (β = 0.320, CI = 0.15 – 0.49) were most likely to exist placed in the loftier externalizing subgroup.

Proportions of adoptive and nonadoptive families within each FCP were quite similar (Consensual: adoptive = 6.7%, nonadoptive = iii.8%; Pluralistic: adoptive = 31.3%, nonadoptive = 30.0%; Protective: adoptive = 20.5%, nonadoptive = 26.0%; Laissez Faire: adoptive = 41.1%, nonadoptive = forty.4%), supporting H2. Statistical comparisons using Fisher'southward Exact tests found no statistically significant differences betwixt the proportions of adoptive and nonadoptive families within each FCP. Likewise, multinomial logistic regression results using Laissez-Faire as the comparing showed that adoptive and nonadoptive families had even odds of placement in each family unit advice pattern (Consensual OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.70 – 3.84; Pluralistic OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.66 – 1.72: Protective OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.46 – i.25).

Beyond family advice patterns, proportions of adolescents in the high externalizing subgroup supported H3 (Consensual = 1.ane, Pluralistic = 16.0, Protective = 13.four, Laissez Faire = 21.3; χ² = 150.76, p < .01). Fisher Exact tests showed that the proportion of high externalizing adolescents estimated for Laissez-Faire families was significantly larger than the proportion for Pluralistic families (p = .04). The was no difference in proportions for Pluralistic and Protective families (p = .11). Small cell size (only one Consensual family adolescent was placed in the loftier externalizing subgroup) precluded comparing Protective and Consensual families.

Proportions of adopted and nonadopted adolescents inside each FCP in the high externalizing subgroup followed the expected design (Consensual: adoptive = two.6%, nonadoptive = 0.0%; Pluralistic: adoptive = xvi.7%, nonadoptive = 12.3%; Protective: adoptive = 18.5%, nonadoptive = 4.1%; Laissez Faire: adoptive = 26.9%, nonadoptive = 7.8%), supporting H4. The nearly 5:1 difference in proportions for adoptive and nonadoptive adolescents in Protective families was statistically significant (p = .047), every bit was the 3:1 ratio for Laissez Faire (p = .005). Proportions of adoptive and nonadoptive adolescents in Pluralistic families were similar (p = .36). Small cell size precluded comparing proportions in Consensual families.

Discussion

On the ground of what is known about associations betwixt family unit communication and adolescent adjustment from existing studies (Steinberg, 2001), much of what we report here is non unexpected. Our goal, even so, was to apply the FCP Theory, which suggests that creating shared social reality among family members plays a central role in adolescent adjustment, to furthering our understanding of adopted adolescent aligning. Our results support the FCP Theory and signal that existing theories based largely on families with genetically related parents and children may non completely employ to complex families, like adoptive families.

Every bit others have reported, we found that adoption status is associated with adolescent adjustment (Bimmel et al., 2003; Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2005; Keyes, Sharma, Elkins, Iacono, McGue, 2007; Lee, 2003; O'Brien & Zamostny, 2003; van IJzendoorn et al., 2005). We also replicated early on research showing that family communication patterns direct relate to adolescent adjustment such that children in families that emphasized a combination of conversation and conformity were to the lowest degree likely to have adjustment problems (Steinberg, 2001). Our findings get beyond previous piece of work to show that adoption status and family advice patterns interact in important ways and better explain adopted adolescent adjustment. Specifically, adoptive families that emphasized conformity over conversation orientation (i.eastward., protective families) or that used neither conformity nor conversation orientation (i.e., laissez-faire families) either failed to mitigate the risks of adoption associated with adolescent adjustment or even amplified them. Adoptive families high in conversation orientation (i.e., consensual and pluralistic families) appeared to mitigate those risks to the extent that their risk for child aligning problems was statistically undifferentiated from nonadoptive families.

This does not mean that conversation orientation is universally positive for boyish outcomes. Our results demonstrate that communication without control from parents leads to poor child adjustment, regardless of adoption status. We estimated that sixteen.7% of adopted boyish and 12.3% of nonadopted adolescents stemming from Pluralistic families were in the externalizing group, which for nonadopted adolescents was the highest proportion. Only when conversation orientation was paired with parental control in the course of conformity orientation was conversation orientation associated with superior outcomes.

Family advice patterns that placed adoptive families at item risk for boyish adjustment problems were the Protective and Laissez-Faire types. It is no surprise that these communication patterns are associated with adolescent adjustment problems. What we written report that is new is that adoption condition and family communication patterns interact such that adopted children in these families were at substantially greater risk for adjustment problems relative to nonadopted children. In fact, more than a quarter of adopted adolescents in Laissez-Faire families cruel into the loftier externalizing subgroup compared to only 8% of the nonadopted adolescents. This suggests that adopted children may be much more sensitive to the parental indifference and fail typical of Laissez-Faire families than nonadopted children. We besides establish that controlling parenting without advice is much more than detrimental to adopted children than to nonadopted children. Adopted children in Protective families were at most five times the risk of existence placed in the loftier externalizing grouping compared to nonadopted children in Protective families.

Theory-Based Explanation of Results

We proposed that the interaction between adoption status and family unit advice pattern occurs considering adoptive families face more than challenges to creating a shared reality than nonadoptive families. Co-ordinate to FCP Theory, the existence of a shared reality means more authentic communication and fewer misunderstandings and conflict, reducing the chance of child aligning bug (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004, 2006). Genetically related family members probable share a sense of belonging based on physical advent, blood ties, and shared social attitudes or cognitions based in genetic inheritance (Abrahamson et al., 2002; Alford et al., 2005; Olson et al., 2001; Tesser, 1993). All these shared characteristics facilitate their ability to create a shared reality, fifty-fifty in the absence of chat. Adoptive families typically do not share these advantages.

In Protective families, where the parent(due south) dictate the social reality, nosotros speculate that nonadopted adolescents probable share at least some of their parents' cognitions. Therefore, they might take their parents' regulatory messages, fifty-fifty if they are offered without much opportunity for discussion. Adopted adolescents probably have cognitive processes that differ from their parents. Therefore, adopted adolescents in Protective families may find their parents' regulatory messages more than difficult to accept. As a consequence, they are either less compliant or more probable to experience negative psychological consequences from their interactions with their parents, which are expressed in externalizing behaviors.

In Laissez-Faire families, where social reality is neither dictated nor discussed, rebellion against parental authorization might play a lesser role in putting adopted adolescents at increased risk. The salient gene in Laissez-Faire families is the absence of shared reality. We suggest that challenges to developing a sense of identity faced by adopted adolescents (Bimmel et al., 2003; Grotevant et al., 2001) are exacerbated in the absenteeism of a shared reality. For adopted adolescents, questions about "who am I" can be complicated by express data about birth parents and differences between themselves and adoptive family members. In nonadoptive Laissez-Faire families, genetically based similarities afford at least a minimal sense of shared reality, providing a foundation from which to answer questions about ane's identity.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although they are based on theory, these arguments are all the same to be fully tested. For instance, we theorize that similarities among family members based on genetic relatedness is the most likely explanation for the interaction betwixt adoption status and family communication pattern. We did non, however, measure out cognitive processes. Conducting inquiry that directly assesses how family unit members perceive their environments, and in particular, how children perceive their parents' regulatory messages will be an important next step in our enquiry programme. Also, this report used cross-sectional data. Therefore, information technology is possible that the observed family communication patterns developed in response to or in coincidence with child adjustment issues. Futurity, longitudinal tests of this theory are needed to understand better the complex processes proposed hither.

Methodological strengths include using innovative methods for studying adoptive families and their communication. For example, this is the first study we know of that used observational information and latent cluster analysis to determining family advice patterns, as identified by the FCP Theory. All previous studies accept used self-reports only (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004, 2006). Also, rather than using mean aligning scores to assess adolescent aligning, we took serious the ofttimes repeated claim that only a small-scale group of adopted children experiences adjustment bug and focused on predicting membership in that subgroup.

There are limits to the generalizability of this report's findings. For example, we focused on families with adolescent children. Family advice patterns may operate differently amid families with younger or older children. As noted higher up, longitudinal investigations are needed. Also, as is characteristic of adoptive families, the families in our sample were more educated and had higher incomes than the general population. They likewise were from the Midwestern United States and the parents were predominantly Caucasian with European ancestry. Future studies that include, for case, stepfamilies will need to test the generalizability of our findings to families with more than varied socioeconomic, regional, indigenous, and racial backgrounds.

To our cognition, this is the beginning study to demonstrate an interaction between adoption condition and family communication patterns. According to our theory, this interaction occurs equally a function of parent-child genetic relatedness. This report is just a starting time footstep in fully testing this theory. If replicated through future studies, however, our theoretical model could likewise apply to other complex families in which parents and children are genetically unrelated such as step- or composite families and families formed through assisted reproduction. Thus, this report represents an initial step in what could potentially exist a much wider field of report.

Acknowledgments

Contributor Information

Martha A. Rueter, Department of Family Social Science, 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108 (ude.nmu@reteurm).

Ascan F. Koerner, Department of Communication Studies, 244 Ford Hall, 224 Church building St. S.E., Academy of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN 55455.

References

• Abrahamson Air conditioning, Baker LA, Caspi A. Rebellious teens? Genetic and environmental influences on the social attitudes of adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002;83:1392–1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Alford JR, Funk CL, Hibbing JR. Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review. 2005;99:153–167. [Google Scholar]
• Baumrind D. Electric current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology. 1971;4:i–103. [Google Scholar]
• Bimmel N, Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Problem beliefs of internationally adopted adolescents: A review and meta-analysis. Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2003;11:64–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brand AE, Brinich PM. Behavior problems and mental health contacts in adopted, foster, and nonadopted children. Periodical of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1999;twoscore:1221–1229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brodzinsky D, Lang R, Smith D. Parenting adopted children. In: Bornstein M, editor. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Condition and social conditions of parenting. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1995. pp. 209–232. [Google Scholar]
• Brodzinsky DM. Family structural openness and communication openness as predictors in the aligning of adopted children. Adoption Quarterly. 2006;9:1–18. [Google Scholar]
• Brodzinsky DM, Schechter MD, Henig RM. Being adopted: The lifelong search for self. New York: Doubleday; 1992. [Google Scholar]
• Burleson BR, Delia JG, Applegate JL. The socialization of person-centered advice: Parents' contributions to their children's social-cognitive and communication skills. In: Fitzpatrick MA, Vangelisti A, editors. Explaining family interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. pp. 34–76. [Google Scholar]
• Conners CK. Conner'due south Teacher Rating Scale. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa; 1969. [Google Scholar]
• Deater-Deckard Chiliad, Petrill SA. Parent –kid dyadic mutuality and child beliefs problems: An investigation of gene – environment processes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2004;45:1171–1179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Eccles JS, Midgley C, Wigfield A, Buchanan CM, Rueman D, Flanagan C, et al. Development during boyhood: The impact of stage-environs fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist. 1993;48:90–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gibson HB. Self-reported delinquency among school boys, and their attitudes to the police force. British Periodical of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1967;6:168–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Grotevant HD, Wrobel GM, van Dulmen MH, McRoy RG. The emergence of psychosocial date in adopted adolescents: The family as context over fourth dimension. Journal of Boyish Research. 2001;16:469–490. [Google Scholar]
• Hagenaars J, McCutcheon A, editors. Practical latent form analysis models. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Haugaard JJ, Hazan C. Adoption every bit a natural experiment. Evolution and Psychopathology. 2003;15:909–926. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH. Behavior bug and mental wellness referrals of international adoptees: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293:2501–2515. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kenny DA. A full general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review. 1991;98:155–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Keyes MA, Sharma A, Elkins IJ, Iacono WG, McGue M. The mental health of U.s.a. adolescents adopted in infancy. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2007;161:419–425. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Toward a theory of family communication. Advice Theory. 2002a;12:seventy–91. [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Agreement family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of chat orientation and conformity orientation. Communication Yearbook. 2002b;26:37–69. [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Advice in intact families. In: Vangelisti A, editor. Handbook of family advice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 177–195. [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Family unit communication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach. In: Braithwaite DO, Baxter LA, editors. Engaging theories in family advice: Multiple perspectives. M Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. pp. 50–65. [Google Scholar]
• Kohlberg Fifty. Essays on moral development, Vol. I: The philosophy of moral development. New York: Harper & Row; 1981. [Google Scholar]
• Lansford JE, Ceballo R, Abbey A, Stewart AJ. Does family unit structure matter? A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather, and stepmother households. Periodical of Marriage and family. 2001;63:840–851. [Google Scholar]
• Lanz Chiliad, Ifrate R, Rosnati R, Scabini E. Parent-child communication and boyish self-esteem in separated, intercountry adopted, and intact non-adoptive families. Journal of Adolescence. 1999;22:785–794. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lee RM. The transracial adoption paradox: History, research, and counseling implications of cultural socialization. The Counseling Psychologist. 2003;31:711–744. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lo Y, Mendell NR, Rubin DB. Testing the number of components in normal mixture. Biometrika. 2001;88:767–778. [Google Scholar]
• McGue M, Keyes One thousand, Sharma A, Elkins I, Legrand Fifty, Johnson Westward. The environments of adopted and not-adopted youth: Bear witness on range brake from the Sibling Interaction and Beliefs Study (SIBS) Beliefs Genetics. 2007;37:449–462. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Melby JN, Conger RD, Book R, Rueter M, Lucy L, Repinski D. The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. 5. Ames, IA: Institute for Social and Behavioral Enquiry, Iowa State University; 1998. Unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar]
• Mitchell SK. Interobserver agreement, reliability, and generalizability of data collected in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86:376–390. [Google Scholar]
• Muthén B, Muthén 50. Mplus version iv.two. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 1998–2006. [Google Scholar]
• Muthén B, Shedden K. Finite mixture modeling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm. Biometrics. 1999;55:463–469. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• O'Brien KM, Zamastny KP. Understanding adoptive families: An integrative review of empirical research and future directions for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist. 2003;31:679–710. [Google Scholar]
• Olson JM, Vernon PA, Harris A, Jang KL. The heritability of attitudes: A report of twins. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;fourscore:845–860. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reiss D. The family'due south construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Academy Printing; 1981. [Google Scholar]
• Reiss D. The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
• Rosnati R, Marta E. Parent – child relationships as a protective factor in preventing adolescents' psychosocial chance in inter-racial adoptive and non-adoptive families. Journal of Boyhood. 1997;twenty:617–631. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rutter MA. Children's behavior questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1967;viii:1–xi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods. 2002;7:147–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86:420–428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Steinberg L. Nosotros know these things: Parent-boyish relationships in hindsight and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2001;xi:1–19. [Google Scholar]
• Stein LM, Hoopes JL. Identity formation in the adopted adolescent: The Delaware family study. New York: Child Welfare League of America; 1985. [Google Scholar]
• Suen KK, Ary D. Analyzing quantitative behavioral ascertainment information. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1989. [Google Scholar]
• Tesser A. The importance of heritability in psychological inquiry: The case of attitudes. Psychological Review. 1993;100:129–142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F, Klein Poelhuis CW. Adoption and cognitive development: A meta-analytic comparison of adopted and nonadopted children'southward IQ and schoolhouse performance. Psychological Bulletin. 2005;131:301–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Welner Z, Reich West, Herjanic B, Jung M, Amado H. Reliability, validity, and parent-child agreement studies of the Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA) Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1987;26:649–653. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wrobel GM, Kohler JK, Grotevant Hard disk, McRoy RG. The family adoption advice model (FAC): Identifying pathways of adoption-related communication. Adoption Quarterly. 2003;7:53–84. [Google Scholar]

wallsbelve1993.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600517/

Share this post