Key Findings
The Minnesota/Texas Adoption Project (MTARP) was launched in order to
contribute to our understanding of relationships and developmental outcomes
for children in adoptive kinship networks that vary in degree of contact
between the child’s birth relatives and adoptive family members. Although
much is known about traditional family environments that lead to healthy
outcomes for children and youth, we lack adequate scientific understanding
of the basic processes in complex families, including adoptive and birth
families, and how they are connected to psychological and social outcomes.
Research on adoptive and birth families is important because adoption
touches many lives: almost two-thirds of Americans have personal experience
with adoption through their own family or close friends.
This document highlights our key findings to date. “Wave 1” refers to
data collected when the children in the study were between the ages of 4 –
12; “Wave 2” refers to data collected 8 years after Wave 1, when the target
children were adolescents, ages 12 - 20. This section first addresses
variations in openness arrangements and relationships within the adoptive
kinship network. In our sample of 190 adoptive families and 169
birthmothers, what kind of adoption arrangements did we find, and how did
they work? Second, it focuses on individual outcomes for adopted children
and adolescents, adoptive parents, and birth mothers by looking at issues
such as adjustment, self-esteem, and identity. For complete information
about any of the findings, please refer to the specific publications cited.
Relationships within the Adoption
Kinship Network
Outcomes for Adopted Children and Adolescents
Outcomes for Birthmothers
Outcomes for Adoptive Parents
Continue to content
Self EsteemAt Wave 1, Harter’s Self-Perception Scale for Children,
a measure of self-esteem, was administered to all children over the age of
7.5 years. The children as a group scored within the normal range on this
scale. Average levels of self-esteem did not differ by level of openness in
the children’s adoptions (Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, McRoy, & Friedrick,
1996).
Adjustment
At Wave 1, variations in adjustment among adopted children were linked to
relationships within their adoptive families as well as to the quality of
the connections across the adoptive kinship network in which they were
members. There was no relation between level of openness and the children’s
socioemotional adjustment, as measured by the Child Adaptive Behavior
Inventory (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998). Subsequent analyses focused on family
process predictors of adjustment, including acknowledgment of difference,
compatibility, parents’ sense of entitlement, and parenting competence. In
these analyses, the strongest predictor of problematic adjustment outcomes
(internalizing and externalizing) during middle childhood (Wave 1) was the
parent’s perception of the child’s incompatibility with the family (Ross,
1995)
When children were involved in adoptive kinship networks involving
contact with birth family members, child adjustment was related not only to
qualities of relationships within the adoptive family but also to
collaboration in relationships between the adoptive parents and birth
family members involved in contact. Collaboration in relationships is an
emergent property of the adoptive kinship network, characterized by the
ability of the child’s adoptive and birthparents to work together
effectively on behalf of the child’s well-being. It involves collaborative
control over the way in which contact is handled and is based on mutual
respect, empathy, and valuing of the relationship. Higher degrees of
collaboration in the adoptive kinship network were associated with better
adjustment during middle childhood (Grotevant, Ross, Marchel, & McRoy,
1999).
Looking longitudinally, we found that higher degrees of perceived
compatibility maintained from middle childhood to adolescence were
associated with higher degrees of psychosocial engagement (defined as
adolescents’ active use of inner resources to interact positively with
others in family, peer, and community contexts) and attachment to parents
and lower problem behavior. The results were similar for male and female
adolescents and regardless of whether compatibility change patterns were
derived from mothers’ or fathers’ perceptions (Grotevant, Wrobel, van Dulmen,
& McRoy, 2001).
On average, our sample of adopted adolescents was no different in levels
of adjustment from the national norms developed on a set of well validated
measures. In addition, level of openness by itself was not a major predictor
of adjustment outcomes at Wave 1 (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998) or Wave 2 (Von
Korff, 2004). However, relationship qualities such as collaboration in
relationships and perceptual qualities such as perceived compatibility were
predictive of adjustment across openness levels.
Curiosity about Birth family and Searching
An important aspect of our work is that we have brought forward the
voices of the children and adolescents who have participated. For example,
at Wave 1, all children showed curiosity about their birth families;
children’s own reports about their curiosity about birthparents did not
differ by level of openness (Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, McRoy, &
Friedrick, 1996). Adolescents’ interviews from Wave 2 have contributed to
understanding of the process of searching for birthparents (see Wrobel,
Grotevant, and McRoy, 2004, for details). We view decision-making about
searching as part of the normative developmental process for adolescent and
young adult adoptees. This does not mean that every adoptee will search, but
it does mean that they will need to consider the decision to search as part
of the process of their development. Curiosity about birthparents and a
strong desire to meet them did not negate adolescents’ positive views about
their adoptive family.
Identity
Adopted youth are confronted with the challenge of making meaning of
their beginnings, which may be unknown, unclear, or otherwise ambiguous.
Meaning-making (e.g., Kegan, 1982; Klinger, 1998) involves constructing a
story about oneself that attempts to answer many questions: Where did I come
from? Who were my parents? Why was I placed for adoption? Do my birthparents
think about me now? Do I have siblings? What does adoption mean in my life?
This story, or narrative, helps adolescents make sense of the past,
understand the self in the present, and project themselves into the future (Grotevant,
1993). Constructing this narrative is about the development of adoptive
identity, the evolving answer to the question: “Who am I as an adopted
person?” (Grotevant, 1997; Grotevant, Dunbar, Kohler, & Esau, 2000). This is
part of the larger process of identity development, which is widely
recognized as an important task of adolescence that lays a foundation for
adult psychosocial development (Erikson, 1968).
The narrative approach to identity highlights the integration and
coherence of the self through the evaluation of the structure, content, and
function of the narrative (e.g., McAdams, 1987, 1993, 2001; Mishler, 1999).
From this perspective, the adolescent is viewed as creating and recreating a
life story that makes meaning of and gives purpose to his or her experience
of adoption.
The process of adoptive identity development may involve a period of time
when adoption issues are particularly salient, involving intense reflection
and emotional engagement, perhaps preoccupation on the part of the
adolescent (Dunbar, 2003). When this occurs, it may be accompanied by the
adolescent’s temporary emotional withdrawal from the adoptive family. On
average, girls’ levels of preoccupation (measured by the Adoption Dynamics
Questionnaire) were higher than boys’ (Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2002).
Differences in degree of preoccupation with adoption were not related to the
level of openness in the adolescent’s adoption.
Adoptive identity, the sense of oneself as an adopted person, emerges
during adolescence and is related to qualities of relationships within the
adolescent’s family. Four distinctive patterns of adoptive identity were
apparent during adolescence (Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004).
In the first group, unexplored adoptive identity, the adolescent had
undertaken little or no exploration, adoption had low salience, and little
affect around adoption was expressed. For example, one adolescent stated,
“Because I feel like it’s over and that I’m happy where I am and I just
don’t want to mess with that other part.” Another noted that “I don’t really
think about adoption that much so it’s just, I probably don’t even realize
that I am.”
In the second group, limited adoptive identity, adolescents were actively
exploring ideas. As one young woman stated, “Sometimes it’s important to me
and sometimes it isn’t.”
Adolescents in the third group, unsettled adoptive identity, had
narratives that were coherent and integrated, marked by high exploration of
adoptive identity, high salience, and strong negative affect. One adolescent
stated, “My mom (adoptive) and I aren’t very close and I know that’s
(adoption) the reason. I mean if, I’m sure if I lived with my real mom we’d
be a lot closer, we’d talk about it and that’s just hard because all my
friends can talk to their moms.”
Finally, adolescents demonstrating integrated adoptive identity had
coherent, integrated narratives in which adoptive identity was highly
salient and viewed positively. For example, one teen said, “When I was
little I worried I was placed because she didn’t want me. Now I know I was
placed because she cared enough.”
Patterns of adoptive identity differed widely across adolescents,
although in general, more positively resolved patterns were found among
older rather than younger adolescents and girls rather than boys.
Differences in adoptive identity or degree of preoccupation with adoption
were not related to the level of openness in the adolescent’s adoption
(Dunbar, 2003; Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004). However, differences in
preoccupation were related to identity group. Preoccupation with adoption
was significantly higher for adolescents in the Unsettled and Integrated
types than for adolescents in the Unexamined type (Dunbar, 2003).
