Which of the Following Is Not a Characteristic of Families Described in the Text?

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

Published in final edited class as:

PMCID: PMC2600517

NIHMSID: NIHMS74108

The Issue of Family unit Advice Patterns on Adopted Adolescent Aligning

Martha A. Rueter

Section 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 St. South.Eastward., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN 55455

Abstract

Adoption and family communication both touch adolescent adjustment. We proposed that adoption status and family communication interact such that adopted adolescents in families with certain advice patterns are at greater risk for aligning problems. Nosotros tested this hypothesis using a customs-based sample of 384 adoptive and 208 nonadoptive families. Adolescents in these families were, on boilerplate, 16 years of age. The results supported our hypothesis. Adopted adolescents were at significantly greater run a risk for adjustment problems compared to nonadopted adolescents in families that emphasized conformity orientation without conversation orientation and in families that emphasized neither conformity nor conversation orientation. Adolescents in families emphasizing conversation orientation were at lower gamble for adjustment bug, regardless of adoption status.

Keywords: aligning, adolescents, adoption, family communication patterns

Recent changes in the modernistic family have led researchers to pay closer attention to the growing complexity of family structures, such as step-families, families formed through assisted reproduction, and adoptive families. Contempo reviews attest to particular involvement 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 accomplishment. Overall, these reviews reported that most adopted children and adolescents were well adjusted. A modest but notable group, however, experienced significant behavioral or mental wellness problems. It is this grouping that may business relationship for hateful differences in adjustment that often are observed in studies comparing adopted to biological children (Bimmel et al.; Brand & Brinich, 1999).

Differences in aligning for this small grouping have generally been attributed to a number of factors unique to adopted children. For case, relative to nonadoptees, adopted children have more likely experienced early babyhood adversity that can result in developmental delays and negatively touch on early on childhood attachment to parents (Haugaard & Hazan, 2003). Too, the identity evolution process tin can be specially challenging for adopted youth, who may wait and act differently from their parents and siblings and who may be trying to come to terms with limited information almost their nascence 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 likely than nonadoptive parents to refer children for mental health or behavioral problems (Juffer & IJzendoorn, 2005).

These factors, withal, do non fully explain the adjustment difficulties observed in some adopted children. Starting time, they exercise not apply uniformly to all adoptive families nor to all adopted children in the small-scale group with adjustment problems. 2d, the external factors described above propose adequately direct crusade-effect relationships. Such simplistic associations are unlikely to represent the complex causal processes that underlie adopted children's adjustment issues. To better understand adjustment among adopted children, we need a more than thorough agreement of the complex underlying processes equally they occur in most, if not all, adoptive families.

Adolescent Adjustment and Family unit Communication

In general population studies, more than 3 decades of research has established a potent association betwixt parent-kid interactions and adolescent adjustment (Reiss, 2000; Steinberg, 2001). Research on parent-kid communication has consistently demonstrated that parent-kid interactions characterized by open communication, warm and supportive beliefs, and business firm, consistent enforcement of developmentally advisable expectations positively influence child adjustment. Hostile, angry, and conflictual interactions, on the other hand, are associated with poorer aligning. Various labels take been employed to describe these dissimilar types of parenting, including Baumrind's (1971) authoritarian, administrative, 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, nosotros look that parent-child interaction plays a similarly relevant role in adopted children's adjustment. Nosotros argue that family interaction is a proximate influence on child and adolescent aligning, regardless of adoption status. Farther, family structure and the factors already identified as associated with adopted children's aligning are, compared to family interaction, more distal factors whose touch on on adjustment is chastened past family interaction. That is, adoption and its correlates define a particular context that interacts with family interaction processes to determine child adjustment.

Family Communication Patterns Theory

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

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 allow family unit members to codiscover the meaning of symbols and objects. This orientation encourages all family unit members to participate in defining social reality. Conformity orientation is characterized by uniformity of beliefs and attitudes. Family unit interactions focus on maintaining harmonious relationships that reflect obedience to parents, frequently manifest in pressure to agree and maintain the family hierarchy. This orientation allows family members in authorisation 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 communicative exchanges and a force per unit area to agree in back up of the existing family unit bureaucracy. Pluralistic families are low in conformity orientation and high in conversation orientation. Family communication is characterized as open and unrestrained, focusing on producing independent ideas and fostering communication competence in children. Protective families are high in conformity orientation and low in conversation orientation. Communication in these families functions to maintain obedience and enforce family unit norms; trivial value is placed on the exchange of ideas or the development of advice skills. Laissez-faire families are low in both chat orientation and conformity orientation. Family members do non oft engage each other in conversation, and they place lilliputian value on advice or the maintenance of a family unit.

Sharing Reality in Complex Families

The concept of a shared reality amid family members is not new. Others draw like concepts using similar terms. Reiss (1981) described shared reality as a family image guiding how members respond to challenges from the external earth and Eccles et al. (1993) used stage-environment fit theory to explicate the importance of compatibility between parental control attempts and adolescents' growing desire for autonomy. Deater-Deckard and Petrill (2004) used dyadic mutuality to describe synchronized, mutually warm, and responsive parent-child 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 kid beliefs. The connection between these conceptualizations of shared reality and FCP Theory is that in each case, increased shared reality is expected to relate to improved family performance or kid aligning or both.

Several sources suggest that, compared to genetically related families, sharing social reality is likely to be more challenging in adoptive families (Brodzinsky, Lang, & Smith, 1995; Deater-Deckard & Petrill, 2004; Grotevant et al., 2001). Among the possible reasons for the added challenge is that the cognitive processes involved in perceiving the social globe are at least partially a office of genetic predispositions. Research supporting this contention has shown medium to big effects of genetics on attitudes ranging from gustation 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 limited to adults. They reported significant genetic furnishings on political attitudes in children as young as 12 years old.

This research suggests that although genetically related family members can sometimes rely on similar cognitive processes to attain 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 particularly important to creating a shared social reality among adoptive family unit members.

Adoption, Family Communication Patterns, and Child Adjustment

To date, studies of adoptive family unit communication mostly accept examined adoption-specific communication (e.g., parents talking with an adopted child about his or her adoption; Brodzinsky, 2006; Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2003) or examined the directly upshot of adoption condition on family communication. Direct-event studies have compared various aspects of communication (e.g., levels of disharmonize, corporeality of verbal interaction) beyond adoptive and nonadoptive families (Lansford, Ceballo, Abby, & Stewart, 2001; Lanz, Ifrate, Rosnati, & Scabini, 1999; Rosnati, & Marta; 1997). For the most part, these studies reported few differences in advice on the ground of adoption status.

In contrast to direct-effect studies, the FCPT suggests that adoption status and communication pattern collaborate to influence child adjustment. On the basis of inquiry of parent-kid communication in the general population (Baumrind, 1971; Burleson et al., 1995; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004; Steinberg, 2001), we look that family communication patterns directly touch kid adjustment. On the basis of the greater challenges to creating a shared reality among adoptive family members, we also look that in adoptive families the effects of family advice on aligning volition exist amplified in specific ways. The purpose of the current study, then, was to test the awarding of the FCP Theory to explicate adolescent adjustment among adopted adolescents. To accomplish this, we tested a series of hypotheses:

H1:	Adopted children will have more adjustment issues than nonadopted children.
H2:	Adoption status is not associated with a family'southward FCP.
H3:	FCP is associated with kid aligning.
H3a:	Consensual families will experience the fewest, Laissez-Faire families the most, and Protective and Pluralistic families a moderate level of child adjustment problems.
H4:	Adoption condition and FCP interact to influence child adjustment.
H4a:	FCPs that favor conversation orientation (Consensual and Pluralistic) volition 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) volition show more child 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 adolescent drug and booze utilise (McGue et al., 2007). All study families included 2 parents, the target child (referred to equally the adolescent; Chiliad age = 16.01 years, SD = 1.44), and a younger sibling (referred to as the sibling; Thou historic period = 13.69 years, SD = ane.57) who was inside v years of the adolescent's age. 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 iii big adoption agencies (600 and 700 placements each year). Biological families were identified using state birth records. Researchers located 90% of the identified adoptive families and 85% of the identified biological families. Once located, a parent in each family was interviewed to establish study eligibility. In add-on to the children'due south age requirement, study eligibility was limited to families living within driving distance of the research lab and to children with no physical or mental handicap that would preclude completing the day-long intake assessment, and all adopted children had to take been placed for adoption prior to 2 years of age (Thousand = four.7 months, SD = 3.4 months).

Participating were 63% of the eligible adoptive families and 57% of the eligible biological families. To make up one's mind the representativeness of participating families, a cursory telephone interview assessing parents' instruction, occupational condition, marital status, 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 report sample is generally representative of the population of eligible families from which it was fatigued and is not markedly different from families with parents living with two or more children in the metropolitan region where the academy is located (McGue et al., 2007).

Procedures

Participating family unit members visited the research lab to complete informed consent forms, cocky-written report surveys, two 5-infinitesimal videotaped family interactions, and the revised Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA-R) (Welner, Reich, Herjanic, Jung, & Amado, 1987). Self-written report surveys were independently completed by each family fellow member. Amongst other things, these surveys assessed adolescent externalizing beliefs and family and individual demographic characteristics. The videotaped family interactions were designed to elicit family unit interactions, including conversation and control behaviors. Videotaping took identify 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, merely left the room for videotaping. For the first job, families were presented with a novel object, a Rorschach inkblot, and asked to come to a consensus almost what the inkblot resembled. For the second task, families were presented with a moral dilemma (Kohlberg, 1981). In the story, a human being whose wife has been diagnosed with a fatal disease simply cannot beget to buy the just drug that can save her life. Families were asked to decide (a) whether the man should steal the drug for his wife and (b) whether he should too steal the drug for a stranger in need.

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 childhood disorders. Adolescents' symptoms were reported by themselves and by their mothers. All interview data were reviewed by at least 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 nowadays if either the adolescent or the mother reported it. Kappa co-efficients for disorders are as follows: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, .77), Bear Disorder (CD, .80), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD, .73).

During their visit, the adolescents as well nominated teachers to provide information about the child's beliefs at schoolhouse. Nominated teachers were mailed a rating form, and instructor 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's communication pattern is determined past observing the extent to which the family unit relies on conversation orientation and conformity orientation to create a shared reality. Nosotros used Latent Class Analysis to estimate each family unit's well-nigh likely advice design (see Analysis Program, below). The measures used to assess chat orientation and conformity orientation, which are described below, were used as indicators of a FCP latent factor.

Trained observers viewed the two family unit interaction tasks and globally rated 12 family interaction characteristics using the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Written report Rating Scales, adjusted from the Iowa Family unit Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998). Each family member'southward behavior toward each of the other family unit members was rated using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of the person) to 9 (mainly characteristic of the person). Before 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 grooming and to prevent "rater drift." Observer reliability was assessed by randomly assigning 25% of all tapes to be rated past a second observer, and so comparison the primary and secondary ratings using intraclass correlations (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979; Suen & Ary, 1989). Intraclass correlations for scales used in this report ranged from .5 to .viii, a level of reliability considered acceptable for these types of data (Kenny, 1991; Mitchell, 1979).

The present study used three observational scales to assess chat orientation, Communication, Listening, and Warmth. Considering observers rated a family unit member's behavior toward each of the other three family members, every family unit member received three scores for each calibration. For instance, using the Communication scale, observers rated the mother's ability to clearly and appropriately express her own point of view, needs, and desires when speaking to the begetter, to the adolescent, and to the sibling. Family members who expressed their views in a manner that encouraged chat with other family members received college scores than those who did not. The Listening scale 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 member's exact and nonverbal expressions of caring, concern, and support toward each of the other family members, for a total of three Warmth ratings per family unit member. The Command 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 unit members.

Boyish externalizing behavior

Adolescent adjustment problems were operationalized equally externalizing beliefs in a multifariousness of contexts including general delinquency, symptoms of behavioral disorders, conflictual relations with parents, and trouble at school. To obtain this broad assessment of boyish externalizing behavior, we used v measures derived from multiple information that were combined as a latent factor with five indicators. Because we were primarily interested in the small-scale subset of adolescents who experience significant adjustment issues as compared to adolescents who experience relatively few problems, nosotros used Latent Class Analysis (see Analysis Plan) to place ii groups differing in externalizing characteristics.

For the first indicator, we used the Delinquent Behavior Inventory (DBI; Gibson, 1967). This self-study questionnaire contains a list of 36 behaviors. For each behavior, adolescents reported if they had never (1), in one case (2), or more than in one case (3) engaged in the behavior. Case DBI items included "swell, slashing, or damaging things," "cut classes at school," "stealing things," and "using any kind of weapon in a fight." DBI responses were summed to create a cocky-written report externalizing beliefs 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 present if either the adolescent or the mother reported it.

Trained observers rated adolescent behavior toward each parent, as described above, to create the third and fourth externalizing beliefs measures. Using the hostility scale, observers assessed the extent to which the adolescent'southward behavior toward the mother and toward the begetter was characterized by conflict, acrimony, disobedience, and contempt.

Teacher ratings of adolescent in-class behavior were used to create the concluding externalizing measure. Using a 67-particular behavior checklist adapted from the Conners' Teacher Rating Calibration (Conners, 1969) and the Rutter Child Scale B (Rutter, 1967), teachers compared the adolescent to the average student and rated how characteristic a behavior was of the adolescent (one = non at all characteristic to 4 = very much characteristic). Example checklist items included "is defiant," "has difficulty concentrating on schoolhouse-work," "is often truant," "initiates concrete fights," and "obeys the rules" (reverse coded). Responses were summed (α = .97, Spearman-Brown interteacher reliability = .82).

Analysis Plan

Testing our report hypotheses required that we develop ii categorical latent variables, the FCP variable and the Boyish Externalizing Behavior variable, and examine associations between these 2 variables and adoption status. Both categorical latent variables were created through Latent Class Assay (LCA) performed using the statistical program Mplus 4.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 – 2006).

The FCP LCA model was created using a second-club latent factor construction. A set of xvi showtime-order latent factors, each with three indicators, served equally indicators of the 2nd order FCP latent factor. The sixteen outset-society latent factors assessed each family unit members' interaction with the three other family unit members for the three chat orientation measures and the one control orientation measure out (4 family unit members × four measures). For example, the mother's Communication factor assessed her communication to the other family unit members and was indicated past the observer ratings of her communication to the begetter, to the adolescent, and to the sibling. The adolescent's and the sibling'south gender were entered every bit covariates of the FCP latent factor.

The boyish'southward Externalizing Behavior latent factor had five observed variables equally indicators: (1) self-reported malversation, (two) externalizing disorder symptoms, (iii) observed hostility to the mother, (4) observed hostility to the father, and (5) teacher ratings. The adolescent'south historic period and gender were entered as covariates of the Externalizing Behavior latent factor.

We had hypothesized the presence of iv FCP and two Externalizing Behavior classes. To be confident that these were the almost probable number of classes, we tested LCA models that had fewer and more classes than the hypothesized number. Because no single benchmark is nonetheless accepted for deciding the nearly likely number of classes inside a population, we used a combination of theoretical and statistical criteria. First, nosotros relied upon theory to provide the starting point for our model tests. Thus, to create the FCP variable, we tested models specifying ane, ii, three, four, and five classes. For the Externalizing Behavior variable, we tested one, two, and iii classes. Statistical criteria included the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Hagenaars & McCutcheon, 2002) and the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted LRT (LMR; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001). The BIC is a mensurate of model fit based on the −2 log likelihood statistic with a penalty for pocket-size samples and increasing parameters. A large decrease 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 form than specified would better model fit. A statistically significant LMR suggests that this hypothesis can be rejected and that the model existence tested produced a significant improvement in model fit relative to a model with one less class. We as well considered course sizes and model convergence. Models that produced classes with few or no members or that did non converge were rejected.

For each of our written report hypotheses, we estimated the probability that an adolescent would exist placed in the high externalizing subgroup on the ground of family advice 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 post-obit provides a description of how nosotros tested each of the report hypotheses.

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

To test H2, we estimated the proportion of adoptive and nonadoptive families for each FCP class and statistically compared the adoptive and nonadoptive pairs of proportions using Fisher's exact tests. H2 would exist supported if the tests showed that adoptive and nonadoptive families were distributed similarly beyond family unit communication patterns. Additionally, we regressed the FCP latent variable on adoption condition and two covariates, adolescent and sibling gender, using multinomial logistic regression with the Laissez Faire family unit communication blueprint equally the reference grouping. H2 would be supported by this test if adoptive and nonadoptive families had even odds of placement within each family advice pattern.

Testing H3 required that we estimate the proportion of adolescents in the high versus the depression externalizing subgroups for each family unit communication blueprint. Proportions were compared statistically using Chi Square and Fisher's exact examination. 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 test H4, we estimated the models used to test H3 two more than times, once using the sample of adoptive families and a 2nd time using the sample of nonadoptive families. Thus, nosotros obtained the proportion of adopted and nonadopted adolescents estimated to be in the high externalizing subgroup for each family communication blueprint. Proportions were statistically compared using Fisher'southward exact test. H4 would exist supported if adoptive Laissez Faire and Protective families had significantly college proportions than nonadoptive Laissez Faire and Protective families and adoptive and nonadoptive Consensual and Pluralistic families had similar proportions.

Missing Values Analyses

Data from 592 families were bachelor for these analyses, 318 of which had complete data on all written report variables. Almost all missing data were due to missing teacher reports or fathers who did not participate in the ascertainment tasks. As noted above, 31% of the teacher externalizing behavior ratings were missing. Besides, in 23% of the families, fathers did non participate in the observational tasks. All other study variables had no more than three% missing data.

Current research indicates that when missing information are unrelated to the study result (i.eastward., missing at random), recovering missing information using a reliable estimation procedure is preferable to case deletion (Schafer & Graham, 2002). For each externalizing beliefs measure, we compared hateful values for adolescents whose father did and did non participate in the observational tasks or who did and did not have teacher report information. T exam results showed no statistically significant differences on the footing of father participation. Adolescents without teacher report data, all the same, did report significantly higher externalizing beliefs (t = 3.14, p = .002) and externalizing symptoms (t = four.xv, p < .00). To examine the possibility that our results could be biased by missing data, we tested each study hypothesis with and without listwise deletion of missing data. For every hypothesis, the blueprint of findings was similar, although the smaller sample produced fewer statistically significant results.

Mplus handles missing data past adjusting model parameter estimates using full-information maximum-likelihood estimation (FIML; Muthén & Shedden, 1999; Schafer & Graham, 2002). To obtain reliable estimates, Mplus requires that the proportion of available data for each written report variable and between each pair of variables be at to the lowest degree .10. These proportions were all higher up .53 and the bulk were in a higher place .97. Therefore, we used the FIML option to deal with missing information.

Results

Estimating FCP Classes and Externalizing Behavior Classes

LCA results produced the strongest support for the 4-class FCP model. The pattern of reject in the BIC statistic supported the four-course model over either the three- or five-class model. The class sizes estimated by the iv-course model (Consensual = 6.seven%, Pluralistic = 31.8%, Protective = 21.ix%, Laissez Faire = 39.vi%) were the nigh evenly distributed of all models tested, and most importantly, the patterns of family behavior estimated by the four-class model varied in theoretically expected ways. We rejected the five-class LCA model because it estimated a class containing just ane% of the families and produced a relatively minor drop in the BIC (four- to 5-course BIC change = 68.02) and a statistically insignificant LMR (LMR = 182.85, p = .14). The two-grade model was also rejected because the relative decrease in the BIC statistic from the one- to the two-class model (BIC change = 1441.21) and the LMR statistic (LMR = 952.55, p = .008) supported the presence of more than two classes. The three-course model produced a good fit (two-to three-course BIC change = 258.94, LMR = 376.76, p = .002). But three problems with this model led us to reject it. First, the hateful family behaviors produced past this model showed few interpretable patterns. 2d, the model produced an uneven form distribution of two quite big classes and ane small form. Finally, the BIC declines essentially from the three- to the four-class model (iii- to four-class BIC change = 122.69), suggesting the possibility of a fourth course.

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 ane represents one family member's mean factor score. The starting time bar in every set depicts the female parent's hateful cistron score. Thus, the left-nigh white bar represents the Control factor score mean of .38 estimated for mothers placed within the Protective family unit communication blueprint. The 2nd bar in every prepare depicts the male parent's mean. The third bar is the adolescent's mean, and final bar in every set up is the sibling'due south mean gene score. (Standard errors and t values for the scores presented in Figure ane are available upon request from the showtime author.)

Graphical Presentation of Mean Factor Scores for the Outset-Lodge Gene Indicators of the Family unit Advice Patterns Latent Variable.

Note: First bar in every gear up: mother'south mean factor score. Second bar: male parent'due south mean factor score. 3rd bar: adolescent's hateful factor score. Quaternary bar: sibling'southward mean gene score. Bars rise to a higher place 0 represent behavior levels above the overall mean. Bars falling below 0 represent behavior levels below the overall mean.

Every bit shown in Figure ane, Consensual families had 2 parents who were relatively high on control beliefs and all family unit members tended to appoint in loftier levels of communication, listening, and warmth. No one in the typical Pluralistic family showed high control, and members engaged in moderate levels of communication and listening and relatively lilliputian warmth. Protective families had one decision-making parent and engaged in relatively piffling communication and moderate levels of listening and warmth. Finally, Laissez-Faire families consistently engaged in the lowest levels of all measured behaviors.

LCA estimation of adolescent externalizing beliefs subgroups showed that a two-class model fit the data best (one-class BIC = 15709.66, ii-course BIC = 12610.97, iii-class BIC = 12454.54; two-class LMR = 529.37, p < .00, three-class LMR = 240.15, p = .17). The two-class model placed 79.nine% of the adolescents in the low externalizing beliefs subgroup and twenty.i% in the loftier externalizing subgroup.

Hypothesis Testing

Logistic regression results showed that adopted adolescents were more probable to be placed in the high externalizing subgroup relative to nonadopted adolescents (odds ratio (OR) = 3.21, 95% Conviction Interval (CI) = i.75 – 5.90), supporting H1. Adolescents' gender and age besides 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 be placed in the high externalizing subgroup.

Proportions of adoptive and nonadoptive families within each FCP were quite similar (Consensual: adoptive = half dozen.7%, nonadoptive = three.8%; Pluralistic: adoptive = 31.three%, nonadoptive = 30.0%; Protective: adoptive = 20.v%, nonadoptive = 26.0%; Laissez Faire: adoptive = 41.1%, nonadoptive = 40.iv%), supporting H2. Statistical comparisons using Fisher's Verbal tests found no statistically significant differences betwixt the proportions of adoptive and nonadoptive families within each FCP. Besides, multinomial logistic regression results using Laissez-Faire as the comparison showed that adoptive and nonadoptive families had even odds of placement in each family advice pattern (Consensual OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 0.lxx – 3.84; Pluralistic OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.66 – 1.72: Protective OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.46 – 1.25).

Beyond family unit advice patterns, proportions of adolescents in the loftier externalizing subgroup supported H3 (Consensual = 1.1, Pluralistic = 16.0, Protective = thirteen.4, Laissez Faire = 21.3; χⁱⁱ = 150.76, p < .01). Fisher Exact tests showed that the proportion of loftier 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 jail cell size (merely one Consensual family unit 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 pattern (Consensual: adoptive = 2.6%, nonadoptive = 0.0%; Pluralistic: adoptive = 16.7%, nonadoptive = 12.3%; Protective: adoptive = eighteen.5%, nonadoptive = four.ane%; Laissez Faire: adoptive = 26.9%, nonadoptive = 7.viii%), supporting H4. The nearly five:one difference in proportions for adoptive and nonadoptive adolescents in Protective families was statistically pregnant (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 basis of what is known most associations betwixt family communication and adolescent adjustment from existing studies (Steinberg, 2001), much of what we report here is not unexpected. Our goal, all the same, was to utilize the FCP Theory, which suggests that creating shared social reality amidst family members plays a key role in adolescent adjustment, to furthering our understanding of adopted adolescent aligning. Our results support the FCP Theory and point that existing theories based largely on families with genetically related parents and children may not completely apply to circuitous families, similar adoptive families.

As others have reported, nosotros 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). Nosotros as well replicated early on research showing that family communication patterns directly chronicle to adolescent adjustment such that children in families that emphasized a combination of chat and conformity were least likely to accept adjustment problems (Steinberg, 2001). Our findings get beyond previous piece of work to testify that adoption status and family communication patterns interact in important ways and better explain adopted adolescent adjustment. Specifically, adoptive families that emphasized conformity over conversation orientation (i.e., 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 chat orientation (i.eastward., 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 adolescent outcomes. Our results demonstrate that advice without control from parents leads to poor child adjustment, regardless of adoption status. We estimated that 16.7% of adopted adolescent and 12.three% of nonadopted adolescents stemming from Pluralistic families were in the externalizing group, which for nonadopted adolescents was the highest proportion. Simply when conversation orientation was paired with parental control in the form of conformity orientation was chat orientation associated with superior outcomes.

Family unit advice patterns that placed adoptive families at particular risk for boyish adjustment issues were the Protective and Laissez-Faire types. It is no surprise that these communication patterns are associated with adolescent adjustment problems. What we report that is new is that adoption condition and family unit 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 vicious into the high externalizing subgroup compared to just eight% of the nonadopted adolescents. This suggests that adopted children may be much more than sensitive to the parental indifference and neglect typical of Laissez-Faire families than nonadopted children. We also found that controlling parenting without communication is much more than detrimental to adopted children than to nonadopted children. Adopted children in Protective families were at almost five times the chance of beingness placed in the high externalizing group compared to nonadopted children in Protective families.

Theory-Based Explanation of Results

We proposed that the interaction between adoption status and family unit communication pattern occurs considering adoptive families face up more challenges to creating a shared reality than nonadoptive families. According to FCP Theory, the existence of a shared reality ways more authentic communication and fewer misunderstandings and conflict, reducing the gamble of kid aligning issues (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004, 2006). Genetically related family members likely share a sense of belonging based on physical appearance, 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, even in the absence of conversation. Adoptive families typically do not share these advantages.

In Protective families, where the parent(s) dictate the social reality, nosotros speculate that nonadopted adolescents probable share at least some of their parents' cognitions. Therefore, they might accept their parents' regulatory messages, even if they are offered without much opportunity for give-and-take. Adopted adolescents probably take cognitive processes that differ from their parents. Therefore, adopted adolescents in Protective families may discover their parents' regulatory messages more difficult to accept. As a result, they are either less compliant or more than likely 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 authority might play a bottom role in putting adopted adolescents at increased chance. The salient factor in Laissez-Faire families is the absence of shared reality. We advise that challenges to developing a sense of identity faced by adopted adolescents (Bimmel et al., 2003; Grotevant et al., 2001) are exacerbated in the absence of a shared reality. For adopted adolescents, questions well-nigh "who am I" tin be complicated by limited information about nascence 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 however to be fully tested. For instance, we theorize that similarities amidst family members based on genetic relatedness is the most likely explanation for the interaction betwixt adoption status and family unit advice design. Nosotros did not, even so, measure cognitive processes. Conducting research 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 stride in our research plan. As well, this study used cross-sectional information. Therefore, it is possible that the observed family advice patterns developed in response to or in coincidence with child adjustment issues. Future, longitudinal tests of this theory are needed to sympathize better the complex processes proposed here.

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

At that place are limits to the generalizability of this study'southward findings. For case, we focused on families with adolescent children. Family unit communication patterns may operate differently amid families with younger or older children. As noted in a higher place, longitudinal investigations are needed. Too, every bit is characteristic of adoptive families, the families in our sample were more educated and had higher incomes than the general population. They also were from the Midwestern United States and the parents were predominantly Caucasian with European ancestry. Future studies that include, for example, stepfamilies will need to test the generalizability of our findings to families with more varied socioeconomic, regional, ethnic, and racial backgrounds.

To our noesis, this is the outset written report to demonstrate an interaction between adoption status and family unit communication patterns. According to our theory, this interaction occurs every bit a function of parent-child genetic relatedness. This study is just a first stride in fully testing this theory. If replicated through time to come studies, yet, our theoretical model could also apply to other circuitous families in which parents and children are genetically unrelated such as step- or blended families and families formed through assisted reproduction. Thus, this written report represents an initial step in what could potentially be a much wider subject.

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, Section of Advice 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. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology. 1971;four:ane–103. [Google Scholar]
• Bimmel N, Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Problem behavior 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 wellness contacts in adopted, foster, and nonadopted children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1999;40:1221–1229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brodzinsky D, Lang R, Smith D. Parenting adopted children. In: Bornstein M, editor. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status 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 adjustment of adopted children. Adoption Quarterly. 2006;9:1–18. [Google Scholar]
• Brodzinsky DM, Schechter Dr., 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 communication: 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's Teacher Rating Scale. Iowa City, IA: Academy of Iowa; 1969. [Google Scholar]
• Deater-Deckard K, Petrill SA. Parent –child dyadic mutuality and kid behavior problems: An investigation of gene – environment processes. Journal of Kid 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 adolescence: The bear upon of phase-environs fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist. 1993;48:ninety–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gibson HB. Self-reported delinquency among school boys, and their attitudes to the police. British Journal 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 appointment in adopted adolescents: The family equally context over time. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2001;xvi:469–490. [Google Scholar]
• Hagenaars J, McCutcheon A, editors. Applied latent class analysis models. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Haugaard JJ, Hazan C. Adoption as a natural experiment. Development and Psychopathology. 2003;xv:909–926. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH. Beliefs bug and mental health referrals of international adoptees: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293:2501–2515. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kenny DA. A 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 K. The mental health of The states adolescents adopted in infancy. Archives of Pediatrics & Boyish Medicine. 2007;161:419–425. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory. 2002a;12:70–91. [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Agreement family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Advice Yearbook. 2002b;26:37–69. [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Communication in intact families. In: Vangelisti A, editor. Handbook of family communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 177–195. [Google Scholar]
• Koerner AF, Fitzpatrick MA. Family unit communication patterns theory: A social cerebral approach. In: Braithwaite DO, Baxter LA, editors. Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. pp. 50–65. [Google Scholar]
• Kohlberg L. 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 construction matter? A comparing of adoptive, two-parent biological, unmarried-mother, stepfather, and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and family. 2001;63:840–851. [Google Scholar]
• Lanz M, Ifrate R, Rosnati R, Scabini Due east. Parent-kid advice and boyish self-esteem in separated, intercountry adopted, and intact non-adoptive families. Journal of Boyhood. 1999;22:785–794. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lee RM. The transracial adoption paradox: History, enquiry, and counseling implications of cultural socialization. The Counseling Psychologist. 2003;31:711–744. [PMC free 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 G, Sharma A, Elkins I, Legrand L, Johnson Westward. The environments of adopted and non-adopted youth: Evidence on range restriction from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS) Behavior 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: Plant for Social and Behavioral Research, Iowa Country University; 1998. Unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar]
• Mitchell SK. Interobserver agreement, reliability, and generalizability of information collected in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86:376–390. [Google Scholar]
• Muthén B, Muthén L. Mplus version four.2. 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. Agreement 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 study of twins. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;lxxx:845–860. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reiss D. The family's construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Printing; 1981. [Google Scholar]
• Reiss D. The human relationship lawmaking: Deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
• Rosnati R, Marta East. Parent – child relationships as a protective gene in preventing adolescents' psychosocial run a risk in inter-racial adoptive and non-adoptive families. Periodical of Boyhood. 1997;20:617–631. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rutter MA. Children's behavior questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1967;8:1–11. [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 Message. 1979;86:420–428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Steinberg Fifty. We know these things: Parent-adolescent relationships in hindsight and prospect. Journal of Inquiry on Adolescence. 2001;xi:1–19. [Google Scholar]
• Stein LM, Hoopes JL. Identity formation in the adopted boyish: The Delaware family report. New York: Child Welfare League of America; 1985. [Google Scholar]
• Suen KK, Ary D. Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1989. [Google Scholar]
• Tesser A. The importance of heritability in psychological enquiry: 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's IQ and school performance. Psychological Bulletin. 2005;131:301–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Welner Z, Reich W, Herjanic B, Jung Yard, 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 HD, McRoy RG. The family adoption advice model (FAC): Identifying pathways of adoption-related communication. Adoption Quarterly. 2003;7:53–84. [Google Scholar]

otisaffs1948.blogspot.com

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

Share this post