ADJUSTMENT TO ADOPTION:

A PSYCHOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

David M. Brodzinsky

Rutgers University

ABSTRACT. Th e /J resent paper focuses on the issue of psychological risk associated with
adoption. A selective review of the research literature is presented documenting the increased uul-
nerability of adopted children to behavioral andpsychologicalproblems. Following this rezliew,
a new psychosocial model of adoption adjustment is described. The basic thesis of the model
is that the experience of adoption exposes parents and children to a unique set of psychosocial
conjlicts or tasks that interact with and complicate the more universal developmental tasks oj
family life described by Erikson. It isfurther assumed that the extent to which parents acknowledge
the unique challenges associated with adoptive family life, and the way in which they attempt
to cope with them, largely determines their pattern of adjustment. In thefinal section of the paper,
an elaboration of Kirki social role theory of adoption is presented and linked to tlarious patterns
of adoption adjustment.

Although the practice of adoption is centuries old (Benet, 1976; Pressor, 1972),
it is only in the past few decades that mental health professionals have given serious
consideration to the impact of this form of family life on the child. The growing
interest in adoption by researchers and practitioners alike reflects, in part, a major
reorientation in this social service field.
Historically, the practice of adoption primarily served the needs of adoptive
parents (Benet, 1976; Kadushin, 1980; Mech, 1973; Pressor, 1972). The function
of adoption agencies was to “supply” children to parents who could not otherwise
have children of their own. The needs of the child and biological parents, although
not totally ignored, certainly were given less consideration. In the 1950s and 196Os,
however, the philosophy underlying adoption was reevaluated and major changes
were made in casework practice (Child W e If are League of America, 1968; Shapiro,

This paper was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health
(MH-34549) and the Charles and Joanna Busch Memorial Fund. Portions of this paper
were presented at a symposium on Clinical Issues in Adoption, Fair Oaks Hospital,
Summit, New Jersey, November, 1984 and at the annual meeting of the American Ortho-
psychiatric Association, New York, April, 1985. Requests for reprints should be sent to:
David M. Brodzinsky, Department of Psychology, Tillett Hall, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey 08903.
26 David M. Hrodzimk~

1956). Ofthe many changes implemented, the most important onr involved a shift
from an emphasis on the needs of adoptive parents to the needs of adopted children.
Modern adoption placement theory now espouses a view that primary consideration
be given to the welfare of adopted children and that every effort bc made to insure
that they be provided for in such a way as to guarantee their physical and emotional
well-being.
The reorientation of the field of adoption stimulated much debate regarding the
type of casework practices that were in the best interests of the child (Goldstein,
Freud, & Solnit, 1973). It also stimulated debate over the basic question ofwhcther
adopted children were at greater risk psychologically than their nonadopted peers.
Concern for the well-being of adopted children stemmed largely from the early
theoretical and empirical work of John Bowlby (Bowlby, 195 1; Rowlby, Ainsworth,
Boston, & Rosenbluth, 1956), suggesting that disruption of‘s relationship bctwccn
children and their initial caregivers (e.g., biological parents, foster parents, etc.)
may cause them considerable distress and lead to various forms of rnalacljustmcnt.
Furthermore, even when children were placed for adoption very early in their lives,
thereby reducing separation effects (Bowlby, 1973; Yarrow, 1964), there still was
concern among many adoption theorists and practitioners that other experiences
and situations associated with adoption would rcndcr these children more vulnerable
to adjustment problems. The present paper explores some of the issues in\Tolvccl
in the psychological risk associated with adoption. First, I report briefly on the
research findings addressing the psychological adjustment of adopted children. Next,
I describe a new psychosocial framework for understanding the unique tasks,
challenges, and life crises that confront adopted children and their parents. Finally,
I discuss the various ways in which adoptive families attempt to cope with these
challenges and the relationship between diffcrcnt coping strategies and children’s
adjustment.

EVALUATING THE RISK FACTOR IN ADOPTION

A number of strategies have been used to examine the question of risk associated
with adoption. Social work studies that have focused on the “success” of adoption
placements, generally using global and somewhat sub.jectivc measures, have found
that adoptions most often are successful. Kadushin (1980) has reported that on the
average about 84 percent of the adoptions in these studies were judged by observers
as successful or moderately successful and only 16 percent were judged to be failures.
Although the latter figure may strike some individuals as rather high, Kadushin
rightly points out that judgments concerning the “failure” rate of adoption cannot
be assessed adequately until normative data are collected on success and failure
rates in nonadoptive families. It may well be that the 16 pcrccnt figure reflects the
incidence of general family malad.justment (for a given set of‘outcomc measures),
and not maladjustment unique to adoptive families.
Another way of looking at the question of risk associated with adoption is to
examine the epidemiological data on the incidence of behavioral and emotional
disturbance in adopted children. Although it is estimated that only about 1-2 percent
of all children under 18 years of age are nonrelated adoptees (i.e., children raised
by adults who do not have biological ties to them), a number of studies have shown
that the incidence of referral of this group for psychological/psychiatric scrviccs
significantly exceeds this figure (Borgatta & Fanshel, 1965; Brinich & Brinich, 1982;
 Adjustment to Adoption 27

Goodman, Silberstein, & Mandell, 1963; Schechter, 1960; Simon & Senturia, 1966;
Toussieng, 1962; Work & Anderson, 1971). I n reviewing this literature, Mech
(1973) reported that on the average between 4 and 5 percent of children in child
guidance clinics and other outpatient mental health facilities are adopted.]
A third strategy that has been followed by researchers is to examine the presenting
symptomatology of clinic-referred children and adolescents. In general, these in-
vestigators have been concerned with the question of whether there are behavioral
and/or emotional symptoms that are relatively more common among adoptees than
nonadoptees. The question has been answered in the affirmative. Overall, clinic-
referred adopted children are significantly more likely than nonadopted children
to manifest aggressive and acting-out problems, low self-confidence, and feelings
of alienation and rootlessness, as well as a wide array of learning difficulties (Eiduson
& Livermore, 1953; Kenny, Baldwin, & Mackie, 1967; Lifshitz, Baum, Balgar,
& Cohen, 1975; Menlove, 1965; Offord, Aponte, & Cross, 1969; Reece & Levin,
1968; Schechter, Carlson, Simmons, & Work, 1964; Silver, 1970; Simon & Sen-
turia, 1966; Taichert & Harvin, 1975). 0 ne recent study (Dalby, Fox, & Haslam,
1982) has even found elevated adoption and foster care rates for a number of
pediatric health conditions, and particularly for hyperactivity in which nearly 17
percent of the children with this problem in the study were adopted. A comparable
figure was reported by Deutsch, Swanson, Bruell, Cantwell, Weinberg, and Baren
(1982) for the percentage of adoptees among subjects classified as manifesting
attention deficit disorder.
A fourth approach to the study of risk among adopted children has focused on
nonclinic samples. The basic question addressed is whether representative samples
of nonclinic adopted and nonadopted children differ in behavioral characteristics
and emotional adjustment patterns. The results of a number of studies using this
approach have produced a mixed picture. To date, research focusing on infants
and toddlers typically has failed to find differential patterns of adjustment for adopted
and nonadopted subjects. For example, Carey, Lipton, and Myers (1974) found
no difference in the percentage of six-month-old adopted and foster babies rated
as having a difficult temperament in comparison with a larger nonadopted infant
population. Similarly, Greenbaum, Auerbach, and Frankel(1983) reported virtually
no differences between adopted and nonadopted three- to four-week-old Israeli
infants on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale. Ratings of the
quality of mother-infant interaction also produced few differences between the
groups. The recent work emerging from the Colorado Adoption Project (CAP) also
is relevant here (Plomin & DeFries, 1985). Although the project was conceived as
a way of studying behavioral genetics issues, the investigators recently have broad-
ened the scope of their work to include issues related to the question of psychological
risk in adoption. To date, comparisons of adopted and nonadopted infants at 12
and 24 months of age have been reported in areas of mental and motor development
(Bayley scales), temperament, and behavioral problems. Summarizing across a large
number of ratings and test scores, these researchers stated that “the small amount
of variance involved in any difference between adopted and control infants leads
us to emphasize the conclusion that there are no important differences between the

1. Informal reports from mental health colleagues suggest that the figure for adolescent
inpatient facilities is at least as high, if not higher.
28 David M. Brodzinsky

CAP adopted and control children in infancy” (p. 322). In our recent work, quality of
attachment among a group of 13- to 18-month-old infants and their mothers was
assessed using the laboratory-based, strange situation paradigm (Singer, Brodzinsky,
Ramsay, Steir, &Waters, 1985). N o d i ff erences were found in security of attach-
ment between nonadoptive mother-infant pairs and adoptive mother-infant pairs
who were of the same racial/ethnic background (intraracial group). Similarly, no
differences in attachment were found between the intraracial adoptive group and
a group of interracial adoptive mother-infant pairs (i.e., mothers and babies who
were of a different racial/ethnic background). In contrast, interracial adoptive
mother-infant pairs did show a higher incidence of insecure attachment than the
nonadoptive group. On the other hand, no differences were found among the three
groups in infant mental development or infant temperament. The finding of rela-
tionship difficulties among interracial adoptive mother-infant pairs may not be very
robust or generalizable, however. Singer (1983) reported that observations of
maternal sensitivity and cooperation with their infants during more naturalistic,
home-based play interactions failed to reveal any differences between the three
groups of mother-infant pairs. Finally, the work of Yarrow and his colleagues
(Yarrow, 1965; Yarrow & Goodwin, 1973; Yarrow, Goodwin, Manhcimcr, &
Milowc, 1973) provides some contrast to the pattern of positive psychological ad,just-
mrnt among adopters in the very early yrars of life. T‘hese investigators observed
evidence of significant social-emotional maladjustment among adopted infants,
particularly those individuals adopted after 6 months of age. Furthermore, in a
lo-year follow-up study, many of the children separated after 6 months still were
showing some signs of psychological problems, especially in their capacity to
establish different levels of relationships with people. A major limitation of Yarrow’s
work, however, is the failure to include a control group of nonadopted sub,jccts.
thereby providing no basis for determining whether there arc any differcnccs
bctbveen adoptive and n0nadoptiL.c families in the quality of early parent-child
relationships.
Sc\,eral studies focusing on school-age children and adolescents also have failed
to find cvidcnce of increased psychological problems among acloptees compared
with nonadoptecs in personality adjustment, social ad,justmcnt. and academic
pcrformancc (Elonen 8r Schwartz, 1969; Hoopcs, Lauder, Lawcr, Andrews, Shcr-
man, 8r Hill, 1969; Mikawa & Boston, 1968; Norvell & Guy, 1977). In fact, one
rcccnt study (Marquis & Detweiler, 1985) has even reported more positive adjust-
mcnt among adolescent adoptcts compared with nonadopted age-mates. As Brod-
zinsky (in press) has noted, however, the latter study suffers from serious method-
ological problems, thereby rcndcring the findings of questionable validity.
In contrast to those studies reporting no differences between nonclinical sarnplcs
of adopted and nonadopted children, a growing body of research has yielded
differences bctwecn these groups in patterns of ad,justment. For rxample, in one
study adopted children wcrc found to be more hostile, dependent. tense. and fc:arful
than nonadoptcd children (Ncmovicher, 1960). Another recent study found that
elementary school-age adopted children were rated higher by teachers in conduct
disorders, personality problems, and socialized delinquency, but not in inadequacy-
immaturity or psychotic signs (Lindholm & Touliatos, 1980). In addition, two other
studies fi-om outside the U.S. reported significantly more emotional problcrns among
adopted boys than nonadopted boys, although no diffcrenccs were found for girls
(Bohman, 1970; Scglow, Pringle, & Wedge, 1972). In our own research, in which
 A+stment to Adoption 29

elementary school-age adopted and nonadopted children were matched for age, sex,
family structure, number of siblings, and socioeconomic status, we found that
adopted children were rated by both mothers and teachers as higher than nonadopted
children in psychological and school-related problems and lower in social competence
and school achievement (Brodzinsky, Schechter, Braff, & Singer, 1984). Further-
more, in a follow-up to this study, (Brodzinsky, Radice, Huffman, & Merkler,
1986), we noted that adopted children were more likely than nonadopted children
(36% vs 14%) to be rated by their mothers as manifesting clinically significant
symptomatology in one or more of the nine behavior problem areas from the Child
Behavior Profile (CBP) (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979). Clini-
cally significant symptomatology was defined as a T score greater than 70 (98th
percentile) on any CBP scale. Detailed examination of the data revealed that adopted
boys were more likely than nonadopted boys to be rated within a maladaptive range
for uncommunicative behavior and hyperactivity, whereas adopted girls were more
likely than nonadopted girls to be rated within a maladaptive range for depression,
hyperactivity, and aggression. Finally, in a recent national health interview survey
sampling 15,416 families, of which 348 contained nonrelated adoptees, Zill(1985)
found that adopted children were rated by parents higher on a behavior problem
index score and lower on an academic class ranking score than nonadopted
children. Adoptees also were more likely to have been treated by a psychologist or
psychiatrist at some time in comparison to nonadoptees (13 % vs 5%). The
figures were 10 ‘+%vs 3 % , respectively, for treatment within the past year.
In drawing conclusions from the many studies conducted on children’s adjustment
to adoption, it is important to note that this research area has been plagued by
numerous conceptual and methodological limitations (cf., Carlson, 1965; Lawton
& Gross, 1964; Mech, 1973; Reece & Levin, 1968; Wolff, 1974). To begin with,
most of the empirical work on adoption has been atheoretical in nature, thus often
making it difficult to interpret the patterns emerging from the research. In addition,
the frequent focus on small, clinical samples or selective nonclinical samples, the
failure to differentiate between related and nonrelated adoptees, the failure to control
for such mediating variables as age of placement, preplacement history, socio-
economic status, and family composition, among other factors, and the frequent
use of measures and procedures that are of questionable reliability and validity,
compound the problem of drawing firm conclusions regarding the relative \ul-
nerability of adopted children.
Nevertheless, the pattern emerging from the more recent clinical and nonclinical
studies that have sampled widely and used appropriate controls, generally supports
the view that, on the average, adopted children are more likely to manifest psy-
chological problems than nonadopted children. On the other hand, it is also clear
that only a minority of adopted children manifest clinically significant symptoma-
tology. Most adopted children are well within the normal range with respect to
behavioral, emotional, and academic adjustment. Furthermore, an examination
of the relationship between children’s age and patterns of adjustment suggests that
the higher incidence of psychological problems associated with adoption is restricted
to children in the middle childhood years and adolescence. As we noted earlier,
younger adopted children typically have not been shown to display a higher incidence
of maladjustment than their nonadopted counterparts. This is particularly interesting
in light of the findings reported by Bohman (1970), Losbough (1965), and others,
indicating that adoptees are more likely to experience poorer prenatal care and more
.?O David M. Brodzinsky

reproductive complications than nonadoptees. The failure to find differences in

adjustment between adopted and nonadopted infants and toddlers suggests that
biological factors associated with a stressful pregnancy and delivery, factors known
to be linked to neonatal, infant, and toddler problems (Kopp, 1983), are probably
less important than psychosocial factors for explaining the additional psychological
risk related to adoption. With this point in mind, I turn now to a new model for
understanding the adjustment of adopted children and their families.

A PSYCHOSOCIAL MODEL OF ADOPTION ADJUSTMENT

The model of adoption adjustment presented here is an adaptation of Erikson’s

(1963) psychosocial developmental model. The basic thesis of the model is that the
experience of adoption exposes parents and children to a unique set of psychosocial
tasks that interact with and complicate the more universal developmental tasks of
family life described by Erikson. For family members to move forward to more
advanced, mature levels of adoption adjustment there must be an adequate (although
not necessarily complete) resolution of the crises associated with adoption-related
tasks. Furthermore, it is assumed that the degree to which adoptive parents and
their children acknowledge the unique challenges in their life, and the way in which
they attempt to cope with them, largely determines their pattern of adjustment.
Following Erikson’s theory, I will describe the psychosocial tasks of adoptive family
life in terms of the child’s stage of development (see Table 1).

Infancy

According to Erikson (1963), the most salient psychosocial task confronting the infant
is the development of a basic sense of trust; a feeling that enables the young child
to predict and depend upon his or her own behavior and the behavior of others.
This sense of trust develops out of the experiences the infant has in interaction with
primary caretakers; usually the parents. If the general caretaking atmosphere is
characterized by warmth and low anxiety, and if parents are secure in their parental
roles and have realistic expectations concerning their child’s behavior and develop-
ment, they are more likely to meet the baby’s needs in ways that promote a basic
sense of security. On the other hand, heightened parental anxiety, or a mismatch
between parental expectations and infant characteristics and behavior (e.g., as in
the case when parents expect an “easy to care for” baby and receive a “difficult”
one), among other factors, are likely to lead to inadequate caretaking, where the
baby’s needs are met inconsistently and in an unsatisfying way, thereby promoting
a sense of mistrust or insecurity in the infant.
In adoptive families, the development of a basic sense of trust potentially is
complicated by several factors, all of which relate to the transition to adoptive
parenthood. Although research has indicated that the transition to parenthood is
a stressful process for most adults (Belsky, Ward, & Rovine, 1986; Miller & Sollie,
1980; Russell, 1974), David Kirk (1964) has argued cogently that the transition
to adoptive parenthood is even more complex and, therefore, potentially problem-
atic. First there is the issue of infertility. For most of us, fertility is something we
take for granted. We simply assume that when the time comes we will be able to
conceive and have children through the usual biological process. However, some
lo-15 percent of married couples find that this is not to be; one, or in rarer cases,
both partners have a fertility problem. Researchers have shown that infertility can
 Adjustment to Adoption 31

TABLE 1. A Psychosocial Model of Adoption Adjustment.

Age Period Erikson’s Psychosocial Crises Adoptive Family Tasks

Infancy Trust vs Mistrust Resolving feelings regarding infertility

Coping with uncertainty and anxiety related
to the placement process
Finding appropriate role models and develop-
ing realistic expectations regarding adop-
tive parenthood
Coping with the social stigma surrounding
adoption
Developing secure attachment relationships
in cases of delayed placement

Toddlerhood and Autonomy vs Shame & Doubt Coping with the anxiety and uncertainty sur-
Preschool years Initiative vs Guilt rounding the initial telling process
Creating a” atmosphere in which questions
about adoption can be freely explored

Middle Childhood Industry vs Inferiority Helping the child master the meaning of
adoption
Helping the child in the initial stages of
adaptive grieving
Maintaining an atmosphere in which ques-
tions about adoption can be freely ex-
plored in light of the complications
brought about by the grief process

Adolescence Ego Identity vs Identity Helping the adolescent cope with genealogical
Confusion bewilderment
Helping the adolescent grieve for the lost self
(in addition to the loss of birth parents
and origins)
Maintaining a” atmosphere in which ques-
tions about adoption can be freely ex-
plored in light of the complications
associated with the grief process (in-
cluding support for the adolescent’s/
young adult’s search for origins)

pose significant psychological problems for the individual, particularly as it relates

to self-image and one’s basic sense of masculinity and femininity (Kraft, Palombo,
Mitchell, Dean, Meyers, & Schmidt, 1980; Shapiro, 1982). When these problems
are not adequately resolved by the individual, or when adoption is used uncon-
sciously as a way of avoiding the issue, the potential arises for individual and/or
marital adjustment problems. The problems may take the form of general anxiety,
depression, a devalued self-image, resentment of one partner for another, disrup-
tions in marital communication, and so on. Regardless of the form of the problem,
its presence poses a threat to the development of a caretaking atmosphere that is
conducive to the emergence of trust and security in the infant.
A second hurdle in the transition to adoptive parenthood is the uncertainty that
surrounds the timing of the process. Unlike pregnancy which lasts nine months,
give or take a few weeks, the adoption process, from the time of application to
receiving a child, is highly variable. In private adoptions, it may be as short as a
few months; in cases where the parents are adopting through an agency and desire
a healthy, Caucasian newborn, the wait may be as long as 4-6 years. In addition
32 Ihid .Vl. Brodzinsky

to the uncertainty of the waiting period, adoptive parents-at least those who adopt
through sanctioned agencies-must undergo an in depth evaluation process. both
bcforc the child arrives and during the trial pcriocl following the placement. It is
well knokvn that many adoptive parents find the uncertainty of the adoption process
and the “intrusi\cncss” of the c\,aluation to bc highly anxiety arousing expcricnccs.
A third factor complicating the transition to adoptive parenthood is the absence
of appropriate role models for many adopti\re parents. Most adults approach parcnt-
hood with at least a reasonable idea of what to cxpcct. Front childhood WY arc
exposed to young coul~lcs who marry, conccivc, and gi\,c birth to their children.
Wc arc told by our parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and popular literature
what the experience will bc like- what WC should expect in the (~oursc of this
transition. Many prospccti\e aciopti\,c parents, in contrast. have f&v. ifany, close
rclativcs. friends, neighbors, etc. who can provide them with a realistic pcrspectivc
on the adoption cxpcriencc. Without adequate preparation. thcsc indi\.iduals arc
mot-c likely to dcvclop unrealistic expectations concerning the transition to adop-
ti\.c parenthood, which in turn can make the transition even more stressful than
it need bc.
Another factor linked to the early adjustment of the atlopti\c f’amily is the social
stigma surrounding adoption (Kirk, 1964). In our society, adoption still is seen as
a “second best route to parenthood”. Rccausc of’ this \~icw, parents are less likely
to rccci\,e wholcheartcd support from cxtcndcd family, friends, and neighbors kvhen
they announce their decision to adopt a child. From our own research, we knoll
this is particularly true for indi\,iduals who adopt a child of another race or from
a diffcrcnt country (Singer et al.. 1985). I’h us, unlike nonadopti\c parents, whose
parental status is warmly wclcomcd by all, adoptive parents frcqucntly must justify
to others why they have made their particular drcision; a process that not only is
likely to facilitate parental anxiety and resentment. but that accentuates for them
their “diffcrcntness”.
Finally, the timi’ng of’thc adoption process is also a critical factor that potentially
can complicate the development of’ trust and security in the infant. Our own rcscarch
suggests that when chiltlrcn arc placed for adoption rclativcly early in their livcs-
within the first six months or so-they dcvclop secure attachment relationships with
their mothers in much the same* way as do nonadopted inf’ants and their mothers
(Sing” ct al., 1985).? A potential complication arises, howeLet-, when children arc
placed for adoption relatively late; for example, beyond the first year or so. Ac-
cording to Rowlby (1969, 1973) th’IS situation is more likely to Icad to patterns of’
malad,justmcnt either because of acute distress accompanying the severing of a
prc\iously established attachment relationship, or because the child has never
developed a secure attachment in the first place as a result of’ multiple foster
placements. As the rcadcr might imagine, the situation bccorncs even more con-
plicated when children are placed for adoption much later in childhood (.Jewctt,
1978; Kadushin, 1970).
‘1’0 summarize, the transition to adoptive parenthood is perceived as posing
additional tasks and challenges for parents and children. The dcvelopmcnt of a

2. Farnilies with adopted children of a clil’ferent race did show a higher incidence of’insrcurc
Irlothc,r-illfrlnt attachment than nonatloptivr families. Our interpretation of’ this finding,
howcwr, is that it reprtxcnts a tcrnporary adaptational phrnornenon and not ;I robust and
devcloptnentally consistent pattern.
 Adjustment to Adoption 33

secure and trusting parent-child relationship necessitates that parents confront these
psychosocial challenges and find ways of resolving them.

Toddlerhood and the Preschool Period

As children enter toddlerhood and the preschool years, new developmental tasks
become salient. According to Erikson (1963), the young child at this time primarily
is concerned with developing a sense of autonomy and initiative-of being able to
separate from parents physically, and in some sense, psychologically; and of being
able to do things for oneself in ways that bring about self-satisfaction and approval
from others. When parents meet the child’s strivings for independence with patience,
understanding, and self-confidence, they are much more likely to facilitate positive
social-emotional adjustment in their child than if the child’s attempts at independence
are met with insensitivity, insecurity, and anxiety.
The development of autonomy and initiative on the part of the toddler and
preschooler is often experienced with some ambivalence by children and their
parents. From the child’s perspective, leaving the secure parental base is often a
frightening experience. A vast body of research has documented how young children
use parents when they are stressed to regain their sense of security, thereby allowing
them to venture forth once more into the unknown and potentially threatening world
(cf. Bowlby, 1973). In fact, the hallmark of a secure attachment to caregivers is
the infant’s and young child’s ability to use these individuals to reduce their stress
level, regain their security, and provide them with sufficient confidence to resume
constructive activity, including renewed separation from the caregivers (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, &Wall, 1978; Bretherton & Waters, 1985; Sroufe &Waters, 1977).
The young child’s strivings for autonomy also are met with some ambivalence from
parents. Recognizing the potential hazards in the world around them, parents often
are reluctant to allow their children the freedom to be independent; to explore and
investigate their environment. Possibly more important though is the ambivalence
that parents sometimes feel when they recognize that their children have begun the
process of becoming psychologically independent human beings; individuals with
their own needs, desires, thoughts, fantasies, etc. Thus, the process of separation
and the establishment of autonomy and initiative in the toddler and preschool years
represent critical and sensitive issues both for parents and children.
In adoptive families, the child’s strivings for autonomy and initiative are com-
plicated by one of the most difficult tasks faced by adoptive parents- telling the
child that he or she is adopted. In most adoptive families the telling process begins
during the preschool years, usually between two and four years of age (Mech, 1973).
Even under the best of conditions, parents usually find this process to be stressful.
Why? To a great extent it is because telling creates a psychological gap or separation
between parents and child where none existed before. Telling acknowledges openly
to all family members that one of the most basic links between parents and children,
the biological link, is absent in their particular family. Thus, the telling process
accentuates the growing gulf between parents and children and creates anxiety in
many adoptive parents in an area that already is fraught with ambivalent feelings;
i.e., the child’s natural inclination to seek separation and independence.
Another potential complication arising during this period - at least according to
traditional psychodynamic theorists (Peller, 1961; Schechter, 1960; Wieder, 1977)-
is that the disclosure of adoption information may interfere with the child’s resolution
of the Oedipal conflict. In essence, these individuals believe that the young child’s
ego is not sufficiently mature to cope with the idea of having two sets of parents
with whom to identify. In fact, they have gone so far as to rccommcnd that telling
he withheld until the child has rcachcd the latency stage - in other words, around
6 or 7 years.
Regardless of whether one adopts a more traditional psychodynamic perspectiv.c
with its emphasis on the Oedipal conflict, or an Eriksonian pcrspcctive such as the
one outlined here, it is clear that this early period of the parent-child relationship
is more complex and potentially problematic within adoptivse families.

School Age Years

As children enter the school age years, a new psychosocial thcmc emerges in their
lives; the need to be industrious, to master things, to understand (Erikson, 1963).
During this period children want recognition for their productions; they also seek
the satisfaction of completing work and gaining understanding through persev~et--
ante. When parents (and others such as teachers) pose tasks for children that they
can accomplish, and that they recognize as interesting and worthy, and when
children’s efforts are reinforced, a positive sense of self cmcrgcs. In contrast, when
children arc made to feel that their efforts and achievements arc insignificant, OI

when their thoughts, desires, fantasies, and actions are not taken seriously, or are
actually discouraged, a sense of inadequacy or inferiority CIISUCS.

For adopted children the school age years are particularly critical for undcr-
standing what it means to he adopted. This is the time when they arc actively
attempting to master or understand their adoptive status- and all of its implications.
Although most children arc informed of their adoptive status in the preschool period,
our research suggests that these young children actually have little awarcncss of
what adoption means (Brodzinsky, Singer, & Braff, 1984). The children may be
able to label themselves as adopted, or even tell you that they “came out of another
mommy.“, but most often these comments do not reflect gcnuinc understanding
on their part. This fact is illustratccl by the frequent confusion of the young child
in differentiating between birth and adoption. For example. consider the following
interchange between a 4-year-old girl (,J) and an intcrvicwer (I).
I: Tell me, what does it mean to be adopted? What is adoption?
J: It’s like when you are small and you comt home from the hospital.
I: Tell me more about that. Exactly what happens in adoption.
,J: The doctor takes the baby out of the mommy and then they take the baby
home.
I: Who takes the baby home?
J: The mommy and daddy first the mommy pushes the baby out of her and
then she takes it home the daddy takes it too.
I: And what’s that called?
.J: What you asked adoption.
In this case, the young child has equated the birth process and the adoption
process - from her perspective, to be born is to be adopted. Next, consider the
comments of another 4-year-old child who believed that all children arc adopted.
I: What I want to ask you about is adoption. Have you heard that word before?
A: Sure, I’m adopted.
I: What does that mean? What’s adoption mean?
 Adjustment to Adoption 35

A: Well mommy told me that when I was a baby I came out of another lady . . .
she made me. After I was born, my mommy and daddy came and got me
and took me home.
I: So first
you came out of one lady and then you went home with another lady,
your mommy . . and of course your daddy too.
A: Yep. That’s how it happens.
I: So your mommy and daddy became your parents after they got you . . . I
mean after they adopted you and brought you home.
A: (nods yes)
I: Is there any other way that grown-ups can become parents besides adopting
a child?
A: What do you mean?
I: How do grown-ups become parents? How do they become a mommy or daddy?
A: They get a child . . . adopt him.
I: Is there any other way of becoming a mommy or daddy?
A: (shakes head noj
I: Do all kids come into their families after they are adopted?
A: Yep . . that’s the way they do it.
I: So, all kids are adopted then?
A: (shakes head yes)”
It is not until around 6 years of age that the majority of children actually dif-
ferentiate between adoption and birth as alternative ways of entering a family. But
even then the child’s adoption knowledge is limited; for the most part, it is restricted
to the concrete fact that adopted children are born to one set of parents, but raised
by another set ofparents. Between 8 and 3 1 years, however, children’s understanding
of adoption broadens remarkably. This growth in knowledge is part of the more
general process of cognitive and social-cognitive development that emerges at
this time (Brodzinsky, Schechter, & Brodzinsky, 1986; Brodzinsky et al., 1984).
Adopted children now begin to appreciate the uniqueness of their family status,
including some of the compIications that it entails. For example, to be adopted means
not only that one has been “chosen>‘, but also that one has been relinquished or “given
up”. One outcome of this general increase in adoption knowledge is that children
often begin to fantasize about the circumstances surrounding their relinquishment.
For the first time, they have the capacity to reflect on the reasons (or possible reasons)
why they were given up for adoption. In addition, they not only consider the bases
for their relinquishment, but possible alternative solutions to adoption that their
birth parents could have taken. In essence, the school-age child, being a reasonably
effective problem solver, begins to see possible solutions to the problems that once
confronted the birth parents; problems that the birth parents were unable to solve
themselves. Sometimes this leads to feelings of anger and resentment toward the
birth parents; sometimes it leads to concern that the birth parents’ circumstances
have changed and that they are now considering reclaiming their child. For example,
as one g-year-old boy said, “Well if my first parents gave me up because they were
too young or too poor to care for me, what’s stopping them from coming back now
and asking for me back . , they’re older and grown up and maybe have more
money now . I suppose it could happen.”

3. All quotes of children’s reasoning about adoption in this paper are taken from data
collected by Brodzinsky et al. (1984).
 As adoptive parents observe their children actively trying to cope with their
adoptive status they frequently are confused and disturbed by certain trends they
see, particularly when they compare the child’s current behavior and emotional
reactions with those of the recent past. For the most part, the preschool and early
school age years are marked by a very positive oriclltation toward adoption (Singer,
Brodzinsky, clr Rraff, 1982). Ch’ld
I ren have been reassured by parents that adoption
is a “good thing”; that they arc loved and wanted, and that they will never be given
up. In the absence of any further knowlcdgc about adoption these children have
little reason to question what their parents have told them. Rut as they mature
intellectually and their knowledge of adoption broadens, children come to undcr-
stand the many complications associated with their family status that their parents
either have ignored or downplayed in family conversations. In response to these
new insights a sense of uncertainty and confusion sometimes cmcrges in children
that may bc quite troubling to parents. At times, adoptive parents intcrprct the
child’s concerns as indicating that they (the parents) have done a poor job in handling
the telling process. Parental anxiety may then Icad them to deny that the child
actually is confused or has gcnuinc concerns, or conversely, it may lead them to
believe that the child is seriously disturbed. Yet, neither reaction usually is realistic.
Children’s confusion during this period most often is a normal part of coping with
adoption; it reflects an increasing awareness of what it means to be adopted, and
it represents the beginning of a normal process of a&zfitiveL~&n@. This point is often
overlooked by parents and professionals alike. ~~~~~~~~h2olu~~~~ loss- for the biological
parent it is the loss of the relinquished child; for the adoptive parent it is the loss
of fertility and the biological child they wanted; and for adopted children, it is the
loss of their birthparents and origins, and sometirncs siblings as well (Ward, 1984).
Research and clinical reports suggest that when WC experience a significant loss
in our lives, WC grieve (Rowlby, 1980; Parkes, 1972; Schulz, 1978). The behavioral
and emotional patterns associated with this process arc well known. Shock. denial,
protest, despair, and eventually recovery or rcinte~ratiotl arc commonly observed,
although not necessarily in such a clear and orderly progression.
The fact that adopted children do not begin to reflect on their relinquishment
and loss until the school-age years clearly is tied to the age-related pattern of their
psychological adjustment. Recall that empirical research suggests that adoptees
generally do not show evidence of behavioral, emotional, and intellectual/academic
problems prior to the elementary school years. Until children have reached a stage
where they arc cognitively mature enough to reflect on their unknown past and
their unknown parents-until these people become more real to them and they can
appreciate the reality of their loss- there simply is no basis for grief and bereavc-
ment.f What I am suggesting, therefore, is that the behavior of school-age chil-
dren that is labelled by parents, teachers, and others as upsetting, troublesome,
difficult, or disturbed very often is simply a reflection of the normal process of

4. This assumption is based upon early adoption placement, usually within the first 6 months
of life. It is acknowledged, however, that prior to the elementary school years, children
can, and certainly do, show evidence of grief and bereavement following different forms of
separation from attachment figures (cf. Bowlby, 1973, 1980). Ti‘he current model suggests,
however, that in the typical infant adoption, where no attachment to birth parents has
occurred, the experience ofgriefand bereavement is tied to the growing recognition ofthe
meaning of being adopted, including recognition of the significance of one’s loss.
 Adjustment to Adoption 37

adaptive grieving, and only occasionally a reflection of what Bowlby (1980) has
called disordered or distorted grieving.
Adoptive parents, then, need to recognize that as their children become more
aware of what it means to be adopted, a certain amount of confusion and uncertain-
ty is bound to be manifested and that these behaviors and reactions are usually part
of an adaptive grieving process. Instead of ignoring their children’s concerns or
treating them as insignificant, which could very well foster feelings of inadequacy
or inferiority, it is important for parents to acknowledge to their children that they
recognize and accept their concerns, and encourage them to explore and resolve
what one 9-year-old boy called “the master question of my life-why was I given
up for adoption?”

Adolescence

Adolescence, according to Erikson (1963, 1968), is the time when all young people
actively take up the issue of identity. “Who am I.2” becomes the central question
for the developing teenager. This question most often emerges in response to the
dramatic physical and psychological changes experienced by adolescents, many of
which lead to feelings of confusion and disconnectedness from one’s own body. As
part of the struggle for self-definition, adolescents seek to link their current sense
of self with perceptions of self from earlier periods, and with their cultural and
biological heritage. When adolescents are able to maintain a feeling of inner same-
ness and continuity across time and across the many situations in which they find
themselves, and when they are able to integrate their self-perceptions with the
feedback they receive from others and with a known genealogical past, a sense of
confidence emerges with respect to identity. As Erikson (1968) notes, identity
provides “a subjective sense of invigorating sameness and continuity” (p. 19). In
contrast, adolescents sometimes find it difficult to achieve an integrated and stable
ego identity. This occurs when radically different perceptions of self emerge in
different contexts, with different people, or at different times; or when the adolescent,
because of the lack of appropriate role models, overidentifies with heros, cliques,
crowds, or causes. In this case, according to Erikson, there is a temporary loss of
individuality- a feeling that one has no unique identity apart from the hero, crowd,
or cause.
Adopted adolescents are often at a disadvantage in their struggle to develop a
secure identity. Lacking knowledge about their origins, including who their birth
parents are, and why they were relinquished, adopted adolescents often find it more
difficult to form a complete and stable sense of self. They sometimes experience
what Sants (1964) h as called “genealogical bewilderment”- confusion, uncertainty,
and a sense of incompleteness regarding their origins. These feelings are an exten-
sion of the normal process of adaptive grieving discussed earlier. However, ado-
lescents not only grieve the loss of the unknown birth parents, which is found among
elementary school age children as well, but they also grieve the loss of part of
themselves. Thus, in adolescence the process of grief and bereavement becomes
more complex and certainly more abstract.
Psychodynamic theorists also have suggested that adoptees’ resolution of identity
issues and their successful emancipation from the adoptive parents is often com-
plicated by unresolved Oedipal strivings, by prolongation of the family romance
fantasy (Freud, 1950), and by “splitting” of introjected parental images into a “good”
38 David M. Brodzinsky

parent, “bad” parent dichotomy (Clothier, 1943; Easson, 1973; Eiduson & Liver-
more, 1952; Sants, 1964; Schechter, 1960; Sorosky et al., 1975; Stone, 1972). In
turn, these complications make it more difficult for the developing adopted teenager
to achieve a healthy balance between individuation and autonomy, on the one hand,
and continuing connectedness to the family, on the other hand.
Actually, the struggle for identity among young people (including adoptees) is
more complicated than Erikson has suggested. Research by James Marcia (1966,
1976, 1980; Orlofsky, Marcia, & Lesser, 1973) and others (Bourne, 1978a, 1978b;
Grotevant, Thorbecke, & Meyer, 1982; Matteson, 1977; Waterman &Waterman,
1971) has indicated that in adolescence and young adulthood several different
identity patterns can emerge, depending upon two factors: (a) the extent to which
the individual actively explores alternative roles and perspectives in his or her life,
and (b) the degree of commitment the person makes to particular roles and points
of view.” For example, some adolescents and young adults openly confront alter-
natives in one or more areas in their lives: religion, politics, basic values, occupa-
tional goals, sexual identity and orientation, interpersonal relationships, the meaning
of being adopted, etc. Not only do these individuals willingly take on the challenge
of determining their basic beliefs in these areas, but they are able to make commit-
ments to particular points of view, commitments that reflect personal choice rather
than conformity to the ideas, desires, and demands of others. Marcia has labelled
these individuals Identity Achievers. Other individuals also willingly explore the same
type of life choices, but for whatever reason have not yet committed themselves
to particular points of view. Marcia refers to these individuals as being in Moru-
torium. A third identity pattern results from an avoidance of exploration of life
alternatives. Individuals who have adopted a Foreclosure pattern, as Marcia calls it,
typically take on the values, standards, points of view, etc. of significant figures
around them (e.g., parents, teachers, mentors, peers, heros) and thus avoid the
struggle of determining the nature of their own personal beliefs. Although these
individuals appear to have strong commitments to specific values, and a relatively
firm and stable sense of self, Marcia argues that these individuals actually have
a relatively fragile ego identity, one that is vulnerable to disruption by future life
crises. Finally, the fourth identity pattern discussed by Marcia is termed Identity
Diffuse. In this case, the individual not only has avoided exploration of alternative
roles and perspectives in his or her life, but has not found any other values,
standards, etc. with which to identify. Research suggests that these individuals are
much more likely to show evidence of psychological maladjustment than individuals
who manifest the other identity patterns (cf. Waterman, 1982).
Adopted adolescents and young adults, like their nonadopted counterparts, show

5. Marcia’s description of the process of adolescent identity development, and his procedures
for measuring ego identity categories, while widely accepted in the literature, are not without
certain conceptual and methodological limitations (Grotevant et al., 1982; Matteson, 1977).
In incorporating the essence of Marcia’s ideas into the present framework on adoption
adjustment, it is acknowledged that the process of identity development and the charac-
terization of the various ego identity statuses are much more complex- in both adopted
and nonadopted individuals- than has been suggested. The purpose of including Marcia’s
perspective, even in this simplistic form, is to highlight the potential variability in identity
development among adopted teenagers and young adults, and to suggest possible empirical
lines of research in this area.
 Adjustment to Adoption 39

a wide range of identity development during this period of their life. With respect
to resolution of adoption-related identity issues, clinical observations suggest that
some of these young people are able to confront the issue of adoption openly and
honestly, and consequently find some satisfactory way of integrating their family
status into a relatively stable and positive sense of self; in other words, they are
identity achievers. Other adoptees take up the challenge of defining the meaning
of adoption in their lives, but have not yet reached any firm conclusions-within
Marcia’s theory, they are still in moratorium with respect to adoption. Possibly they
lack the necessary information to resolve the issue-information about the birth
parents, the reasons for relinquishment, etc.; possibly they lack the social support
to help them cope with their adaptive grieving. Whatever the reason, these ado-
lescents and young adults continue to struggle with the most basic of questions for
the adoptee - WHY? For some, this struggle will be a life-long process (cf. Lifton,
1979). Other adoptees avoid self-confrontation over the issue of adoption. Some
of these young people may sense their own vulnerability and suppress all feelings
regarding adoption and relinquishment; or they may sense their parents’ vulner-
ability regarding these issues and particularly issues related to the birth parents and
the search process. In either case, repression, denial and projection on the part of
the adoptee are commonly observed. For those adoptees who have a reasonably
good relationship with their parents, it seems reasonable to expect that a pattern
of foreclosure will emerge; that is, the adolescent and young adult adoptee will most
likely identify with the adoptive parents and assume their values and beliefs without
questioning whether the parental ideology truly reflects their own point of view.
By contrast, when family relationships are distant or have broken down, an identity
diffuse pattern seems more likely to emerge. Here the person has avoided exploring
adoption-related issues, and yet has no firm set of values with which to identify.
The assumption that adopted adolescents and young adults display as wide a range
of identity patterns as their nonadopted counterparts is based on extensive clinical
experience with this population. Still, our clinical impressions need to be verified
empirically. In addition, even if adoptees do show the same types of identity status
as nonadoptees, this does not imply that the relative distribution of various identity
patterns will be the same for these two groups of subjects. Lifton (1979), Sants
(1964), Sorosky et al. (1975, 1979), and Stone (1972), among others, have argued
that adolescent and young adult adoptees have greater confusion and uncertainty
regarding identity, and consequently have more difficulty resolving the identity
conflict. If this is the case, one would expect fewer identity achievers among adoptees
than nonadoptees. Another interesting question that needs to be addressed is whether
adoptees who are having difficulty resolving the identity crisis with respect to
adoption also are having difficulty resolving identity conflicts in other areas (e.g.,
politics, religion, occupation, sexual identity, interpersonal relations, etc.). The
link between identity and intimacy also needs to be explored, especially if it turns
out that a disproportionately small number of adopted adolescents and young adults
as compared to their nonadopted peers display an identity achievement pattern.
Finally, questions related to the differential resolution of identity conflicts among
adoptees also is worthy of study. At the present time, it is unclear why some adopted
youth become identity achievers, whereas others display patterns of moratorium,
foreclosure, or diffuseness with respect to identity. I would speculate that the answer
lies, in part, with the availability of information about one’s background, as well
as with the attitudes and emotional support of others (particularly adoptive parents)
regarding the “search for self.” ‘1’1icse questions and speculations form part of our
ongoing research into the development and adjustment of adopted individuals.
In summary, adolescence is a time for exploring and resolving basic identity
conflicts. Adoptive parents and mental health professionals need to recognize,
however, that for the adoptec this universal psychosocial task is often complicated
by a lack of information regarding the birth parents and the reasons underlying
the original relinquishment, as well as by feelings of disloyalty to adoptive parents
because of the curiosity and desire for such information. Adopted adolescents and
youth need considerable emotional support, and at times, practical guidance, from
their parents, relatives, and friends in their starch for identity. They need to feel
free to explore the question of who they really arc, in all of its ramifications. Without
the support from others and without this sense of f’rcedom to explore identity issues,
adoptecs are much less likely to develop a stable and positive view of themselves
and to achieve a healthy balance between individuality and autonomy, on the one
hand, and continuing conncctcdncss to the family, on the other hand.

PATTERNS OF COPING IN ADOPTIVE FAMILIES

Up to this point I have evaluated the psychological risk associated with adoption
and have outlined an Eriksonian-based model of the psychosocial tasks complicating
adoptive family lift. Although it is my contention that all adoptive families arc
confronted with thcsc additional psychosocial tasks, it is clear that the way in which
these tasks arc handled varies considerably f’rom one family to the next. In the
remainder of the paper, I will discuss the various ways in which adoptive parents
cope with the unique issues confronting their family, and the relationship between
different coping strategies and psychological acl~justmcnt.
David Kirk (1964) I~a\: ar 5rued that the primary issue for adopti\:e families - the
one that most often determines their pattern of acl.justment - is the way they handle
the differcnccs that art’ an inherent part of adoptive family lifc. By differences, Kirk
means the additional tasks, challenges, and conflicts, such as those previously
outlined, that make the adoptive family distinct from the nonadoptive family. Kirk
has identified two patterns of coping with thcsc differences. On the one hand, some
parents, in reaction to the role handicaps associated with adoption, choose to deny
the differences. Their goal is to take the “sting” out of adoption by simulating
nonadoptive family lift as much as possible. In the past, these individuals probably
would have chosen not to tell their child about his or her adoptive status. Today,
although most disclose the information to the child, they tend to encourage the child
to forget about being adopted and all that goes with it, as they themselves try to
do. Kirk has called this approach the rejection-of-difference coping pattern.
Other parents, according to Kirk, openly deal with the differences associated with
adoptive parenthood. These individuals seek to resolve the role handicaps of adoptive
family life by more activ,e confrontation. They allow themselves and their children
the freedom and opportunity to explore the feelings of being different that oc-
casionally arise in the course of lift experiences. Kirk has called this approach the
ucknowled~rnent-qf-difference coping pattern.
Kirk suggests that these two patterns are not mutually exclusive. He believes
that many families vary in their style of dealing with diffcrenccs - sometimes they
downplay or deny them; sometimes they acknowledge them. Kirk does suggest,
however, that ovrerall the rejection-of-difference pattern is much 1~s~ beneficial for
 Adjustment to Adoption 41

promoting positive adjustment among adoptive family members. Before describing

why this is so, let me briefly suggest the reason why many adoptive parents feel
the need to reject the differences of adoptive parenthood and of being adopted.
Basically, it is because they have confused the concept of difference with the concept
of deficit. To be different means to be distinct, dissimilar, or unlike someone else
in form, quality, amount, or manner. It does not necessarily mean, however, that
one is ofpoorer form, quality, amount, or manner. In other words, being different
has no inherent value judgment attached to it. Some differences are adaptive; others
are not. Some are adaptive in certain contexts, but maladaptive in other situations.
When adoptive parents are confronted with the issue of differences between their
children and those of the nonadoptive world, or between their role as parents and
comparable roles enacted by other adults, they tend to perceive these differences
in light of the social stigma that still pervades society’s view of adoption, and in
light of the defects they perceive in themselves; i.e., infertility. Thus, to acknowledge
a difference between adoptive and nonadoptive family life, in the eyes of some
adoptive parents, is to accept a sort of “second class” citizenship for themselves and
their children-something they understandably and rightly have no wish to do.
It was noted that Kirk has linked acknowledgment-of-difference with positive
adjustment and rejection-of-difference with problems in adjustment. Let me briefly
elaborate on this idea. First, rejection-of-difference tends to inhibit the development
of an accepting and trusting family atmosphere - an atmosphere conducive to open,
constructive, and nondefensive communication and to an honest exploration of the
many issues confronting adoptive family members. Take, for example, the common
situation in which parents rigorously downplay the differences between their family
and other, nonadoptive families, while at the same time, their child actively is
struggling to deal with feelings of being different, out-of-place, and so on. In such
a family it is quite likely that the child will not feel free to openly express his concerns
about being adopted. At the very least he may feel that the parents will not take
his concerns seriously; or that they may interpret his feelings as a rejection, and
possibly a betrayal, of the adoptive family. In either case, the child is left with little
recourse for dealing with his feelings except to suppress them or find outlets for
handling them outside of the family.
A second consequence of denying the differences between adoptive and nonadop-
tive family life is that it tends to reinforce in the child the idea that to feel different
is to be deviant. If children perceive their parents and others around them as
constantly denying the differences that they so acutely feel, what must this do to
their perceptions of their place within the family and to their emerging self-image?
On the one hand, it is likely to accentuate feelings of isolation and disconnectedness
from the family. It also is likely to foster feelings of guilt concerning their thoughts
and fantasies dealing with birth parents and origins. As one 12-year-old boy said,
“They (the parents) don’t like to talk about adoption too much . at least I don’t
think they do . . . It makes it hard for me when I have questions . . . I don’t know
how they’ll take them . Maybe they’ll think I don’t want to be with them any-
more Maybe it’s me . Maybe something is wrong with me . . . I just want
to know more about where I came from.”
Kirk’s model suggests a linear relationship between rejection versus acknowledg-
ment of differences and the psychological well-being of adoptive family members.
That is, as one tends toward the acknowledgment end of the continuum, one is
more likely to create a context for positive psychological growth and adjustment.
I would like to argue that the nature of the relationship bctwccn parental beliefs
or attitudes and family adjustment is more complex. My own clinical experience,
and the experience of colleagues at the Center for Adoptive Families (Lindstrom
& Schaffer, 1984; Talen & Lehr, 1984), suggests that difficulties in ad,justment
emerge when parents adopt extreme views associated with either end of the con-
tinuum. For example, a number of families seen in clinical settings have adopted
what might be called an insistence-of-dif;ference coping pattern. Parents in these families
not only acknowledge differences, but they emphasize the differences to the point
where they become a, if not the, major focus of the family. Moreover, the differences
are often seen as explanations for family disconnectedness and disharmony. Parents
may have difficulty seeing their adopted child as an integral part of the family; they
may view the adoption experience as driving family members apart; they may
identify the child with the biological parents and resort to “bad blood” or genetic
explanations for the child’s behavioral and emotional problems. Children too some-
times adopt this coping style. They may see themselves as so different from their
parents and siblings that they feel totally alien within the family; they may be unable
to find anything within the adoptive parents with which to identify; they may feel
psychologically rejected and abandoned in the midst of their own family. Whether
adopted by parents, children, or both, the insistence-of-~iifference pattern is likely
to lead to, or at least reinforce, a disengagement of adoptiv-e family members from
one another.
Another problem with Kirk’s model of adoptive family coping is that it is esscn-
tially static. Family life-cycle changes in coping strategies are given only brief
mention and certainly not incorporated into the more gcncral social-r& theory
of adoption he describes. Yet it is clear that the tasks of adoptive family lift are
ever-changing. It is not unrealistic, therefore, to suggest that the way in which
families cope with these tasks may change too. In the early years of the farnily lifc-
cycle, for example, when children are still very young and the focus socialization of
is on building family relationships, it makes sense that many parents may downplay
or reject the differences between adoptive and nonadoptivc family life. The parents’
goal, of course, is to establish basic unity and trust among family rncmbcrs. AS
children develop, however, and begin to explore the meaning of being adopted,
parents may find that the rejecti(~n-of~differerlce coping pattern is no longer viahlc.
As a result, they may find‘it ncccssary to graciually acknowledge the dit’fcrcnces
bctwccn being adopted and nonadopted, or bctwren adoptive and nonadoptive
parenthood. This shift in parental coping style is viewed as being in the service of
helping children ad-just to their adoptive status. Thus, it is suggested that parental
coping strategies undergo changes that co-occur with changes in basic family life-
cycle tasks. It is assumed that the rejection-of-difference pattern is more likely to
be manifested during early periods of’the family lift-cycle and that with devclopmcnt
there occurs a shift in parental coping toward grcatcr acceptance of the differences
inherent in adoptive family lift.
But what about the insistence-of-differcncc pattern? When, and from where:, dots
this pattern emerge? Unlike the other two coping patterns which appear to cmcrge
in response to normal family tasks and crises, it is suggested that the insistencc-of-
difference pattern typically is displayed by parents in response to serious, tiysfunc-
tional behavior on the part of
children or the family system as a whole. For example,
in response to persistent acting-out on the part of the child (e.g., stealing, running
away, school truancy, aggression, etc) parents may begin to explain the problem
 Adjustmentto Adoption 43

primarily, if not solely, in terms of adoption. Adoption may be seen as creating

the problem; the child’s history and genetic background may also be invoked as
probable explanations for his or her difficulty. In either case, the insistence-of-
difference pattern adopted by parents and others in the family is assumed to occur
in response to unrelenting family stress and to reflect a high level of disengagement
among family members. Finally, since most of the problems associated with adoption
do not appear until middle childhood and adolescence, there is little reason to believe
that this coping pattern will emerge prior to this time.
To summarize, it is suggested that the relationship between family beliefs and
attitudes about adoption and the adjustment patterns manifested by family members,
rather than being linear, actually is curvilinear. At one extreme are those families
who have difficulty acknowledging any difference between adoptive and nonadoptive
family life. Such families are likely to be characterized by an enmeshed pattern, in
which the members have difficulty allowing one another the freedom of individua-
tion-of having unique thoughts, feelings, needs, desires, goals, etc. At the other
extreme of the continuum are those families who emphasize the differences between
adoptive and nonadoptive family life to such an extent that a pattern of disconnectedness
or disengagement develops among family members. In between these extremes are
the majority of adoptive families-families that take a moderate position on the
rejection-acknowledgment continuum.
It is also suggested that parental coping patterns change as the family develops.
Rejection-of-difference is assumed to be reasonably prevalent in the early period
of the family life-cycle and to decrease in prevalence as children get older. In contrast,
acknowledgment-of-difference is seen as emerging more often among parents with
school-age and adolescent children. Finally, insistence-of-difference, which is be-
lieved to be a less common pattern associated with persistent, high level family stress,
is not assumed to emerge until the school-age or adolescent years.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has examined the issue of psychological risk associated with adoption.
Based on a selective review of the empirical literature, two conclusions were reached:

(1) Although most adopted children are within normal limits for psychological
development, as a group, they show a higher incidence of behavioral, emo-
tional, and academic problems than their nonadopted peers.
(‘2) The increased vulnerability of adopted children is restricted primarily to
individuals in the middfe childhood and adolescent years.

In exploring the reasons for greater psychological problems among adoptees, a

new psychosocial model of adoptive family life was presented. Based on an Erik-
sonian view of development, the current model suggests that adoptive parents and
their children experience a number of tasks or conflicts that complicate the more
universal psychosocial tasks of development. Furthermore, it was assumed that the
way family members cope with the inherent differences of adoptive family life largely
determines their pattern of adjustment. Specific family life-cycle changes in pre-
dominate coping patterns also were suggested.
It is acknowledged that the current model of adoption adjustment is based
primarily on my clinical impressions and those of my colleagues, as well as on the
speculations and limited data offered by Kirk (1964). It goes without saying that
a systematic empirical test is needed to validate the assumptions outlined here. For
too long, however, psychologists have simply ignored the issues surrounding ad,just-
ment to adoption. This Iack of interest stemmed largely from the traditional asso-
ciation of adoption with the field of social work rather than psychology. It also was
related to the lack of clear, testable models for understanding the unique dcvelop-
mental patterns and adjustments of adoptecs. The current model is seen as a step
toward correcting this problem. It is also seen as a vehicle fbr bridging the interests
of child welfare specialists and developmental and child clinical psychologists.

REFERENCES
Child Welfare League of America. (1968). Standurds,for adoption practice. (Kcv. ~1.). New York: Child
Welfare League of America.
Clothier, F. (1943). The psychology of the adopted child. Mental &Gnce, 27, 222-230.
Dalby, J. T., Fox, S. L., 8r Haslam, R. H. A. (1982). Adoption and fostrrcare rates in p&at&
disorders. ~e~:e~o~~e~ta~ and ~e~al~~f~~~~ P&ztricr, 3, 61-64.
Easson, W. (1973). Special sexual prohlctms of the adopted adrtlesccnt. .~,~e~j~a~~4~~ec/.s
~~~~~~~~~Y~
.%X&Q,
July, 92-105.
Eiduson, B., & Livermorc, .J. (1953). C:omplications in therapy with adnptvd children. Amer&n,journal
of‘ Orthopsychiatry, 22, 795-802.
Elonen, A. S., & Schwartz, E. M. (1969). A longitudinal study ol’crnotional, social, and acatlrmit
functioning of adopted childrrn. C/&d We&w, 48, 72-78.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and so&&~ (2nd cd.), New York: W. W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1968). I&&y: y/ji,uth and cri.cz\. New York: 1%‘. W. Norton.
Freud, S. (1950). Family romances. In G&vrrci joafi~rr (Vol 5). London: Hogarth Prrss.
Goldstein, J., Freud, A., Pr Solnit, A. J. (1973). ~~~~~~~~ the hr,t znf~w.~~ qf the child. NCM. York:
Macmillan.
Goodman, J., Silberstein, R., & Mandcll. W. (1963). Adopted children brought to child psychiatric
clinics. Archtoes qf Geneml P.tychiatv, 9. 451-456.
Grcrnbaum. C. W., Aucrbach, ,J., & Frankcl, D. (1983). &f ec1J of mIeruention and ndoption on child
de&u,bment. Annual Scientific Rtaport. Hi-National Science Foundation, Hcbrcw University, ,Jcrusa-
Iem, Israel.
Grotcvnnt, H. D., Thorbrckc, CV., 6i Mtyr, M. 1,. (1982). A n rxtrnsion ofMarcia’s idrntity status
interview into the intcrpcrsonal domain. ,/r,ur& ($ )bulh and ~l&~lrvenc~, 11. 33-47.
Hoopcs, .I. E., Lauder, E., Lower, K., Andrew, B. G., Sherman, E., 81 Hill, j. G. (1969). p&-
~f~c~?i~~n~.~~~ct~~)~~72~~ qf adopd rhiidwz. (Vol 2). NV.\* York: Child Wclfirc I,vaguc of Atncrita.
,Jcwett, C. (1978). A&$Gn,q the older child. Harvard, Mass.: Harvard C(omrnon Press.
Kndushin, A. (1970). Adoptin,? oMrr rhaldrcn. New York: Columbia Uni\rrrsitp I’rcss.
Kadushin, A. (1980). Child ~~t&zre~ewices. New York: Macmillan.
Kenny, T., Baldwin, R., 8r Mackiy. J. B. (1967). Incidencr of minimal brain injury in adopted
children. Child We(fhv, 4fi, 24-29.
Kirk, H. D. (1964). Shared.fate. New York: Fret Press.
Knpp, C. B. (1983). Risk factors in developmenr. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook ufchildp~lclrok~,~y,
b’oi 2: In$&cq’ and de~le/~~~lentu~~~~h#l~~~~.(4th cd,. pp. 1081-1088). New York: Wilry.
Krafi, A. D., Palombo, J.. hilitchell, D., Dean, C., Meyers, S., & Wright, A. W. (1980). The
psychological dimensions of infertility. drrwrican ,/ournn/ 0J Orth~j~.~y~/l~~t~~l, 50, 618-628.
Lawton, J. .J., b Gross, S. Z. (1964). R view of psychiatric litcraturc on adopted children. Arch&s
qf General Pgchiaq, 11, 635-644.
Lifshitz, M.. Baum, R., Balgur, I.. oi Cohen. C. (1975). The impact ofthr social milieu upon tht
nature of adoptces’ emotional difficulties. ~Journal of .2~alarrqe andthe Family. 37, 221-228.
Lifton, B. _J. (1979). Lo.it and,fbund. New York: Dial Prws.
L.indholm. B. W., & Touliatos. J. (1980). Psychological adjustment of adopted and nonadoptrtl
children. P~~lch~~/f,~ic~~ Reports, 46, 307-3 10.
Lindstrom, C.. & Schafftr, J. ( 1984). ~~/~~/e77~~. ~~~~I~~,~, andpaittm. Ad~~~ti~:e.~i~~e~ ~~.j~rn~!ytl~e~~~~.
Workshop presented at a symposium on Clinical Issues in Adoption, Fair Oaks Hospital, Summit,
New Jersey.
Losbough, B. (196.5). RelationshIp of E.E.C., neurological and psychological findings in adopted
children. .Vedical~Journal ?f E. E. G. Technologyp 5. l-4.
Marcia, ,J. E. (1966). Devclopmrnr and validation of ego-identity status.~Journo/ !,/‘Perwnu/ifg and Social
P.~ycholo,g, 3, 551-558.
Marcia, J. E. (1976). Identity six year-s slier: A follow-up study.,/ournal u/ l’outh andAd&e,cer~e, 5,
145-160.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in aclolcscenct:. In J. Ad&on (Ed.), ~~~dh{~vk of udo~e~r~,~t ~,~~r~~,~~~~,~~,
New York: Wiley.
Marquis, K. S., Sr Detweilcr, R. A. (1985). Does adoption mean different? An attribution analysis.
LJournal qf Pwronality and Social Pqxholou, 47, 1054-1066.
Matteson, D. R. (1977). Exploration and commitment: Sex differences and methodological problrms
in the use of identity status categories. .Journal of Youth and Ad&scenre, 6, 353-374.
Me&, E. V. (1973). Adoption: A policy perspective. In B. Caldwell 8 H. Ricciuti (Eds.). II&w
u/‘rhild deoelopment rewarch. Vol 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46 Ibid M. Brodzimll_)

Mcnlove. F. I,. (1965). A~~rcssiw symptoms in ernotionall~~ disturbed adopted childrrn. Child Dcarlop-
ment. 36, 519-532.
Mikawa, J. K., & Boston, ,J. A. (1968). PsychoIo$caI characteristics of adopted children PAJchiatric
Quarterlq’ Supplement, 42, 274-281.
Miller, R., & Sollic, D. (1980). N orrnal strcsscsduring the transition to parenthood Fami!y KeiatWn~.
29. 459-465.
Ncmo\.icher, J. .4. (1960). .4 cotnparati\.e study 01 adopted boys and nonadoptcd boys in rcspcct
to specific personality characteristics. L)i\tertation Ah\tmctc International, 20, 4722.
Norvcll, ,M., 8r Guy, R. F. (1977). .4 corn1mrlwn ‘; of sell-mnwpt in adopted and nonadoptetl ado-
lrswnts. Adolacencc, 12, 443-448.
Of’f’ord, 1). R., Aponte, ,J. F., KrCrash. L. A. (1969). Pwsmting syrnprornatolo~y of’adopted children.
Archiw, II/ General PJychmtcy, 20. 110-I 16.
Orlol:sky, .J. Id., &larcia, J. E.. 8r Ixsser, I. (1973). Ego identity status and thr intimacy vs. isolation
crisis of young adulthood. Journal qf Putonnlity and Social P,ycholrj,u, 27, 2 1 l-2 19.
Parka. C. M. (1972). Hrreacemmt. New York: International Univcmitie PI-rss.
Pcllcr, L. (1961). Comments on adoption and child dcvcloplncnt. Bulletin oft/w Philadelphia A.~~orzation
of P~ychoanalyJi,, 11, 145-154.
Plornin, R., 8L DeFries, J. C. (1985). 7‘h P m&n> c~f v~dzazdurrl d;ffprentes zn infancy7%? Colorado Adoptron
Prqject. New York: Acadrrnic I’wss.
Prcsscr, J. H. (1972). ‘l‘hc historical background of the Amcricxn law on ;~doption.~Journa/ ojFnrn$)
Law. 11, 443-516.
Rcece, S. A., & Lcvin, B. (1968). Psychiatric disturbances in adopted children: A dcscriptivc study.
Social Work, 1, 101-111.
Kusscll, C. (1974). Transition to parenthood: Problems and ~ratitications.~Jourrrul of,Vurrqge and the
Family, 36, 294-301.
Sants, H. ,J. (1964). Gcncalogical hewildcrmcnt in children with aubstitutr parents. Hritish,/ournal
of Medical Psycholo~qy, 37, 133- 141.
Schechter, M.. (1960). Observations on adopted children. Arch&s (If Cmeral f_‘!ychiatry. 3, 21-32.
Schechtcr, M., Carlson, I’. V., Simmons, ,J. Q., & Work, H. H. (1964). Elnotional prohlcrna in
the adoptcc. Archives of Generul PA~ythiatrr, 10, 37-46.
Schulz, R. (1978). 7%~ ,/qchology of death,d~q:, und huectuerwnt. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wcslcy.
Seglow, J., Pringlc, M. K., & Wcdgc, P. (1972). Growq up adopted. Windsor, England: Foundation
for Educational Rescxrch in England and U’alv\.
Shapiro, C. H. (1982). The impact of infertility on thy marital relationship. .Svc~cr/C’atrworX, Sept.,
387-393.
Shapiro, M. (Ed.), (1956). A i/u& q/adoption prartic-c. 1’ol 1: Adoption a~encirs and thp ch2idrrn they IEII’P.
Nvw York: Child Wclf’are I,cague of’ Amrrica.
Silver, L. H. (1970). Frcqucncy of adoption in children with the neurological learning disabilit>
syndrome. Journal q/ Lrarning Uz\nhil&c, 3, 1l- 14.
Simon, N. M., & Swturia, A. G. (1966). .4doption and psychiatric illness. Am&an ~Journcrl (I[
Psychiatry. 122, 858-867.
Singer, L. M. (1983). M o/h er -‘.f zn an t intrrac~wn rn ndupt2i’r,,filrnilirr.. A study in attachment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Rutgers University.
Singer, L. M., Krodzinsky. D. M., 8r I~raf’f’. A. M. (1982). Children’s txlict\ about adoption: A
drveloprnental study. Journal oJ Ijrr~~lopmcntal PJ_ytholqy, 3, 285-294.
Singer, L. M., Hrodzinsky, D. M., Ramsay, D., Stcir, M., & Waters, E:. (1985). Mother-infant
attachment in adoptive f’wnilics. C/zi/d 1) rarlo~pm~n/. 56, 1543-1551.
Sorosky, A. D., Rarxn, A.. 6i Pannor. K. (1975). Identity conflicts in adoptws. Amprlc-ar2,Journal of
Orthop.~ychiat~y, 45, 1I{-2 7.
Sorosky, A. D.. Haran. A., & Pannor, R. (1979). 7%r adoption trian&: 7%~ $firt< of lhc .udcd word
on adoptees, birth pnrent~. and udup/iw parmt\. Gardtw City, New York: Anchor Rooks.
Sroufc, L. A., & Waters. E. (1977). Attachrncnt ah an organizational construct. Chdd I~weloprncnl.
48, 1184-l 199.
Stone, F. H. (1972). Adoption and identity. Child P!yth@y and Human LIer~r/opmmt, 2, 120-128.
-l‘aichcrt. I.. C., & Harvin, D. D. (1975). Adoption and children with Irarning and txhavior prob-
lcms. Western Journal qf Mpdzctnc, 122. 464-470.
T&n, M. R., & Lchr, M. I>. (1984). A struc.tural and dewlopmtxtal analysis of symptomatic, adopted
children and their f’arnilics. ,Journnl q/~Mnrrqe and Furni(y T‘herapy, 10, X81-391.
 Adjustment to Adoption 47

Toussieng, P. (1962). Thoughts regarding the etiology of psychological difficulties in adopted children.
Child Welfare, 41, 59-65.
Ward. M. (1984). Sibling ties in fostrr care and adoption planning.Child We&e. 63, 321-332.
Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity dexrelopment from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of thcor)
and a review of research.
Deaelopmental Psycholou, 18, 341-358.
Waterman, A. S., & Waterman, C. K. (1971). A longitudinal study ofchanges in ego identity status
during the freshman year at college. Dewlopmental Psychologl’, 5, 167-173.
Wieder, H. (1977). On being told of adoption. P.~choana~tic Quarterly, 46, l-23.
Wolff, S. (1974). The fate of the adopted child. ArrhiLles of Direasr in Childhood, 49, 165-l 70.
Work, H. H., & Anderson, H. (1971). Studies in adoption: Requests for psychiatric treatment.
American~Joumal of Psychiatry, 1’27, 948-950.
Yarrow, L. J. (1964). Separation from parents during early childhood. In M. Hoffman & L. Hoffman
(Eds.), Review of child development research. Vol 1. New York: Sage Foundation.
Yarrow, L. J. (1965). Theoretical implications of adoption research. In Purpectiues on adoptton re.varch.
New York: Child Welfare League of America.
Yarrow. L. J., &Goodwin, M. S. (1973). The immediate impact of separation: Reactions of intants
to a change in mother figure. In L. J. Stone, H. T. Smith, & L. B. Murphy (Eds.), The competent
infant: Research and commentary (pp. 1032-1040). New York: Basic Books.
Yarrow, L. J., Goodwin, M. S.. Manheimer, H., & Milowe, I. D. (1973). Infancy experiences and
cognitive and personality development at 10 years. In L. J. Stone, H. T. Smith. & L. T. Murph)
(Eds.), The competent infant: Research and commenta:y (pp. 1274-1281). New York: Basic Books.
Zill, N. (1985). Behavior and learning problems among adopted children.. Findingssfrom a US. national surrq
ofchild health. Paper presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development.
Toronto. Canada.