Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adoption Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wado20
To cite this article: David Brodzinsky PhD (2006) Family Structural Openness and
Communication Openness as Predictors in the Adjustmentof Adopted Children,
Adoption Quarterly, 9:4, 1-18, DOI: 10.1300/J145v09n04_01
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
RESEARCH ARTICLES
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
plications for social casework and clinical practice in adoption are dis-
cussed. doi:10.1300/J145v9n04_01 [Article copies available for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
Of all the changes that have taken place in the field of adoption over
the past few decades, perhaps none has altered the face of adoption or
changed the nature of adoptive family life as much as the emergence of
open adoption. Researchers and practitioners have conceptualized open-
ness in adoption in two different, but related, ways (Brodzinsky, 2005).
The first, and most common, way of defining open adoption focuses on
a specific type of family structural arrangement existing between the
adoptive and birth families, involving mutual sharing of identifying in-
formation, plus some degree of contact between the parties, which may
or may not involve the child. Grotevant and McRoy (1998) refer to this
type of placement as a fully disclosed adoption. A second way in which
openness in adoption has been discussed is in terms of a communication
continuum involving the exploration of adoption issues, both within and
between adoption triad members (Brodzinsky, 2005; Wrobel, Kohler,
Grotevant, & McRoy, 1998, 2003).
A growing body of research has examined the relationship between
open adoption, as a family structural arrangement, and the adjustment
of adoptive parents, birth parents, and adopted children. Contrary to the
critics of open adoption who have postulated significant adverse con-
sequences associated with this type of family kinship system (Byrd,
1988; Cocozzelli, 1989; Kraft, Palumbo, Mitchell, Woods, & Schmidt,
1985a,b; Kraft, Palumbo, Woods, Schmidt, & Tucker, 1985), the data
suggest that adoptive parents who choose an open placement generally
are quite satisfied with the arrangement and have positive and empathic
relationships with their child’s birth relatives (Belbas, 1987; Gross,
1993; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Silverstein & Demick, 1994). In ad-
dition, they experience a greater sense of entitlement to their child
(McRoy & Grotevant, 1988; Siegel 1993), worry less about birth par-
ents reclaiming their youngster (Belbas, 1987) and feel more secure
about the attachment to their child compared with parents in more con-
fidential placement arrangements (Silverstein & Demick, 1994). Re-
David Brodzinsky 3
points out that adoptive parents in open placements tend to worry about
the impact of contact with birth family on their children.
Structurally open adoptions also appear to be quite satisfying to most
birth parents and to benefit them by increasing their sense of control, re-
ducing unresolved grief issues, and diminishing depression and other
postplacement adjustment difficulties (A. Brodzinsky, 1992; Grotevant &
McRoy, 1998; Henney, Ayers-Lopez, McRoy, & Grotevant, 2004).
Even when the adoption involves a nonvoluntary placement, there is
reason to believe that birth relatives may find contact with the adoptive
family to be helpful, comforting, and supportive of healthier emotional
adjustment (Young & Neil, 2004).
In contrast to the predictions of negative outcomes for children asso-
ciated with open adoptions as opposed to confidential placements (Kraft
et al., 1985), researchers have found either few adjustment differences
between the two groups of children (Berry, Cavazo, Dylla, Barth, &
Needell, 1998; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Kohler, Grotevant, & Mc-
Roy, 2002), or benefits associated with open adoption. For example,
compared with children with little or no contact with birth family, those
living in open placements have a better understanding of adoption
(Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, & Friedrick, 1996), display more
curiosity about their origins and ask more adoption-related questions
(Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 1998), and are more likely to
be actively involved in a search for birth family members (Wrobel,
Grotevant, & McRoy, 2004). In addition, one study of adopted children
coming out of the foster care system indicated that children who had
more contact with birth family were rated by parents as having fewer
behavioral problems (Berry, 1991). Although the latter finding is en-
couraging, Neil and Howe (2004) point out that contact between adopted
children and their birth family can be detrimental to these youngsters
when they have experienced trauma at the hands of birth family mem-
bers (see also Beek & Shofield, 2004; Selwyn, 2004; and Thoburn,
2004 for differing findings regarding contact between later-placed
adopted children and foster children and their biological families).
The concept of adoption communication openness derives from the
work of Kirk (1964) who was the first researcher to emphasize the im-
portance of open communication within the adoptive family system.
Specifically, he suggested that adoptive parents who are better able to
4 ADOPTION QUARTERLY
data gathered, to date, generally support the notion that adopted individ-
uals who experience more open, direct, and nondefensive communica-
tion about adoption with their parents show more positive adjustment,
not just in the childhood years, but even into adulthood. For example,
Stein and Hoopes (1985) found that adoptive families with a more open
communication style had adolescents who manifested fewer identity
problems. Furthermore, Kohler, Grotevant, and McRoy (2002) found
that adolescent adoptees, who perceived greater communication open-
ness in the family, reported more trust of their parents, less alienation
from them, and better overall family functioning. On the other hand,
communication openness was not related to the extent to which the teen-
agers had contact with birth family or the degree to which these young-
sters were preoccupied with adoption issues. Still other research has
found that adult adoptees who grew up in families in which there was
greater openness in adoption communication reported being more satis-
fied with their adoption experience (Howe & Feast, 2000). Further-
more, open adoption communication has been related to adult adoptees
feeling closer to their adoptive parents (Sobol, Delaney, & Earn, 1994).
To date, research on structural openness and communication open-
ness in adoptive families has followed parallel paths. No study has di-
rectly examined the relationship between these two aspects of adoption
openness or compared their relative contribution with the adjustment of
adopted children. Because of the growing trend toward increased open-
ness in the adoption field (Brodzinsky, 2005; Grotevant et al., 2005) and
the continued controversy that surrounds this construct, it was consid-
ered important to examine both of these issues. Specifically, there were
two goals in the current study. The first was to examine the relationship
between the extent of structural openness characterizing adoptive fami-
lies and the extent to which these families supported open, direct, and
emotionally attuned communication about adoption. It was hypothe-
sized that adoptive parents who choose an open adoption placement
also would be more likely to facilitate greater communication openness
with their children. The second goal was to compare the relative influ-
ence of family structural openness versus communication openness as
predictors of adjustment of adopted children. It was hypothesized that
both aspects of openness would be related to positive adjustment in chil-
dren, but that communicative openness would carry greater predictive
6 ADOPTION QUARTERLY
METHOD
Subjects
After this meeting, each party was interviewed separately and was
asked to respond to the following assessment instruments:
Family Structural Openness Inventory. Family structural openness
was assessed with a newly developed 20-item, true-false, parent-report
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
ment, but none of these families maintained ongoing direct contact with
birth family members. Finally, adoptive parents who had met one or
both birth parents and maintained direct contact with these individuals,
either through the mail, by e-mail, and/or in person, were considered to
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
be involved in a fully disclosed adoption. In most cases, but not all, the
children also were in contact with their birth parents. Approximately 27
percent of the families fell into this category.
One hundred percent of the fully disclosed adoptions, 85 percent of
the mediated adoptions, and 55 percent of the confidential adoptions in-
volved placements from within this country. As would be expected, the
vast majority of intercountry adoptions (94%) involved confidential
placements, although adoptive parents and/or their children often knew
the birth parents’ names, but seldom where they lived. Only one family
with a foreign born child had been in touch with birth family members,
with the aid of the adoption agency.
Adoption Communication Openness Scale. Adoption communication
openness was assessed with a newly developed 14-item, child-report
instrument, adapted from the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale
developed by Barnes and Olsen (1984) [see Lanz, Iafrate, Rosnati, &
Scabini, 1999, for additional validity data on this scale in relation to
adoptive families]. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, the instrument
measured the extent to which children experience their parents as being
open and sensitive in adoption communication, as well as the extent to
which children felt comfortable discussing adoption with their parents.
Children’s mean ratings across the 14-item scale represented their per-
ception of communication openness in the family, with higher ratings
reflecting a greater degree of openness. Examples of scale items in-
clude: “My parents are good listeners when it comes to my thoughts and
feelings about being adopted; My parents have difficulty understanding
adoption from my point of view; If there is something I need to know
about my adoption, my parents are always there for me, trying to answer
my questions.” Pilot testing revealed moderately high test-retest reli-
ability for children over a one week time period, r = .70. Cronbach’s al-
pha for the scale was .79.
Child Adjustment Measures. Two measures of children’s adjustment
were used in the study. The first was a child, self-report measure, the
Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985). The SPPC is a
well-regarded, reliable, and valid instrument frequently used by re-
searchers investigating children’s self-perception and consists of 36
items that yield scores for six domains of perceived self-adequacy:
scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical
David Brodzinsky 9
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
No differences between boys and girls were found for any of the vari-
ables in the study. Consequently, the data were collapsed across gender.
As might be expected, children adopted from within the United States
were placed at an earlier age (M = 2.8 months; SD = 2.78) compared
with intercountry adoptees (M = 7.9 months; SD = 4.75), t(71) = 3.84,
p < .0001. They also experienced greater structural openness (M = 6.80;
SD = 4.51) than intercountry adoptees (M = 2.00; SD = 1.46), t(71) =
4.38, p < .0001, but not communication openness (M = 3.95; SD = .59
vs. M = 3.58; SD = .66). Given that the majority of intercountry adop-
tions involved transracial placements, it is not surprising that children
adopted tranracially also experienced less structural openness (M =
2.89; SD = 2.01) compared with those youngsters adopted inracially
(M = 6.57; SD = 4.57), t(71) = 3.25, p < .002. In addition, they experi-
enced less communication openness (M = 3.50; SD = .74 vs. M = 3.99;
SD = .56), t(71) = 3.14, p < .002, and lower self-esteem (M = 3.13; SD =
.39 vs. M = 3.34; SD = .41), t(71) = p < .05.
10 ADOPTION QUARTERLY
dren’s age was unrelated to any of the study variables. Age at adoption
placement, however, was negatively associated with structural open-
ness, but not communication openness or the two-child adjustment
measures. Thus, children placed at a younger age lived in families with
a greater degree of contact with birth family members than children
adopted at an older age. Structural openness also was positively corre-
lated with both communication openness and children’s self-esteem. In
short, the more contact children had with birth family, the more open the
communication about adoption within their family and the more posi-
tive they felt about themselves. No relationship was found between
structural openness and parental ratings of children’s behavior prob-
lems. In contrast, communication openness was significantly correlated
with both-child adjustment measures. Specifically, children experienc-
ing more open adoption communication in their family not only rated
themselves higher in self-esteem, but were rated by their parents as
manifesting fewer adjustment difficulties. Finally, as would be expec-
ted, a significant negative correlation was found between children’s
self-esteem and behavior problems.
PA SO CO SE BP
Child’s age ⫺.21 .16 ⫺.03 .20 ⫺.06
Placement age ⫺.24* .03 ⫺.20 ⫺.02
Structural openness .25* .24* ⫺.16
Communication openness .38** ⫺.40***
Self-esteem ⫺.59***
DISCUSSION
Note: Demographic variables (children’s age, gender, placement age, type of adoption and family racial
status) were entered first as a single block to control for their effects in predicting adjustment outcome mea-
sures, followed by a second block which included the two measures of adoption openness;
ª p < .06; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
12 ADOPTION QUARTERLY
plans for contact with the birth family, prepare their child for such con-
tact, and respond to the child’s inevitable questions resulting from con-
tact. In short, structurally open adoptions are simply more likely to
require a greater level of openness in communication about adoption
issues than are more traditional, closed adoptions.
It is also possible that the relationship between structural openness
and communication openness derives, in part, from a common associa-
tion with parental characteristics that leads one to choose and embrace
openness in adoption. For example, Brodzinsky (2005) speculated that
adoptive parents with a more “open, empathic, and secure personality
style” may be more likely to choose an adoption arrangement that is
structurally open, as well as be more prone to explore adoption issues
within themselves and with others, including their children. In contrast,
individuals with a more “closed, cautious, and self-protective personal-
ity style” might be expected, on average, to choose a more confidential
placement arrangement that minimizes contact between adoptive and
birth family members, and to display more resistance to exploring adop-
tion issues or discussing them with their children. This speculation, of
course, requires empirical verification.
The current study provides additional support for the benefits of open
adoption for children (see also Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Grotevant
et al., 2005; Wrobel et al., 2003). Children living in families with more
information about, and contact with, birth family members, and chil-
dren who experience more open and sensitive communication about
adoption within their family, displayed greater self-esteem and fewer
behavior problems. Of importance, however, is the finding that commu-
nication openness appears to be a stronger and more consistent predic-
tor of children’s adjustment than the extent of structural openness that
exists between the adoptive and birth families. In fact, structural open-
ness did not predict children’s adjustment independently of communi-
cation openness. This finding supports other research suggesting that
family process variables such as parent-child communication patterns,
parental disciplinary practices, interparental conflict, and quality of pa-
rental emotional attunement generally are more important for children’s
long-term adjustment than the type of family in which the child is raised
(Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 2002; Parke, 2002; Patterson, 2002;
Weinrub et al., 2002).
David Brodzinsky 13
ways that are consistent with one another (Brodzinsky, 2005; Wrobel
et al., 2003). Whereas adoptive parents and birth parents may agree on a
certain level of contact and communication at the time of placement,
changes in life circumstances often result in one of the parties needing
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
to change their involvement with the other–that is, either seeking to de-
crease contact or perhaps increase it. When confronted with this type of
conflict, adoption professionals need to help families understand the
normality of the changes taking place and, at the same time, help them
negotiate a level of contact and communication that preserves mutual
trust and respect. Similarly, although adoptive parents may begin by be-
ing very open with their children in the initial stages of telling them
about their adoption, especially when there is some degree of contact
between the adoptive and birth families, the child’s growing interest in
their origins sometimes is experienced as threatening to adoptive par-
ents, which may lead them to become more defensive and closed in their
communication, and perhaps even reduce the amount of contact with
the birth family. In this case, adoption professionals need to help adop-
tive parents recognize the basis for their discomfort and the importance
of maintaining open communication with their child about adoption is-
sues, as well as contact with birth family members. In short, adoption
professionals need to ensure that structurally open adoptions remain
communicatively open.
It is also important for adoption professionals to ensure that adoptive
parents who choose a confidential placement or an international adop-
tion–both of which usually are associated with limited information
about the child’s background–do not fall into the trap of believing that
the lack of information about their child’s origin precludes openness in
adoption. Adoptive parents not only need to recognize the fundamental
importance of open adoption communication, but also how to discuss
adoption with their child when there is a lack of information about the
birth family or when the available information is of a highly sensitive
nature (e.g., when the history includes abuse, abandonment, parental
psychopathology, etc.). For example, when there is a lack of verifiable
knowledge about the child’s birth history, adoptive parents need to en-
courage their child to share his or her thoughts, beliefs, fantasies, and/or
feelings about the birth parents and the reasons for the adoption place-
ment. Not only does this approach allow adoptive parents access to their
child’s mental and emotional life related to adoption, but it also implic-
itly normalizes the child’s curiosity about his or her heritage and facili-
tates greater openness in communication, even in circumstances when
there is limited information about the child’s birth history. In short,
David Brodzinsky 15
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the CBCL/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington:
University of Vermont Press.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
Barnes, H.L. & Olsen, D.H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the cir-
cumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438-447.
Beek, M. & Schofield, G. (2004). Promoting security and managing risk: Contact in
long-term foster care. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.), Contact after adoption and per-
manent foster care (pp. 124-143). London: BAAF.
Belbas, N. (1987). Staying in touch: Empathy in open adoptions. Smith College Studies
in Social Work, 57, 184-198.
Berry, M. (1991). The practice of open adoption: Findings from a study of 1,396 fami-
lies. Children and Youth Services Review, 13, 379-395.
Berry, M., Cavazos Dylla, D., Barth, R.P. & Needell, B. (1998). The role of open adop-
tion in the adjustment of adopted children and their families. Children and Youth
Services Review, 20, 151-171.
Brodzinsky, A.B. (1992). The relation of learned helplessness, social support, and
avoidance to grief and depression in women who have placed an infant for adop-
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
Brodzinsky, D.M. (1987). Adjustment to adoption: A psychosocial perspective. Clini-
cal Psychology Review, 7, 25-47.
Brodzinsky, D.M. (2005). Reconceptualizing openness in adoption: Implications for
theory, research, and practice. In D.M. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psycho-
logical issues in adoption: Research and practice (pp. 145-166). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Brodzinsky, D.M. & Pinderhughes, E.E. (2002). Parenting and child development
in adoptive families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Chil-
dren and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 279-311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates.
Brodzinsky, D.M., Schechter, M.D. & Henig, R.M. (1992). Being adopted: The life-
long search for self. New York: Doubleday.
Byrd, A.D. (1988). The case for confidential adoption. Public Welfare, 46, 20-23.
Cocozzelli, C. (1989). Predicting the decision of biological mothers to retain or relin-
quish their babies for adoption: Implications for open placement. Child Welfare, 68,
33-44.
Gross, H.E. (1993). Open adoption: A research-based literature review and new data.
Child Welfare, 77, 269-284.
Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (1998). Openness in adoption: Exploring family con-
nections. New York: Sage.
Grotevant, H.D., Ross, N.M., Marchel, M.A. & McRoy, R.G. (1999). Adaptive behav-
ior in adopted children: Predictors from early risk, collaboration in relationships
within the adoptive kinship network, and openness arrangements. Journal of Ado-
lescent Research, 14, 231-247.
Grotevant, H.D., Perry, Y.V. & McRoy, R.G. (2005). Openness in adoption: Outcomes
for adolescents within their adoptive kinship networks. In D.M. Brodzinsky & J.
David Brodzinsky 17
sity of Denver.
Henney, S.M., Ayer-Lopez, S., McRoy, R.G. & Grotevant, H.D. (2004). A longitudinal
perspective on changes in adoption openness: The birth mother story. In E. Neil &
D. Howe (Eds.), Contact in adoption and permanent foster care (pp. 26-45). London:
BAAF.
Hetherington, E.M. & Stanley-Hagan, M. (2002). Parenting in divorced and remarried
families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol 3. Being and becoming
a parent (2nd ed., pp. 287-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Howe, D. & Feast, J. (2000). Adoption, search and reunion: The long term experience
of adopted adults. London: The Children’s Society.
Kirk, H.D. (1964). Shared fate: A theory and method of adoptive relationships. New
York: Free Press.
Kohler, J.K., Grotevant, H.D. & McRoy, R.G. (2002). Adopted adolescents’ preoccu-
pation with adoption: The impact on adoptive family relationships. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 64, 93-104.
Kraft, A., Palumbo, J., Mitchell, D., Woods, P. & Schmidt, A. (1985a). Some theoreti-
cal considerations on confidential adoptions: Part 1: The birth mother. Child and
Adolescent Social Work, 2, 13-21.
Kraft, A., Palumbo, J., Mitchell, D., Woods, P. & Schmidt, A. (1985b). Some theoreti-
cal considerations on confidential adoptions: Part 2: The adoptive parents. Child
and Adolescent Social Work, 2, 69-82.
Kraft, A., Palumbo, J., Woods, P., Schmidt, A. & Tucker, N. (1985). Some theoretical
considerations on confidential adoptions: Part 3: The adopted child. Child and Ado-
lescent Social Work, 2, 139-153.
Lanz, M., Iafrate, R., Rosnati, R. & Scabini, E. (1999). Parent-child communication
and adolescent self-esteem in separated, intercountry adoptive and intact non-adop-
tive families. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 785-794.
Neil, E. & Howe, D. (2004). Conclusions: A transactional model for thinking about
contact. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.), Contact in adoption and permanent foster
care (pp. 224-254). London: BAAF.
Nickman, S.L. (1985). Losses in adoption: The need for dialogue. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 40, 365-398.
Palacios, J. & Sanchez-Sandoval, Y. (2005). Beyond adopted/nonadopted compari-
sons. In D.M. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption:
Research and practice (pp. 117-144). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Parke, R.D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of par-
enting: Vol 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 27-74). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Patterson, C.J. (2002). Lesbian and gay parenthood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook
of parenting: Vol 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 317-338). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18 ADOPTION QUARTERLY
Selwyn, J. (2004). Placing older children in new families: Changing patterns of con-
tact. In E. Neil & D. Howe (Eds.), Contact after adoption and permanent foster care
(pp. 144-164). London: BAAF.
Siegel, D.H. (1993). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents’ perceptions of ad-
vantages and disadvantages. Social Work, 38, 15-23.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:08 11 January 2015
Received: 09/06/05
Revised: 01/02/06
Accepted: 03/31/06
doi:10.1300/J145v9n04_01