Child conflict in adoptive families and nonadoptive families

Child conflict in adoptive families and non-adoptive families: The role of family communication Martha A. Rueter Department of Family Social Science Margaret A. Keyes Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research Ascan F. Koerner Department of Communication Studies University of Minnesota

Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS) Research Team Matt Mc. Gue, PI Bill Iacano Irene Elkins Meg Keyes Martha Rueter SIBS is funded by grants for the US government: NIMH, NIDA, NIAAA

Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS) Participants N = 616 families, each with two participating children. Child M age = 14. 9 years. Families with 2 adopted children: N = 285 Families with 1 adopted child, 1 biological child: N = 124 Families with 2 biological children: N = 208 M age of adoption = 4. 7 months. All adoptees placed within 2 years of age. 27. 3% domestically adopted, 72. 3% internationally adopted.

Self-reported parent-child conflict Dark Bars: Adoptive Mean conflict level Light Bars: Biological p <. 05 Rueter et al, 2009

Within family comparisons: Self-reported parent-child conflict Dark Bars: Adopted child Light Bars: Mean conflict level Biological child p <. 05 Rueter et al, 2009

Observed parent-child conflictual behavior Dark Bars: Adoptive Mean conflict level Light Bars: Biological p <. 05 Rueter et al, 2009

Family Communication Patterns Theory (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004) Optimal family functioning requires that members achieve a shared social reality Shared social reality exists when family members (A) Agree. (B) Accurately perceive their agreement.

Family Communication Patterns Theory (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004) Shared Social Reality Achieved through reliance on a combination of 2 orientations. Conversation Orientation: Emphasizes conversation to achieve shared social reality. Conformity Orientation: Emphasizes conformity to achieve shared social reality.

Family Communication Patterns (FCP) Conformity Orientation High Low Protective Consensual Laissez-Faire Pluralistic Conversation Orientation High

Conformity Orientation Child conflict levels by Family Communication Pattern Protective Consensual Moderate conflict Lowest conflict Laissez-Faire Highest conflict Pluralistic Moderate conflict Conversation Orientation

Study Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Child conflict varies by FCP. Family Communication Pattern Child Conflict

Study Hypotheses Hypothesis 2: Child conflict varies by adoption status. Family Communication Pattern Child Conflict Adopted vs. Non-adopted

Study Hypotheses Hypothesis 3: Adoption status and FCP interact. . . Family Communication Pattern Child Conflict Adopted vs. Non-adopted

Conformity Orientation Hypothesized interaction between Family Communication Pattern and adoption status Protective Consensual Adopted higher Adopted similar than non-adopted to non-adopted Laissez-Faire Pluralistic Adopted higher than non-adopted Conversation Orientation

Study Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Child conflict varies by FCP. Hypothesis 2: Child conflict varies by adoption status. Hypothesis 3: Adoption status and FCP interact such that. . . H 3 a: Among adoptive families, conflict varies by FCP. H 2 b: Among non-adoptive families, conflict does not vary by FCP.

Measuring Family Communication Patterns Observed Control M F E Y Observed Communication M F E Y Observed Listening M F E Y Observed Warmth M F E Y Family Communication Patterns (4 Latent Classes) Rueter et al, 2008

Dark Bars: Adoptive Light Bars: Biological Rueter et al, 2009

Measuring Child Conflict Sum of 4 observed ratings: Child hostility to (1) mother and to (2) father. Extent to which child’s behavior was characterized as angry, hostile, contemptuous. Child coercion to (3) mother and to (4) father. Extent to which child’s behavior was characterized as demanding, threatening.

Hypothesis Testing Conformity Orientation Hypothesis 1: Child conflict varies by FCP. Protective Consensual Moderate conflict Lowest conflict Laissez-Faire Highest conflict Pluralistic Moderate conflict Conversation Orientation

Hypothesis 1: Child conflict levels vary by FCP Mean conflict level Observed Child Conflict by Family Communication Pattern

Hypothesis 2: Child conflict levels vary by adoption status Observed child conflict by adoption status Dark Bars: Adoptive Mean conflict level Light Bars: Biological

Hypothesis 3: Adoption status and FCP interact Mean conflict level Observed child conflict by adoption status and FCP Dark Bars: Adoptive Light Bars: Biological

Conclusions and Future Directions Family Communication Pattern Family Shared Child Social Reality Conflict Adopted vs. Non-adopted Child Conflict

Conclusions and Future Directions Family Communication Pattern Family Shared Child Social Reality Conflict Adopted vs. Non-adopted Child Conflict

Observed warm, supportive behavior Dark Bars: Adoptive Mean warmth level Light Bars: Biological Mother-adolescent Father-adolescent Rueter et al, 2009

Observed parental control Dark Bars: Adoptive Mean control level Light Bars: Biological p <. 05 Rueter et al, 2009