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 McGue, PI

Bill Iacano

Irene Elkins

Meg Keyes

Martha Rueter

SIBS is funded by grants for the US government: NIMH, NIDA, NIAAA

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.

Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS)

Participants

Self-reported parent-child conflict

p < .05 p < .05 p < .05 p < .05

Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Biological

Rueter et al, 2009

Mean

con

flic

t le

vel

p < .05 p < .05 p < .05

Within family comparisons: Self-reported parent-child conflict

Dark Bars: Adopted child

Light Bars:

Biological child

Rueter et al, 2009

Mean

con

flic

t le

vel

p < .05

p < .05

Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Biological

Rueter et al, 2009

Mean

con

flic

t le

vel

Observed parent-child conflictual behavior

Family Communication Patterns Theory

(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004)

Optimal family functioning requires that members achieve a

Shared social reality exists when family members

(A) Agree.

(B) Accurately perceive their agreement.

shared social reality

Family Communication Patterns Theory

(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004)

Conversation Orientation: Emphasizes conversation to achieve shared social reality.

Conformity Orientation: Emphasizes conformityto achieve shared social reality.

Shared Social Reality Achieved through reliance on a combination of 2 orientations.

Conversation Orientation

Co

nfo

rmit

y O

rien

tati

on

Family Communication Patterns (FCP)

Low High

High

Consensual

Pluralistic

Protective

Laissez-Faire

Conversation Orientation

Co

nfo

rmit

y O

rien

tati

on

Consensual

Pluralistic

Protective

Laissez-Faire

Child conflict levels by Family Communication Pattern

Lowest conflict

Moderate conflict

Moderate conflict

Highest conflict

Family Communication

Pattern

ChildConflict

Hypothesis 1:

Child conflict varies by FCP.

Study Hypotheses

Family Communication

Pattern

ChildConflict

Hypothesis 2:

Child conflict varies by adoption status.

Study Hypotheses

Adoptedvs.

Non-adopted

Family Communication

Pattern

ChildConflict

Hypothesis 3:

Adoption status and FCP interact . . .

Study Hypotheses

Adoptedvs.

Non-adopted

Conversation Orientation

Co

nfo

rmit

y O

rien

tati

on

Consensual

Pluralistic

Protective

Laissez-Faire

Hypothesized interaction between Family Communication Pattern and adoption

status

Adopted similarto non-adopted

Adopted higherthan non-adopted

Adopted higher than non-adopted

Adopted higherthan non-adopted

Hypothesis 1:

Child conflict varies by FCP.

Hypothesis 3: Adoption status and FCP interact such

that . . .

Study Hypotheses

H3a: Among adoptive families, conflict varies by FCP.

H2b: Among non-adoptive families, conflict does not vary by

FCP.

Hypothesis 2:

Child conflict varies by adoption status.

M F E Y M F E Y M F E Y M F E Y

Family Communication

Patterns

(4 Latent Classes)

Observed Control

Observed Communication

ObservedListening

ObservedWarmth

Measuring Family Communication Patterns

Rueter et al, 2008

Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Biological

Rueter et al, 2009

Sum of 4 observed ratings:

Child hostility to (1) mother and to (2) father.

Measuring Child Conflict

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.

Conversation Orientation

Co

nfo

rmit

y O

rien

tati

on

Consensual

Pluralistic

Protective

Laissez-Faire

Lowest conflict

Moderate conflict

Moderate conflict

Highest conflict

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1: Child conflict varies by FCP.

Observed Child Conflict by Family Communication Pattern

Hypothesis 1: Child conflict levels vary by FCP

Mean

con

flic

t le

vel

Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Biological

Hypothesis 2: Child conflict levels vary by adoption status

Observed child conflict by adoption status

Mean

con

flic

t le

vel

Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Biological

Observed child conflict by adoption status and FCP

Hypothesis 3: Adoption status and FCP interact

Mean

con

flic

t le

vel

Family Communication

Pattern

Family SharedSocial Reality

Adoptedvs.

Non-adopted

ChildConflict

Conclusions and Future Directions

Family Communication

Pattern

ChildConflict

Adoptedvs.

Non-adopted

Family Communication

Pattern

Family SharedSocial Reality

Adoptedvs.

Non-adopted

ChildConflict

Conclusions and Future Directions

Family Communication

Pattern

ChildConflict

Adoptedvs.

Non-adopted

Observed warm, supportive behavior

Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Biological

Rueter et al, 2009

Mean

warm

th

level

Mother-adolescent

Father-adolescent

Observed parental control

p < .05

Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Biological

Rueter et al, 2009

Mean

con

trol

level