This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University] On: 02 May 2015, At: 03:53 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pijp20
Parent–adolescent communication in foster, inter‐country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences a
a
Rosa Rosnati , Raffaella Iafrate & Eugenia Scabini
a
a
Catholic University of Milan , Italy Published online: 04 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Rosa Rosnati , Raffaella Iafrate & Eugenia Scabini (2007) Parent–adolescent communication in foster, inter‐country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences, International Journal of Psychology, 42:1, 36-45, DOI: 10.1080/00207590500412128 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590500412128
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE 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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 42 (1), 36–45
Parent–adolescent communication in foster, inter-country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences Rosa Rosnati, Raffaella Iafrate, and Eugenia Scabini Catholic University of Milan, Italy
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
T
here is a paucity of studies aimed at comparing how parents and children in different family structures cope with the challenges posed by the adolescence transition; in particular, there are few studies aimed at comparing adoptive and foster families. In order to partially fill this gap, the principal aims of the present study were to verify whether there are differences in parent–child communication among foster, intercountry adoptive, and biological families according to the adolescents’ gender, and to compare the perceptions of parents and adolescents concerning parent–child communication. Data were elaborated on two levels: a generational level (adolescent’s and his/her parents’ perceptions among the three family groups) and a dyadic level (mother–child and father–child perceptions). The sample was composed of 276 Italian families with adolescents aged between 11 and 17 (81 foster, 98 international adoptive, and 97 biological families). Subjects (mothers, fathers, and children) filled out a questionnaire including the Parent–Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Results highlighted that in foster families, parent–child communication showed more difficulties from both the adolescent’s and the parents’ point of view. Adoptive adolescents, however, reported a more positive communication with both their parents than did their peers living in biological and foster families. At a dyadic level, some differences emerged among the three groups. In biological families, a more pronounced distance emerged between parents and children. In adoptive families, father and adolescent shared more similar perceptions, whereas a significant discrepancy emerged between mother and child. A higher level of perceptual congruence between adolescents and parents was found in foster families. Gender differences were also seen: Mothers experienced a more open communication with their children than did fathers, and adolescents, and above all females, communicated better with their mothers than with their fathers in all three family groups.
I
l existe peu d’e´tudes qui visent a` comparer comment les parents et les enfants, dans diffe´rentes structures familiales, composent avec les de´fis amene´s par la transition a` l’adolescence; en particulier, il existe peu d’e´tudes qui visent a` comparer les familles adoptives et les familles d’accueil. Dans le but de combler en partie cette lacune, les principaux buts de la pre´sente e´tude e´taient de ve´rifier s’il existe des diffe´rences dans la communication parent-enfant entre les familles d’accueil, les familles adoptives (adoption entre pays) et les familles biologiques en fonction du sexe des adolescents et de comparer les perceptions des parents et des adolescents au sujet de la communication parent-enfant. Les donne´es ont e´te´ e´labore´es a` deux niveaux: un niveau ge´ne´rationnel (les perceptions de l’adolescent et de son parent parmi les trois groupes familiaux) et un niveau dyadique (perceptions me`re-enfant et pe`re-enfant). L’e´chantillon e´tait compose´ de 276 familles italiennes avec adolescents entre 11 et 17 ans (81 familles d’accueil, 98 familles adoptives internationales et 97 familles biologiques). Les participants (me`res, pe`res et enfants) ont comple´te´ un questionnaire incluant le «ParentAdolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Les re´sultats ont souligne´ que, dans les familles d’accueil, la communication parent-enfant a montre´ plus de difficulte´s a` la fois du point de vue de l’adolescent et du point du parent. Cependant, les adolescents adoptifs ont e´value´ leur communication avec leurs me`res et pe`res comme e´tant plus positive en comparaison a` leurs pairs vivant dans des familles d’accueil et dans des familles biologiques. A un niveau dyadique, quelques diffe´rences ont e´merge´ entre les trois groupes. Dans les familles biologiques, une distance plus prononce´e a e´merge´ entre les parents et les enfants. Dans les familles adoptives, le pe`re et l’adolescent partageaient des perceptions similaires, tandis qu’une diffe´rence significative a e´merge´ entre la me`re et l’enfant. Un plus grand niveau de congruence perceptuelle entre les adolescents et les parents a e´te´ trouve´
Correspondence should be addressed to Rosa Rosnati, Centre for Family Studies and Research, Catholic University of Milan, Largo Gemelli, 1, 20123 Milano, Italy (E-mail: [email protected]). # 2007 International Union of Psychological Science
http://www.psypress.com/ijp
DOI: 10.1080/00207590500412128
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
37
dans les familles d’accueil. Des diffe´rences entre les sexes ont aussi apparu: en comparaison aux pe`res, les me`res ont expe´rimente´ une communication plus ouverte avec leurs enfants et les adolescents, surtout les filles, communiquaient mieux avec leurs me`res qu’avec leurs pe`res dans les trois groupes familiaux.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
S
on escasos los estudios que se han propuesto comparar co´mo los padres e hijos pertenecientes a diferentes estructuras familiares afrontan los retos que impone la transicio´n a la adolescencia; en particular, pocos estudios comparan las familias adoptivas y las que ejercen el cuidado temporal. Para subsanar parcialmente esta deficiencia, los propo´sitos principales de el presente estudio fueron verificar si difiere la comunicacio´n padreshijos entre familias que ejercen cuidado temporal, aque´llas adoptivas entre paı´ses, y biolo´gicas de acuerdo con el sexo del adolescente, y comparar las percepciones de los padres y de los adolescentes en cuanto a la comunicacio´n padres-hijo. Los datos se analizaron en dos niveles: un nivel de generaciones (las percepciones del adolescente y de sus padres entre los tres grupos de familias) y un nivel de dı´adas (las percepciones madre-hijo y padre-hijo). Doscientas setenta y seis familias italianas con adolescentes entre 11 y 17 an˜os de edad (81 familias de cuidado temporal, 98 adoptivas internacionalmente y 97 biolo´gicas) constituyeron la muestra. Los participantes (madres, padres e hijos) respondieron a un cuestionario que incluı´a la Escala de Comunicacio´n Padre-Adolescente (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Los resultados resaltan ma´s dificultades en la comunicacio´n padres-hijo en las familias que ejercen cuidado temporal, tanto desde la perspectiva del adolescente como de los padres. En tanto que los adolescentes adoptados perciben una comunicacio´n ma´s positiva que la de sus compan˜eros que viven en familias biolo´gicas y de cuidado temporal. En el nivel de dı´adas, surgieron algunas diferencias entre los tres grupos. En las familias biolo´gicas, se observo´ una distancia ma´s pronunciada entre padres e hijos. En las familias adoptivas, el padre y el adolescente comparten percepciones ma´s similares, mientras que discrepan significativamente madre e hijo. Se encontro´ un nivel mayor de congruencia perceptual entre los adolescentes y sus padres en las familias de cuidado temporal. En cuanto a diferencias de ge´nero, las madres experimentan una comunicacio´n ma´s abierta con sus hijos en comparacio´n con los padres, y los adolescentes, sobretodo las mujeres, se comunican mejor con sus madres que con sus padres en los tres grupos de familias.
Psychological studies on adolescence have recently devoted increasing attention to family relations and their influence on the development of adolescents (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Scabini, Lanz, & Marta, 1999). Adolescence is considered to be a family transition that involves a transformation and realignment rather than a disruption of preexisting parent–child bonds (Scabini & Iafrate, 2003). As a matter of fact, this phase requires a process of reciprocal differentiation between parents and children (Aquilino, 1997; Crespi & Sabatelli, 1997; Noack & Puschner, 1999) and a balance between closeness and distance in order to support the adolescent’s individuation from the family context (Scabini & Cigoli, 2000). For this reason this transition has been defined as a joint enterprise of parents and adolescents, in order to underline the fact that both generations are involved (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Scabini & Iafrate, 2003; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). However, there is a paucity of studies aimed at comparing how parents and children in different family structures cope with the challenges involved in the adolescence transition, and how they solve both the developmental tasks related to this phase and the additional tasks stemming from their specific condition. Adoption and foster care are focused on in the present study, as adolescence constitutes a
particularly risky transition for both adoptive and foster families (Bramanti & Rosnati, 1998; Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998; Iafrate, 2001; Rosnati, 2005). These two family types are, at the same time, both similar and different in many respects. Both of them are based on a particular form of social generativity (Snarey, 1993), as parents are faced with the challenge of taking care of a new generation with whom they have no biological bonds. The psychological relation will sustain the parent–child bond, permanently in the case of adoption, and temporally for foster care. Both adoption and foster care imply that a new member has to be included in the family network and, at the same time, the child’s difference in origin and past history have to be acknowledged and taken into account. The main difference between adoptive and foster families might be traced to the fact that while the adoptive child becomes part of the adoptive family and gives continuity to it, integrating his or her origins as a new chapter of the family history (Scabini & Cigoli, 2000), the foster child, on the other hand, has to cope with a sense of ‘‘double belonging,’’ both to his/her biological family and to the foster one (Greco & Iafrate, 2001). With regard to adoption, adolescence constitutes a crucial phase in the evolution of the adoptive
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
38
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
bond; the task of the adopted adolescent is a ‘‘voyage backwards’’ in time in order to reappropriate his/her own origins and find a deeper sense of connection between present, past, and future (Brodzinsky et al., 1998). The construction of the adoptive bond implies the elaboration of this relinquishment and of the losses connected to it. Personal identity cannot be built without going through this trial (Mackie, 1985). In addition, in transracial placements, parents and children also have to cope with racial and ethnic issues, which become particularly relevant during adolescence (Bramanti & Rosnati, 1998). The adoptive family has a fundamental role to play in supporting the adolescent in facing up to these challenges. This particular phase in the adoptive family’s life cycle has been investigated mainly in terms of the adolescent’s adjustment. Although most studies have confirmed that adopted adolescents are more prone to adjustment difficulties (i.e., behavioural problems, higher frequency of running away from home and of seeking counselling help, and lower academic achievement) than nonadopted peers (Brand & Brinich, 1999; Brodzinsky & Schechter, 1990; Brodzinsky et al., 1998; Feigelman, 2001; Howe, 1997; Levy-Shiff, Zoran, & Shulman, 1997; Miller, Fan, Christensen, Grotevant, & and Van Dulmen, 2000; Sharma, McGue, & Benson, 1998; Westhues & Cohen, 1997), some of this research has also emphasized that these differences are relatively small (Haugaard, 1998), limited to a few aspects, and that the vast majority of adoptees are well within the normal range of adjustment (Brodzinsky & Pingerhuges, 2002). Moreover, adoption research has recently shifted its focus from the child’s adjustment outcomes to adaptation and protective factors: The assumption of a resilience paradigm has led to an increasing attention to family processes (Brodzinsky & Palacios, 2005). Nevertheless, there is still a paucity of studies analysing parent–child relations, although the family relational network is unanimously considered to be the most important protective factor for adolescent adoptees’ psychological well-being (Brodzinsky et al., 1998; LevyShiff, 2001; Mackie, 1985; Rosnati, 2005; Rosnati & Marta, 1997). In foster care, the crucial problem children have to face is that they feel themselves simultaneously 1
According to Italian law, foster care can be applied only in the case of temporary difficulties concerning the child’s family of origin: The re-entrance into the biological family, as soon as temporary problems have been overcome, constitutes the principal aim of foster care.
‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ of ‘‘their two families’’ (foster and biological).1 As a consequence, fostered adolescents are ‘‘at the boundary’’ between two families. Unlike with adoption, foster and biological families are both present, so the children have to carry out a process of individuation from two sets of parents. Therefore, the transition to adulthood could be considered to involve a higher degree of risk for foster children. The quality of foster-family relationships and of the child’s sense of belonging to his/her family of origin constitute important protective factors for the child’s well-being (Dell’Antonio, 1996; Greco, 1996; Greco & Iafrate, 1993; Jones, 1998; Nunziante Cesaro & Ferraro, 1992; Quinton, Rushton, Dance, & Mayes, 1997; Quinton, Selwyn, Rushton, & Dance, 1999; Seaberg & Harrigan, 1999; Wells & Guo, 1999). Our previous research (Iafrate, 2001) highlighted the fact that family communication and, above all, the child’s perception of communication with the foster father represented the most powerful predictors of the adolescent’s well-being, in terms of self-esteem, and both internalizing and externalizing adjustment. Research into foster families has mainly focused on the psychological problems of the children, with particular reference to traumas experienced before foster care—such as sexual abuse, family violence, and neglect (Dubner & Motta, 1999; Jonson-Reid & Bivens, 1999; Zlotnick, Kronstadt, & Klee, 1998)—and their consequences: psychological vulnerability, depression, drug problems, and psychiatric disorders (Brooks & Barth, 1998; Kliman, 1996; McNichol, 1999; Monheit, Mauffret-Stephan, Pandolfo, & Levi, 1997). There are few studies aimed at comparing adoptive and foster families, as most research analyses them separately or in relation to biological families, and often only from the child’s perspective. Bohman and Sigvardsson (1990), in a prospective longitudinal study conducted in Sweden, compared adopted and foster children with nonadopted peers in terms of psychological adjustment. It emerged that adopted children were reported by their teachers to have more problem behaviours than their classmates, but that this difference tended to disappear during adolescence. In contrast, children in foster care have significantly more problem behaviours than both adopted and nonadopted children. Similar results emerged in a more recent study carried out by Brand and Brinich (1999) in the United States: Children in foster care have significantly higher scores on a problem behaviour scale than children in adoptive and biological families, both at school age and during adolescence. According to the
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
authors, this result may be related to the fact that foster children often have to move from one foster home to another, and that they have to maintain relations with two sets of parents. In addition, past experiences of abuse and neglect may influence present adjustment and interfere with the formation of significant attachments. The above-mentioned research compared the different placement types in terms of behavioural adjustment, while similarities and differences in relational patterns within the family remained mostly unexplored. In order to fill this gap to some extent, the present study was carried out with the principal aim of exploring whether and to what extent adoptive, foster, and biological families with adolescent children are similar or different in terms of family relations. From a number of dimensions of family functioning, parent–child communication has been identified as a crucial variable (Collins, 1990; Steinberg, 1981). Olson considers this variable to be a facilitating dimension in the process of regulating distance that families have to cope with during transition periods (Olson, 1993), and especially during a young person’s transition to adolescence (Olson et al., 1982; Scabini & Marta, 1994; Scabini, Marta, & Rosnati, 1995). Through communication, parents and adolescents renegotiate their roles, relationships, and psychological distance. Research on biological families with adolescents has highlighted some gender and generational differences in the perception of communication. Children perceive a lower level of openness and more problems in communication than do their parents. Moreover, it emerged that mothers usually perceive better communication with their children than do fathers, and that children experience more open communication with mothers than with fathers (Barnes & Olson, 1985; Noller & Callan, 1990; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). These results have been confirmed in Italian samples (Carra` & Marta, 1995; D’Atena & Ardone, 1991; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995). It could be inferred that the existence of a "relational loss of balance" in families with adolescents is due to the fact that the mother is the relational fulcrum of the family, while the father maintains a more peripheral position (Scabini & Cigoli, 2000). However, there is a lack of empirical studies aimed at demonstrating whether these relational patterns could be extended to other family structures, like adoptive and foster families. According to this theoretical and empirical background, the principal aims of the present study were to verify whether there are differences in
39
parent–child communication among foster, intercountry adoptive, and biological families according to the adolescents’ gender, and to compare the perceptions of parents and adolescents concerning parent–child communication. METHOD Sample The sample was composed of 276 families (father, mother, and child) with adolescent children aged between 11 and 17 (mean age 13:8); 81 (29.3%) were foster families, 98 (35.5%) were international adoptive families, and 97 (35.2%) were biological families. The total number of subjects was 828. In the subsample of adolescents, 134 were males (48.6%) and 142 were females (51.4%). The three groups were matched for adolescent’s gender and age. All families belonged to a middle/ middle-high socioeconomic status. All adolescents were students in primary or secondary school and were living in northern Italy. Adoptive families were recruited through collaboration with a number of associations working in the field of international adoption. Directors of these associations were asked to provide addresses of those families who had previously agreed to collaborate in the present study. Adoptive parents and children received the questionnaire by mail, and were asked to fill it in at home. Adoptees2 were those born in a foreign country and adopted by an Italian family when they were between 0 and 15 years of age; the mean age at adoption was 4.3 years old. Of the adopted adolescents, 40.1% were born in Latin American countries (Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, etc.), 58.2% in Asia (India, Sri Lanka, etc.) and 1.7% in Eastern European countries (exYugoslavia). Of the adoptive families, 45.7% had only the target adopted child, 27.6% had two adopted children, and 2.4% had three adopted children. The remaining 24.3% were ‘‘mixed families,’’ with one or two adopted children and one or two biological offspring. Foster families were contacted with the collaboration of social workers involved in the foster care process; parents and children filled out the questionnaire at home. Foster children had been living in their present foster homes for between 6 months and 12 years. In particular, 17.2% had been in foster care since they were 1–5 years old, 35.3% since they were 6–9 years old, 23.3% since 2 Adoptive families had neither direct and mediated contact nor information exchange with children’s biological families.
40
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
they were 10–11 years old, and 24.2% since they were 12–16 years old. The mean age at placement was 9.24 years old. All foster children were born in Italy. In 81% of the cases, foster families were composed of two parents, the adolescent foster child, and two or three biological children. Only 19% of foster parents had no biological children. The biological families were selected with the help of some primary and secondary schools in the north of Italy. Parents completed the questionnaire at home. In terms of parents’ age, it emerged that adoptive mothers had an average age of 44.3 years, and adoptive fathers one of 47.8; foster mothers had an average age of 38.1, and foster fathers one of 40.6. Biological fathers were 45.4 years old and biological mothers 42.8 on average years.
Instruments Subjects filled out a self-report questionnaire that was administered in three different versions for adolescent, mother, and father. It provided information about age, sex, family composition, education, and socioeconomic status of the family. It included the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale by Barnes and Olson (1985), in which participants were requested to respond to 20 items on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree.’’ The scale measures both positive and negative aspects of communication. It focuses on the free-flowing exchange of information, both factual and emotional, and on the degree of understanding and satisfaction experienced in the interaction, as well as on hesitancy to share, negative styles of interaction, and selectivity and caution in what is shared. Examples of items are: ‘‘My father/mother/child is always a good listener,’’ ‘‘When I ask questions, I get honest answers from my father/mother/child,’’ ‘‘There are topics I avoid discussing with my father/ mother/child.’’ The adolescents were requested to appraise communication with their mothers and with their fathers separately. As a consequence, four measures of parent–child communication were obtained: adolescent’s communication with mother, adolescent’s communication with father, mother’s communication with adolescent, and father’s communication with adolescent. The consistency of the scale was satisfactory: Cronbach’s alpha 5 .77 for the father’s version, .78 for the mother’s version, .77 for the child’s version assessing communication with father, and .76 for the child’s version assessing communication with mother.
RESULTS Data analysis A family perspective was assumed, comparing the perceptions of the mother, father, and adolescent of the same unit. As a consequence, data were elaborated on two levels: on a generational level we intended to verify whether there are gender differences and a discrepancy between the adolescent’s and his/her parents’ perceptions among the three family groups (adoptive/foster/biological); on a dyadic level we confronted two different points of view on the same relationship by comparing the perceptions that the two members of the dyads (mother–child and father–child) had of their communication in the three family groups. Some explorative analysis revealed that neither the present age of adolescents, nor the age of adoption, nor the age when a child entered foster care affected the communication perceived either by adolescents or by their parents. These two variables were therefore dropped from further data elaboration. In the subsample of adoptive families, the quality of parent–child communication was controlled for by race, but no significant differences emerged. In order to assess the differences between the two generations, two mixed ANOVAs were carried out as follows: (1) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (within variable: adolescent’s communication with mother and with father); and (2) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (mother’s and father’s communication with adolescent). To examine differences within mother–child and father–child dyads among the different types of families, two other mixed ANOVAs were carried out: (1) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (within variable: adolescent’s communication with father and father’s communication with adolescent ); and (2) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological families) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (adolescent’s communication with mother and mother’s communication with adolescent). The four measures of parent–child communication were considered as within variables because of the interdependence of subjects belonging to the same family (Bray, Maxwell, & Cole, 1995).
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
Generational level
41
family typology had a significant effect, F 5 18.66, p , .001: the post hoc test by Student Newman Keuls highlighted the fact that parents in foster families reported poorer communication with their adolescents than adoptive and biological parents, who did not differ from each other. The significant effect of the within factor, F(2, 218) 5 4.29, p 5 .039, highlighted the existence of a difference between mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. Mothers experienced a more open communication with their children than fathers in all three family groups: mothers’ communication, mean 5 73.70, SD 5 11.75; fathers’ communication, mean 5 71.91, SD 5 11.33. Adolescents’ gender does not affect parents’ perception of family communication.
The adolescent’s point of view. From the first ANOVA model a significant effect of both between-subjects factors emerged: adolescents’ gender: F(1, 232) 5 4.39, p 5 .037; family typology: F(2, 232) 5 11.621, p , .001. The post test by Student Newman Keuls pointed out the following differences: adolescents in adoptive families reported better communication with parents than did those in biological or foster families, while no differences emerged between biological and foster families (see Table 1). Moreover, female adolescents reported better communication with parents in all three groups of families than did males (see Table 1). Also, the effect of the within factor turned out to be significant, F(2, 231) 5 6.15, p 5 .014). Adolescents, regardless of the family structure they belonged to, reported better communication with mothers than with fathers: adolescent’s communication with mother, mean 5 73.68, SD 5 13.26; adolescent’s communication with father, mean 5 71.86, SD 5 13.91. The interaction between the within factor and adolescents’ gender was significant, F(1, 232) 5 9.14, p 5 .003). Subsequent univariate analysis, t 5 2.78, p 5.006, showed that female adolescents reported better communication with mothers than male adolescents did: adolescent’s communication with mother, females’ mean 5 75.95, SD 5 13.78, males’ mean 5 71.30, SD 5 12.31. No significant differences emerged concerning the communication with fathers: adolescent’s communication with father, females’ mean 5 72.07, SD 5 14.37, males mean 5 71.42, SD 5 13.01. These results are consistent with research carried out both in Italy and abroad (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995; Youniss & Smollar, 1985).
The dyadic level Communication in mother–adolescent dyads. The third ANOVA model revealed that the principal effects of both between variables was significant: family typology, F(2, 216) 5 14.23, p , .001, adolescents’ gender, F(2, 216) 5 10.72, p 5 .001; whereas the effect of the within-subjects factor was not significant. This means that mothers and children did not generally differ in their perceptions of communication. Moreover, the interaction between the withinand the between-subjects variable family typology also turned out to be significant, F(2, 216) 5 8.66, p , .001. The paired t-test computed in the three groups revealed that mothers and children differed in the perception of their communication when biological and adoptive families were considered, but that this was not the case for foster families. It is worthwhile to note the opposite direction of the difference: In biological families children reported a lower quality of communication than their mothers did, t 5 2.83, p 5 .006, while in adoptive families, adolescents reported better communication than their mothers did, t 5 2.25, p 5 .028 (see
The parents’ point of view. Results of the second ANOVA model showed that the between variable
TABLE 1 Adolescent’s communication with mother and with father, and mother’s and father’s communication with the child by gender: Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) Comm. with mother
Biological families Foster families Adoptive families
Comm. with father
Mother’s comm.
Father’s comm.
Total
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females Total
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
71.49 (13.39) 70.74 (12.93) 79.10 (11.83)
68.21 (13.27) 69.12 (11.79) 76.56 (9.86)
74.58 (12.88) 72.10 (13.82) 82.00 (13.30)
68.82 (14.93) 69.52 (11.19) 77.20 (12.89)
68.86 (14.31) 70.57 (10.45) 74.81 (12.91)
68.78 75.98 (15.66) (11.27) 68.72 68.05 (11.78) (11.82) 79.92 76.56 (12.48) (9.74)
75.47 (12.30) 66.69 (14.42) 74.07 (10.68)
76.46 (11.88) 69.17 (9.18) 79.40 (7.73)
72.61 (10.48) 67.16 (12.46) 74.98 (9.57)
72.70 (10.27) 68.85 (12.83) 73.92 (9.01)
72.53 (10.79) 65.76 (12.11) 76.29 (10.20)
42
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
Table 1). In foster families, mothers and children shared a more similar perception of their communication. No other interaction turned out to be significant. Communication in father–adolescent dyads. The fourth ANOVA model highlighted that the between-subjects variable family typology had a significant effect, F(2, 221) 5 10.92, p , .001, as already mentioned, while adolescents’ gender did not discriminate. The effect of the within-subjects factor was not significant. This means that fathers and children did not generally differ in the perception of their communication. The interaction between the within variable and family typology turned out to be significant, F(2, 221) 5 5.16, p , .001. The paired t-test showed that fathers and adolescents had different perceptions of their communication only in biological families, t 5 2.44, p 5 .016. It emerged that biological children reported worse communication than did their fathers. In foster and adoptive families, however, fathers and children shared the same perceptions of their communication. DISCUSSION In the present study the focus was on adolescence, considered as a developmental transition in which both generations—parents and children—are involved. As a consequence, a family perspective was assumed in order to compare the different perceptions of parent–adolescent communication. Results of the present study showed, in general, that adoptive, foster, and biological families shared some relational patterns. In foster families, parent–child communication, above all in mother–child dyads, showed more difficulties both from the adolescent’s and from the parents’ point of view. As a matter of fact, fostered adolescents have to face the double task of managing their position ‘‘at the boundary’’, both at a developmental level (between childhood and adulthood) and at a relational level (between two really present families). Also, parents in foster families reported the worst quality of communication, as it can be very difficult to manage the relationship with a child who is living with them but who continues to belong to his/her family of origin. It could also be hypothesized that foster parents wish to maintain a moderate distance from their foster child in order to avoid the risk of them ‘‘being trapped’’ (Greco & Iafrate, 2001).
Moreover, these difficulties can be traced to the their former families. According to Brand and Brinich (1999), these results could be related to the fact that foster children are likely to have previously suffered negative experiences such as neglect and abuse. Furthermore, it could be hypothesized that foster children have ‘‘inherited’’ a negative style of relationship with their parents, or even that they share with their biological parents a ‘‘genetic tendency’’ for traits that make it difficult for them to cooperate and communicate positively with their parents. On the contrary, adopted adolescents reported a higher quality of communication with both parents than did adolescents living in foster and biological families, whereas adoptive parents reported a quality of communication with their offspring similar to that of biological parents. This result is consistent with our previous research into families with late adolescent adoptees aged between 16 and 19 years old (Rosnati & Marta, 1997); results of the present study allow us to extend this specific pattern to the whole adolescence span. It could, therefore, be concluded that, although adolescent adoptees might find some difficulties in adjustment, as several studies have demonstrated (Brodzinsky & Palacios, 2005; Brodzinsky et al., 1998; Haugaard, 1998), they could count on open and fluid communication with both parents. The parents could support them in the challenging developmental task of acknowledging their different origin and building a connection between past and present. At a dyadic level, results revealed a general agreement between perceptions within the two dyads (mother–child and father–child), but with some differences among the three groups. In biological families, a more pronounced distance emerged between parents and children: Adolescents reported more problematic communication than their parents did. This result is consistent with literature highlighting the process of individuation/separation that adolescents begin at this age. On the other hand, parents do not perceive these changes, and are thus not able to adjust their communication to this new relational pattern (Lanz & Rosnati, 1995). In adoptive families, father and adolescent share more similar perceptions, whereas a significant discrepancy emerged between mother and child: Adolescents communicated with their mothers in a more open and less problematic way than their mothers did with them. A higher level of perceptual congruence between adolescents and parents was found in foster families. Both foster parents and children perceive
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
worse communication than the other dyads. This finding could indicate the presence of greater realism in the perception of the relational network. Foster parents are more able to tolerate the adolescents moving away from the adult generation and the process of separation from the foster family, which is, after all, a ‘‘temporary’’ family. In other words, foster children’s position ‘‘at the boundaries’’ could encourage the process of parent–child reciprocal separation (Iafrate, 2001). But it is worthwhile to note that the lack of permanent connection between foster children and foster parents could cause a ‘‘too easy’’ separation, without the healthy ambivalence that implies either a differentiation or a connection between parents and their offspring. The findings of the present study also highlighted the fact that the relational pattern in which the mother occupies a more central position in the family (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995; Noller, 1995; Youniss & Smollar, 1985) could be extended to both adoptive and foster families. Mothers experienced more open communication with their children than fathers did, and adolescents communicated better with their mothers than with their fathers in all three family groups (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995; Noller, 1995; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). As a consequence, ‘‘the relational loss of balance’’ in favour of the mother is also seen in adoptive and foster families. Gender differences also turned up in the present study. Female adolescents, irrespective of the family structure to which they belong, reported more open communication with parents, especially with mothers, than their male peers. This means that the strong bond between mother and daughter in adolescence is equally shared by all family typologies. Three additional issues regarding the current study should be pointed out. One pertains to selfreport measures that give information only about the perceptions that subjects have concerning family relations. Observational studies are therefore needed in order to corroborate or integrate these findings. A second is related to the lack of information about pre-placement experience among foster and adoptive children, which might influence present patterns of communication. A third concerns the fact that this research only focused on Italian families. As a consequence, a cross-cultural study would be very useful in order to validate these findings. In conclusion, it is worthwhile to note that the family perspective applied in this study has provided fruitful results and has suggested many interesting
43
starting points for future research. It has pointed out that adolescence affects different families in differ ways: Some relational patterns are shared by adoptive, foster, and biological families, but others are specific to a particular type of family. Manuscript received December 2004 Revised manuscript accepted September 2005
REFERENCES Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescence to young adult: A prospective study of parent–child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 670–686. Barnes, H., & Olson, D. (1985). Parent adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438–447. Bohman, M., & Sigvardsson, S. (1990). Outcome in adoption: Lessons form longitudinal studies. In D. M. Brodzinsky & M. D. Schechter (Eds.), The psychology of adoption (pp. 93–106). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bramanti, D., & Rosnati, R. (1998). Il patto adottivo. L’adozione internazionale di fronte alla sfida dell’adolescenza [The adoptive pact. Intercountry adoption in front of the adolescent challenge]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Brand, A. E., & Brinich, P. M. (1999). Behaviour problems and mental health contacts in adopted, foster and nonadopted children. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1221–1229. Bray, J., Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. (1995). Multivariate statistics for family psychology research. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 144–160. Brodzinsky, D., & Palacios, J. (Eds.) (2005). Psychological issues in adoption. Research and practice. Westport, CT: Praeger. Brodzinsky, D., & Pingerhuges, E. (2002). Parenting and child development in adoptive families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1: Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 279–311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Brodzinsky, D. M., & Schechter, M. D. (1990). The psychology of adoption. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Brodzinsky, D. M., Smith, D. W., & Brodzinsky, A. B. (1998). Children’s adjustment to adoption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brooks, D., & Barth, R. P. (1998). Characteristics and outcomes of drug-exposed and non drug-exposed children in kinship and non-relative foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 20, 475–501. Carra`, E., & Marta, E. (1995). Adolescenza e relazioni familiari [Adolescence and family relations]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent adolescent relationships in the transition to adolescence: Continuity and change in interaction, affect and cognition. In R. Motemayor, G. Adams & R. Gulotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: a transitional period. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent–adolescent relationships and influences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 331–361). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
44
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
Crespi, T., & Sabatelli, R. (1997). The children of alcoholics and adolescence: Individuation, development and family system. Adolescence, 32, 407–417. D’Atena, P., & Ardone, R. G. (1991). Rappresentazione familiare e comunicazione. Contributo empirico su famiglie con adolescenti [Family representation and communication. A study on families with adolescents]. Terapia familiare, 35, 37–48. Dell’Antonio, A. (1996). Avere due famiglie: immagini, realta` e prospettive dell’affidamento eterofamiliare [Having two families: Images, reality and perspectives on foster care]. Milano: Unicopli. Dubner, A. E., & Motta, R. W. (1999). Sexually and physically abused foster care children and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 367–373. Feigelman, W. (2001). Comparing adolescents in diverging family structures: Investigating whether adoptees are more prone to problems than their nonadopted peers. Adoption Quarterly, 5, 5–37. Greco, O. (1996). La strada dal lutto alla capacita` di legame nel passaggio fra due famiglie [From the mourning to the bond in the passage through two families]. Minori e Giustizia, 2, 17–28. Greco, O., & Iafrate, R. (1993). Tra i meandri dell’affido. Un percorso di ricerca [Among the windings of foster care. A research itinerary]. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Greco, O., & Iafrate, R. (2001). Figli al confine. Una ricerca multimetodologica sull’affidamento familiare [Children at the boundary. A multimethod research on foster care]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Haugaard, J. J. (1998). Is adoption a risk factor for the development of adjustment problems? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 47–69. Howe, D. (1997). Parent-reported problems in 211 adopted children: Some risk and protective factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 401–411. Iafrate, R. (2001). Relazioni familiari, percezione dei confini e benessere degli adolescenti in affido [Family communication and perception of boundaries as predictors of adolescent foster-children well-being]. Eta` Evolutiva, 69, 72–79. Jones, L. (1998). The social and family correlates of successful reunification of children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 20, 305–323. Jonson-Reid, M., & Bivens, L. (1999). Foster youth and dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1249–1262. Kliman, G. (1996). The personal life history book: A psychoanalytically based intervention for foster children. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 1, 159–162. Lanz, M., & Rosnati, R. (1995). La comunicazione familiare: uno studio sulle famiglie con adolescenti [Family communication: A study on families with adolescents]. Ricerche di psicologia, 19, 81–98. Levy-Shiff, R. (2001). Psychological adjustment of adoptees in adulthood: Family environment and adoption-related correlates. International Journal of Behavioural Psychology, 25, 97–104. Levy-Shiff, R., Zoran, N., & Shulman, S. (1997). International and domestic adoption: Child, parents and family adjustment. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 1, 109–129. Mackie, A. J. (1985). Families with adopted adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 5, 167–178.
McNichol, T. (1999). The impact of drug-exposed children on family foster care. Child Welfare, 78, 184–196. Miller, B. C., Fan, X., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & and Van Dulmen, M. (2000). Comparison of adopted and nonadopted adolescents in a large, nationally representative sample. Child Development, 71, 1458–1473. Monheit, L., Mauffret-Stephan, E., Pandolfo, M., & Levi, G. (1997). Vulnerabilita` psicologica e depressione nei bambini in affidamento familiare e istituzionale [Psychological vulnerability and depression in children in foster care and in institutes]. Psichiatria dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza, 64, 195–204. Noack, P., & Puschner, B. (1999). Differential trajectories of parent–child relationships and psychosocial adjustment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 795–804. Noller, P. (1995). Parent–adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 77–111). London: Sage. Noller, P., & Callan, V. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions of the nature of their communication with parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 349–362. Nunziante, Cesaro, A., & Ferraro, F. (Eds.) (1992). La doppia famiglia. Discontinuita` affettive e rotture traumatiche [The double family. Affective discontinuities and traumatic ruptures]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Assessing family functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 104–137). New York: Guilford Press. Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1982). Family inventories in family social science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Palacios, J., & Brodzinsky, D. (2005). Recent changes and future directions for adoption research. In D. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption. Research and practice (pp. 257–268). Westport, CT: Praeger. Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C., & Mayes, D. (1997). Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: Research issues and evidence. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2, 393–413. Quinton, D., Selwyn, J., Rushton, A., & Dance, C. (1999). Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: Ryburn’s "reanalysis" analysed. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 519–531. Rosnati, R. (2005). The construction of adoptive parenthood and filiation in Italian families with adolescents: A family perspective. In D. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption. Research and practice (pp. 187–209). Westport, CT: Praeger. Rosnati, R., & Marta, E. (1997). Parent–child relationships as protective factors for preventing adolescent’s psycho-social risk in adoptive and non-adoptive families. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 617–631. Scabini, E., & Cigoli, V. (2000). Il famigliare. Legami, simboli e transizioni [The family. Bonds, symbols and transitions]. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
Scabini, E., & Iafrate, R. (2003). Psicologia dei legami familiari [Psychology of family bonds]. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino. Scabini, E., Lanz, M., & Marta, E. (1999). Psycho-social adjustment and family relationships: A typology of Italian families with a late adolescent. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 633–644. Scabini, E., & Marta, E. (1994). Family with late adolescents: Social and family topics. In M. Cusinato (Ed.), Research on family resources and needs across the world. Milano: LED. Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Rosnati, R. (1995). Rischio familiare e rischio sociale: una ricerca sulle famiglie con tardoadolescenti [Family risk and social risk: A research on families with late-adolescents]. In M. D’Alessio, P. E Ricci Bitti & G. Villone Bertocchi (Eds.), Gli indicatori psicologici e sociali del rischio [Psychological and social indicators of risk] (pp. 285–299). Napoli: Idelson Liviana. Seaberg, J. R., & Harrigan, M. P. (1999). Foster families’ functioning, experiences and views: Variations by race. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 31–55.
45
Sharma, A. R., McGue, M. K., & Benson, P. L. (1998). The psychological adjustment of United States adopted adolescents and their nonadopted siblings. Child Development, 69, 791–802. Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Steinberg, L. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty. Developmental Psychology, 17, 833–840. Wells, K., & Guo, S. (1999). Reunification and re-entry of foster children. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 273–294. Westhues, A., & Cohen, J. S. (1997). A comparison of the adjustment of adolescent and young adult inter-country adoptees and their siblings. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 47–65. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zlotnick, C., Kronstadt, D., & Klee, L. (1998). Foster care children and family homelessness. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1368–1370.
International Journal of Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pijp20
Parent–adolescent communication in foster, inter‐country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences a
a
Rosa Rosnati , Raffaella Iafrate & Eugenia Scabini
a
a
Catholic University of Milan , Italy Published online: 04 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Rosa Rosnati , Raffaella Iafrate & Eugenia Scabini (2007) Parent–adolescent communication in foster, inter‐country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences, International Journal of Psychology, 42:1, 36-45, DOI: 10.1080/00207590500412128 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590500412128
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE 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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 42 (1), 36–45
Parent–adolescent communication in foster, inter-country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences Rosa Rosnati, Raffaella Iafrate, and Eugenia Scabini Catholic University of Milan, Italy
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
T
here is a paucity of studies aimed at comparing how parents and children in different family structures cope with the challenges posed by the adolescence transition; in particular, there are few studies aimed at comparing adoptive and foster families. In order to partially fill this gap, the principal aims of the present study were to verify whether there are differences in parent–child communication among foster, intercountry adoptive, and biological families according to the adolescents’ gender, and to compare the perceptions of parents and adolescents concerning parent–child communication. Data were elaborated on two levels: a generational level (adolescent’s and his/her parents’ perceptions among the three family groups) and a dyadic level (mother–child and father–child perceptions). The sample was composed of 276 Italian families with adolescents aged between 11 and 17 (81 foster, 98 international adoptive, and 97 biological families). Subjects (mothers, fathers, and children) filled out a questionnaire including the Parent–Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Results highlighted that in foster families, parent–child communication showed more difficulties from both the adolescent’s and the parents’ point of view. Adoptive adolescents, however, reported a more positive communication with both their parents than did their peers living in biological and foster families. At a dyadic level, some differences emerged among the three groups. In biological families, a more pronounced distance emerged between parents and children. In adoptive families, father and adolescent shared more similar perceptions, whereas a significant discrepancy emerged between mother and child. A higher level of perceptual congruence between adolescents and parents was found in foster families. Gender differences were also seen: Mothers experienced a more open communication with their children than did fathers, and adolescents, and above all females, communicated better with their mothers than with their fathers in all three family groups.
I
l existe peu d’e´tudes qui visent a` comparer comment les parents et les enfants, dans diffe´rentes structures familiales, composent avec les de´fis amene´s par la transition a` l’adolescence; en particulier, il existe peu d’e´tudes qui visent a` comparer les familles adoptives et les familles d’accueil. Dans le but de combler en partie cette lacune, les principaux buts de la pre´sente e´tude e´taient de ve´rifier s’il existe des diffe´rences dans la communication parent-enfant entre les familles d’accueil, les familles adoptives (adoption entre pays) et les familles biologiques en fonction du sexe des adolescents et de comparer les perceptions des parents et des adolescents au sujet de la communication parent-enfant. Les donne´es ont e´te´ e´labore´es a` deux niveaux: un niveau ge´ne´rationnel (les perceptions de l’adolescent et de son parent parmi les trois groupes familiaux) et un niveau dyadique (perceptions me`re-enfant et pe`re-enfant). L’e´chantillon e´tait compose´ de 276 familles italiennes avec adolescents entre 11 et 17 ans (81 familles d’accueil, 98 familles adoptives internationales et 97 familles biologiques). Les participants (me`res, pe`res et enfants) ont comple´te´ un questionnaire incluant le «ParentAdolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Les re´sultats ont souligne´ que, dans les familles d’accueil, la communication parent-enfant a montre´ plus de difficulte´s a` la fois du point de vue de l’adolescent et du point du parent. Cependant, les adolescents adoptifs ont e´value´ leur communication avec leurs me`res et pe`res comme e´tant plus positive en comparaison a` leurs pairs vivant dans des familles d’accueil et dans des familles biologiques. A un niveau dyadique, quelques diffe´rences ont e´merge´ entre les trois groupes. Dans les familles biologiques, une distance plus prononce´e a e´merge´ entre les parents et les enfants. Dans les familles adoptives, le pe`re et l’adolescent partageaient des perceptions similaires, tandis qu’une diffe´rence significative a e´merge´ entre la me`re et l’enfant. Un plus grand niveau de congruence perceptuelle entre les adolescents et les parents a e´te´ trouve´
Correspondence should be addressed to Rosa Rosnati, Centre for Family Studies and Research, Catholic University of Milan, Largo Gemelli, 1, 20123 Milano, Italy (E-mail: [email protected]). # 2007 International Union of Psychological Science
http://www.psypress.com/ijp
DOI: 10.1080/00207590500412128
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
37
dans les familles d’accueil. Des diffe´rences entre les sexes ont aussi apparu: en comparaison aux pe`res, les me`res ont expe´rimente´ une communication plus ouverte avec leurs enfants et les adolescents, surtout les filles, communiquaient mieux avec leurs me`res qu’avec leurs pe`res dans les trois groupes familiaux.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
S
on escasos los estudios que se han propuesto comparar co´mo los padres e hijos pertenecientes a diferentes estructuras familiares afrontan los retos que impone la transicio´n a la adolescencia; en particular, pocos estudios comparan las familias adoptivas y las que ejercen el cuidado temporal. Para subsanar parcialmente esta deficiencia, los propo´sitos principales de el presente estudio fueron verificar si difiere la comunicacio´n padreshijos entre familias que ejercen cuidado temporal, aque´llas adoptivas entre paı´ses, y biolo´gicas de acuerdo con el sexo del adolescente, y comparar las percepciones de los padres y de los adolescentes en cuanto a la comunicacio´n padres-hijo. Los datos se analizaron en dos niveles: un nivel de generaciones (las percepciones del adolescente y de sus padres entre los tres grupos de familias) y un nivel de dı´adas (las percepciones madre-hijo y padre-hijo). Doscientas setenta y seis familias italianas con adolescentes entre 11 y 17 an˜os de edad (81 familias de cuidado temporal, 98 adoptivas internacionalmente y 97 biolo´gicas) constituyeron la muestra. Los participantes (madres, padres e hijos) respondieron a un cuestionario que incluı´a la Escala de Comunicacio´n Padre-Adolescente (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Los resultados resaltan ma´s dificultades en la comunicacio´n padres-hijo en las familias que ejercen cuidado temporal, tanto desde la perspectiva del adolescente como de los padres. En tanto que los adolescentes adoptados perciben una comunicacio´n ma´s positiva que la de sus compan˜eros que viven en familias biolo´gicas y de cuidado temporal. En el nivel de dı´adas, surgieron algunas diferencias entre los tres grupos. En las familias biolo´gicas, se observo´ una distancia ma´s pronunciada entre padres e hijos. En las familias adoptivas, el padre y el adolescente comparten percepciones ma´s similares, mientras que discrepan significativamente madre e hijo. Se encontro´ un nivel mayor de congruencia perceptual entre los adolescentes y sus padres en las familias de cuidado temporal. En cuanto a diferencias de ge´nero, las madres experimentan una comunicacio´n ma´s abierta con sus hijos en comparacio´n con los padres, y los adolescentes, sobretodo las mujeres, se comunican mejor con sus madres que con sus padres en los tres grupos de familias.
Psychological studies on adolescence have recently devoted increasing attention to family relations and their influence on the development of adolescents (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Scabini, Lanz, & Marta, 1999). Adolescence is considered to be a family transition that involves a transformation and realignment rather than a disruption of preexisting parent–child bonds (Scabini & Iafrate, 2003). As a matter of fact, this phase requires a process of reciprocal differentiation between parents and children (Aquilino, 1997; Crespi & Sabatelli, 1997; Noack & Puschner, 1999) and a balance between closeness and distance in order to support the adolescent’s individuation from the family context (Scabini & Cigoli, 2000). For this reason this transition has been defined as a joint enterprise of parents and adolescents, in order to underline the fact that both generations are involved (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Scabini & Iafrate, 2003; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). However, there is a paucity of studies aimed at comparing how parents and children in different family structures cope with the challenges involved in the adolescence transition, and how they solve both the developmental tasks related to this phase and the additional tasks stemming from their specific condition. Adoption and foster care are focused on in the present study, as adolescence constitutes a
particularly risky transition for both adoptive and foster families (Bramanti & Rosnati, 1998; Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998; Iafrate, 2001; Rosnati, 2005). These two family types are, at the same time, both similar and different in many respects. Both of them are based on a particular form of social generativity (Snarey, 1993), as parents are faced with the challenge of taking care of a new generation with whom they have no biological bonds. The psychological relation will sustain the parent–child bond, permanently in the case of adoption, and temporally for foster care. Both adoption and foster care imply that a new member has to be included in the family network and, at the same time, the child’s difference in origin and past history have to be acknowledged and taken into account. The main difference between adoptive and foster families might be traced to the fact that while the adoptive child becomes part of the adoptive family and gives continuity to it, integrating his or her origins as a new chapter of the family history (Scabini & Cigoli, 2000), the foster child, on the other hand, has to cope with a sense of ‘‘double belonging,’’ both to his/her biological family and to the foster one (Greco & Iafrate, 2001). With regard to adoption, adolescence constitutes a crucial phase in the evolution of the adoptive
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
38
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
bond; the task of the adopted adolescent is a ‘‘voyage backwards’’ in time in order to reappropriate his/her own origins and find a deeper sense of connection between present, past, and future (Brodzinsky et al., 1998). The construction of the adoptive bond implies the elaboration of this relinquishment and of the losses connected to it. Personal identity cannot be built without going through this trial (Mackie, 1985). In addition, in transracial placements, parents and children also have to cope with racial and ethnic issues, which become particularly relevant during adolescence (Bramanti & Rosnati, 1998). The adoptive family has a fundamental role to play in supporting the adolescent in facing up to these challenges. This particular phase in the adoptive family’s life cycle has been investigated mainly in terms of the adolescent’s adjustment. Although most studies have confirmed that adopted adolescents are more prone to adjustment difficulties (i.e., behavioural problems, higher frequency of running away from home and of seeking counselling help, and lower academic achievement) than nonadopted peers (Brand & Brinich, 1999; Brodzinsky & Schechter, 1990; Brodzinsky et al., 1998; Feigelman, 2001; Howe, 1997; Levy-Shiff, Zoran, & Shulman, 1997; Miller, Fan, Christensen, Grotevant, & and Van Dulmen, 2000; Sharma, McGue, & Benson, 1998; Westhues & Cohen, 1997), some of this research has also emphasized that these differences are relatively small (Haugaard, 1998), limited to a few aspects, and that the vast majority of adoptees are well within the normal range of adjustment (Brodzinsky & Pingerhuges, 2002). Moreover, adoption research has recently shifted its focus from the child’s adjustment outcomes to adaptation and protective factors: The assumption of a resilience paradigm has led to an increasing attention to family processes (Brodzinsky & Palacios, 2005). Nevertheless, there is still a paucity of studies analysing parent–child relations, although the family relational network is unanimously considered to be the most important protective factor for adolescent adoptees’ psychological well-being (Brodzinsky et al., 1998; LevyShiff, 2001; Mackie, 1985; Rosnati, 2005; Rosnati & Marta, 1997). In foster care, the crucial problem children have to face is that they feel themselves simultaneously 1
According to Italian law, foster care can be applied only in the case of temporary difficulties concerning the child’s family of origin: The re-entrance into the biological family, as soon as temporary problems have been overcome, constitutes the principal aim of foster care.
‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ of ‘‘their two families’’ (foster and biological).1 As a consequence, fostered adolescents are ‘‘at the boundary’’ between two families. Unlike with adoption, foster and biological families are both present, so the children have to carry out a process of individuation from two sets of parents. Therefore, the transition to adulthood could be considered to involve a higher degree of risk for foster children. The quality of foster-family relationships and of the child’s sense of belonging to his/her family of origin constitute important protective factors for the child’s well-being (Dell’Antonio, 1996; Greco, 1996; Greco & Iafrate, 1993; Jones, 1998; Nunziante Cesaro & Ferraro, 1992; Quinton, Rushton, Dance, & Mayes, 1997; Quinton, Selwyn, Rushton, & Dance, 1999; Seaberg & Harrigan, 1999; Wells & Guo, 1999). Our previous research (Iafrate, 2001) highlighted the fact that family communication and, above all, the child’s perception of communication with the foster father represented the most powerful predictors of the adolescent’s well-being, in terms of self-esteem, and both internalizing and externalizing adjustment. Research into foster families has mainly focused on the psychological problems of the children, with particular reference to traumas experienced before foster care—such as sexual abuse, family violence, and neglect (Dubner & Motta, 1999; Jonson-Reid & Bivens, 1999; Zlotnick, Kronstadt, & Klee, 1998)—and their consequences: psychological vulnerability, depression, drug problems, and psychiatric disorders (Brooks & Barth, 1998; Kliman, 1996; McNichol, 1999; Monheit, Mauffret-Stephan, Pandolfo, & Levi, 1997). There are few studies aimed at comparing adoptive and foster families, as most research analyses them separately or in relation to biological families, and often only from the child’s perspective. Bohman and Sigvardsson (1990), in a prospective longitudinal study conducted in Sweden, compared adopted and foster children with nonadopted peers in terms of psychological adjustment. It emerged that adopted children were reported by their teachers to have more problem behaviours than their classmates, but that this difference tended to disappear during adolescence. In contrast, children in foster care have significantly more problem behaviours than both adopted and nonadopted children. Similar results emerged in a more recent study carried out by Brand and Brinich (1999) in the United States: Children in foster care have significantly higher scores on a problem behaviour scale than children in adoptive and biological families, both at school age and during adolescence. According to the
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
authors, this result may be related to the fact that foster children often have to move from one foster home to another, and that they have to maintain relations with two sets of parents. In addition, past experiences of abuse and neglect may influence present adjustment and interfere with the formation of significant attachments. The above-mentioned research compared the different placement types in terms of behavioural adjustment, while similarities and differences in relational patterns within the family remained mostly unexplored. In order to fill this gap to some extent, the present study was carried out with the principal aim of exploring whether and to what extent adoptive, foster, and biological families with adolescent children are similar or different in terms of family relations. From a number of dimensions of family functioning, parent–child communication has been identified as a crucial variable (Collins, 1990; Steinberg, 1981). Olson considers this variable to be a facilitating dimension in the process of regulating distance that families have to cope with during transition periods (Olson, 1993), and especially during a young person’s transition to adolescence (Olson et al., 1982; Scabini & Marta, 1994; Scabini, Marta, & Rosnati, 1995). Through communication, parents and adolescents renegotiate their roles, relationships, and psychological distance. Research on biological families with adolescents has highlighted some gender and generational differences in the perception of communication. Children perceive a lower level of openness and more problems in communication than do their parents. Moreover, it emerged that mothers usually perceive better communication with their children than do fathers, and that children experience more open communication with mothers than with fathers (Barnes & Olson, 1985; Noller & Callan, 1990; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). These results have been confirmed in Italian samples (Carra` & Marta, 1995; D’Atena & Ardone, 1991; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995). It could be inferred that the existence of a "relational loss of balance" in families with adolescents is due to the fact that the mother is the relational fulcrum of the family, while the father maintains a more peripheral position (Scabini & Cigoli, 2000). However, there is a lack of empirical studies aimed at demonstrating whether these relational patterns could be extended to other family structures, like adoptive and foster families. According to this theoretical and empirical background, the principal aims of the present study were to verify whether there are differences in
39
parent–child communication among foster, intercountry adoptive, and biological families according to the adolescents’ gender, and to compare the perceptions of parents and adolescents concerning parent–child communication. METHOD Sample The sample was composed of 276 families (father, mother, and child) with adolescent children aged between 11 and 17 (mean age 13:8); 81 (29.3%) were foster families, 98 (35.5%) were international adoptive families, and 97 (35.2%) were biological families. The total number of subjects was 828. In the subsample of adolescents, 134 were males (48.6%) and 142 were females (51.4%). The three groups were matched for adolescent’s gender and age. All families belonged to a middle/ middle-high socioeconomic status. All adolescents were students in primary or secondary school and were living in northern Italy. Adoptive families were recruited through collaboration with a number of associations working in the field of international adoption. Directors of these associations were asked to provide addresses of those families who had previously agreed to collaborate in the present study. Adoptive parents and children received the questionnaire by mail, and were asked to fill it in at home. Adoptees2 were those born in a foreign country and adopted by an Italian family when they were between 0 and 15 years of age; the mean age at adoption was 4.3 years old. Of the adopted adolescents, 40.1% were born in Latin American countries (Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, etc.), 58.2% in Asia (India, Sri Lanka, etc.) and 1.7% in Eastern European countries (exYugoslavia). Of the adoptive families, 45.7% had only the target adopted child, 27.6% had two adopted children, and 2.4% had three adopted children. The remaining 24.3% were ‘‘mixed families,’’ with one or two adopted children and one or two biological offspring. Foster families were contacted with the collaboration of social workers involved in the foster care process; parents and children filled out the questionnaire at home. Foster children had been living in their present foster homes for between 6 months and 12 years. In particular, 17.2% had been in foster care since they were 1–5 years old, 35.3% since they were 6–9 years old, 23.3% since 2 Adoptive families had neither direct and mediated contact nor information exchange with children’s biological families.
40
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
they were 10–11 years old, and 24.2% since they were 12–16 years old. The mean age at placement was 9.24 years old. All foster children were born in Italy. In 81% of the cases, foster families were composed of two parents, the adolescent foster child, and two or three biological children. Only 19% of foster parents had no biological children. The biological families were selected with the help of some primary and secondary schools in the north of Italy. Parents completed the questionnaire at home. In terms of parents’ age, it emerged that adoptive mothers had an average age of 44.3 years, and adoptive fathers one of 47.8; foster mothers had an average age of 38.1, and foster fathers one of 40.6. Biological fathers were 45.4 years old and biological mothers 42.8 on average years.
Instruments Subjects filled out a self-report questionnaire that was administered in three different versions for adolescent, mother, and father. It provided information about age, sex, family composition, education, and socioeconomic status of the family. It included the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale by Barnes and Olson (1985), in which participants were requested to respond to 20 items on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree.’’ The scale measures both positive and negative aspects of communication. It focuses on the free-flowing exchange of information, both factual and emotional, and on the degree of understanding and satisfaction experienced in the interaction, as well as on hesitancy to share, negative styles of interaction, and selectivity and caution in what is shared. Examples of items are: ‘‘My father/mother/child is always a good listener,’’ ‘‘When I ask questions, I get honest answers from my father/mother/child,’’ ‘‘There are topics I avoid discussing with my father/ mother/child.’’ The adolescents were requested to appraise communication with their mothers and with their fathers separately. As a consequence, four measures of parent–child communication were obtained: adolescent’s communication with mother, adolescent’s communication with father, mother’s communication with adolescent, and father’s communication with adolescent. The consistency of the scale was satisfactory: Cronbach’s alpha 5 .77 for the father’s version, .78 for the mother’s version, .77 for the child’s version assessing communication with father, and .76 for the child’s version assessing communication with mother.
RESULTS Data analysis A family perspective was assumed, comparing the perceptions of the mother, father, and adolescent of the same unit. As a consequence, data were elaborated on two levels: on a generational level we intended to verify whether there are gender differences and a discrepancy between the adolescent’s and his/her parents’ perceptions among the three family groups (adoptive/foster/biological); on a dyadic level we confronted two different points of view on the same relationship by comparing the perceptions that the two members of the dyads (mother–child and father–child) had of their communication in the three family groups. Some explorative analysis revealed that neither the present age of adolescents, nor the age of adoption, nor the age when a child entered foster care affected the communication perceived either by adolescents or by their parents. These two variables were therefore dropped from further data elaboration. In the subsample of adoptive families, the quality of parent–child communication was controlled for by race, but no significant differences emerged. In order to assess the differences between the two generations, two mixed ANOVAs were carried out as follows: (1) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (within variable: adolescent’s communication with mother and with father); and (2) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (mother’s and father’s communication with adolescent). To examine differences within mother–child and father–child dyads among the different types of families, two other mixed ANOVAs were carried out: (1) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (within variable: adolescent’s communication with father and father’s communication with adolescent ); and (2) a 3 (between variable: family typology: adoptive, foster, and biological families) 6 2 (between variable: male and female adolescents) 6 2 (adolescent’s communication with mother and mother’s communication with adolescent). The four measures of parent–child communication were considered as within variables because of the interdependence of subjects belonging to the same family (Bray, Maxwell, & Cole, 1995).
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
Generational level
41
family typology had a significant effect, F 5 18.66, p , .001: the post hoc test by Student Newman Keuls highlighted the fact that parents in foster families reported poorer communication with their adolescents than adoptive and biological parents, who did not differ from each other. The significant effect of the within factor, F(2, 218) 5 4.29, p 5 .039, highlighted the existence of a difference between mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. Mothers experienced a more open communication with their children than fathers in all three family groups: mothers’ communication, mean 5 73.70, SD 5 11.75; fathers’ communication, mean 5 71.91, SD 5 11.33. Adolescents’ gender does not affect parents’ perception of family communication.
The adolescent’s point of view. From the first ANOVA model a significant effect of both between-subjects factors emerged: adolescents’ gender: F(1, 232) 5 4.39, p 5 .037; family typology: F(2, 232) 5 11.621, p , .001. The post test by Student Newman Keuls pointed out the following differences: adolescents in adoptive families reported better communication with parents than did those in biological or foster families, while no differences emerged between biological and foster families (see Table 1). Moreover, female adolescents reported better communication with parents in all three groups of families than did males (see Table 1). Also, the effect of the within factor turned out to be significant, F(2, 231) 5 6.15, p 5 .014). Adolescents, regardless of the family structure they belonged to, reported better communication with mothers than with fathers: adolescent’s communication with mother, mean 5 73.68, SD 5 13.26; adolescent’s communication with father, mean 5 71.86, SD 5 13.91. The interaction between the within factor and adolescents’ gender was significant, F(1, 232) 5 9.14, p 5 .003). Subsequent univariate analysis, t 5 2.78, p 5.006, showed that female adolescents reported better communication with mothers than male adolescents did: adolescent’s communication with mother, females’ mean 5 75.95, SD 5 13.78, males’ mean 5 71.30, SD 5 12.31. No significant differences emerged concerning the communication with fathers: adolescent’s communication with father, females’ mean 5 72.07, SD 5 14.37, males mean 5 71.42, SD 5 13.01. These results are consistent with research carried out both in Italy and abroad (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995; Youniss & Smollar, 1985).
The dyadic level Communication in mother–adolescent dyads. The third ANOVA model revealed that the principal effects of both between variables was significant: family typology, F(2, 216) 5 14.23, p , .001, adolescents’ gender, F(2, 216) 5 10.72, p 5 .001; whereas the effect of the within-subjects factor was not significant. This means that mothers and children did not generally differ in their perceptions of communication. Moreover, the interaction between the withinand the between-subjects variable family typology also turned out to be significant, F(2, 216) 5 8.66, p , .001. The paired t-test computed in the three groups revealed that mothers and children differed in the perception of their communication when biological and adoptive families were considered, but that this was not the case for foster families. It is worthwhile to note the opposite direction of the difference: In biological families children reported a lower quality of communication than their mothers did, t 5 2.83, p 5 .006, while in adoptive families, adolescents reported better communication than their mothers did, t 5 2.25, p 5 .028 (see
The parents’ point of view. Results of the second ANOVA model showed that the between variable
TABLE 1 Adolescent’s communication with mother and with father, and mother’s and father’s communication with the child by gender: Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) Comm. with mother
Biological families Foster families Adoptive families
Comm. with father
Mother’s comm.
Father’s comm.
Total
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females Total
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
71.49 (13.39) 70.74 (12.93) 79.10 (11.83)
68.21 (13.27) 69.12 (11.79) 76.56 (9.86)
74.58 (12.88) 72.10 (13.82) 82.00 (13.30)
68.82 (14.93) 69.52 (11.19) 77.20 (12.89)
68.86 (14.31) 70.57 (10.45) 74.81 (12.91)
68.78 75.98 (15.66) (11.27) 68.72 68.05 (11.78) (11.82) 79.92 76.56 (12.48) (9.74)
75.47 (12.30) 66.69 (14.42) 74.07 (10.68)
76.46 (11.88) 69.17 (9.18) 79.40 (7.73)
72.61 (10.48) 67.16 (12.46) 74.98 (9.57)
72.70 (10.27) 68.85 (12.83) 73.92 (9.01)
72.53 (10.79) 65.76 (12.11) 76.29 (10.20)
42
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
Table 1). In foster families, mothers and children shared a more similar perception of their communication. No other interaction turned out to be significant. Communication in father–adolescent dyads. The fourth ANOVA model highlighted that the between-subjects variable family typology had a significant effect, F(2, 221) 5 10.92, p , .001, as already mentioned, while adolescents’ gender did not discriminate. The effect of the within-subjects factor was not significant. This means that fathers and children did not generally differ in the perception of their communication. The interaction between the within variable and family typology turned out to be significant, F(2, 221) 5 5.16, p , .001. The paired t-test showed that fathers and adolescents had different perceptions of their communication only in biological families, t 5 2.44, p 5 .016. It emerged that biological children reported worse communication than did their fathers. In foster and adoptive families, however, fathers and children shared the same perceptions of their communication. DISCUSSION In the present study the focus was on adolescence, considered as a developmental transition in which both generations—parents and children—are involved. As a consequence, a family perspective was assumed in order to compare the different perceptions of parent–adolescent communication. Results of the present study showed, in general, that adoptive, foster, and biological families shared some relational patterns. In foster families, parent–child communication, above all in mother–child dyads, showed more difficulties both from the adolescent’s and from the parents’ point of view. As a matter of fact, fostered adolescents have to face the double task of managing their position ‘‘at the boundary’’, both at a developmental level (between childhood and adulthood) and at a relational level (between two really present families). Also, parents in foster families reported the worst quality of communication, as it can be very difficult to manage the relationship with a child who is living with them but who continues to belong to his/her family of origin. It could also be hypothesized that foster parents wish to maintain a moderate distance from their foster child in order to avoid the risk of them ‘‘being trapped’’ (Greco & Iafrate, 2001).
Moreover, these difficulties can be traced to the their former families. According to Brand and Brinich (1999), these results could be related to the fact that foster children are likely to have previously suffered negative experiences such as neglect and abuse. Furthermore, it could be hypothesized that foster children have ‘‘inherited’’ a negative style of relationship with their parents, or even that they share with their biological parents a ‘‘genetic tendency’’ for traits that make it difficult for them to cooperate and communicate positively with their parents. On the contrary, adopted adolescents reported a higher quality of communication with both parents than did adolescents living in foster and biological families, whereas adoptive parents reported a quality of communication with their offspring similar to that of biological parents. This result is consistent with our previous research into families with late adolescent adoptees aged between 16 and 19 years old (Rosnati & Marta, 1997); results of the present study allow us to extend this specific pattern to the whole adolescence span. It could, therefore, be concluded that, although adolescent adoptees might find some difficulties in adjustment, as several studies have demonstrated (Brodzinsky & Palacios, 2005; Brodzinsky et al., 1998; Haugaard, 1998), they could count on open and fluid communication with both parents. The parents could support them in the challenging developmental task of acknowledging their different origin and building a connection between past and present. At a dyadic level, results revealed a general agreement between perceptions within the two dyads (mother–child and father–child), but with some differences among the three groups. In biological families, a more pronounced distance emerged between parents and children: Adolescents reported more problematic communication than their parents did. This result is consistent with literature highlighting the process of individuation/separation that adolescents begin at this age. On the other hand, parents do not perceive these changes, and are thus not able to adjust their communication to this new relational pattern (Lanz & Rosnati, 1995). In adoptive families, father and adolescent share more similar perceptions, whereas a significant discrepancy emerged between mother and child: Adolescents communicated with their mothers in a more open and less problematic way than their mothers did with them. A higher level of perceptual congruence between adolescents and parents was found in foster families. Both foster parents and children perceive
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
worse communication than the other dyads. This finding could indicate the presence of greater realism in the perception of the relational network. Foster parents are more able to tolerate the adolescents moving away from the adult generation and the process of separation from the foster family, which is, after all, a ‘‘temporary’’ family. In other words, foster children’s position ‘‘at the boundaries’’ could encourage the process of parent–child reciprocal separation (Iafrate, 2001). But it is worthwhile to note that the lack of permanent connection between foster children and foster parents could cause a ‘‘too easy’’ separation, without the healthy ambivalence that implies either a differentiation or a connection between parents and their offspring. The findings of the present study also highlighted the fact that the relational pattern in which the mother occupies a more central position in the family (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995; Noller, 1995; Youniss & Smollar, 1985) could be extended to both adoptive and foster families. Mothers experienced more open communication with their children than fathers did, and adolescents communicated better with their mothers than with their fathers in all three family groups (Carra` & Marta, 1995; Lanz & Rosnati, 1995; Noller, 1995; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). As a consequence, ‘‘the relational loss of balance’’ in favour of the mother is also seen in adoptive and foster families. Gender differences also turned up in the present study. Female adolescents, irrespective of the family structure to which they belong, reported more open communication with parents, especially with mothers, than their male peers. This means that the strong bond between mother and daughter in adolescence is equally shared by all family typologies. Three additional issues regarding the current study should be pointed out. One pertains to selfreport measures that give information only about the perceptions that subjects have concerning family relations. Observational studies are therefore needed in order to corroborate or integrate these findings. A second is related to the lack of information about pre-placement experience among foster and adoptive children, which might influence present patterns of communication. A third concerns the fact that this research only focused on Italian families. As a consequence, a cross-cultural study would be very useful in order to validate these findings. In conclusion, it is worthwhile to note that the family perspective applied in this study has provided fruitful results and has suggested many interesting
43
starting points for future research. It has pointed out that adolescence affects different families in differ ways: Some relational patterns are shared by adoptive, foster, and biological families, but others are specific to a particular type of family. Manuscript received December 2004 Revised manuscript accepted September 2005
REFERENCES Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescence to young adult: A prospective study of parent–child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 670–686. Barnes, H., & Olson, D. (1985). Parent adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438–447. Bohman, M., & Sigvardsson, S. (1990). Outcome in adoption: Lessons form longitudinal studies. In D. M. Brodzinsky & M. D. Schechter (Eds.), The psychology of adoption (pp. 93–106). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bramanti, D., & Rosnati, R. (1998). Il patto adottivo. L’adozione internazionale di fronte alla sfida dell’adolescenza [The adoptive pact. Intercountry adoption in front of the adolescent challenge]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Brand, A. E., & Brinich, P. M. (1999). Behaviour problems and mental health contacts in adopted, foster and nonadopted children. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1221–1229. Bray, J., Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. (1995). Multivariate statistics for family psychology research. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 144–160. Brodzinsky, D., & Palacios, J. (Eds.) (2005). Psychological issues in adoption. Research and practice. Westport, CT: Praeger. Brodzinsky, D., & Pingerhuges, E. (2002). Parenting and child development in adoptive families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1: Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 279–311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Brodzinsky, D. M., & Schechter, M. D. (1990). The psychology of adoption. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Brodzinsky, D. M., Smith, D. W., & Brodzinsky, A. B. (1998). Children’s adjustment to adoption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brooks, D., & Barth, R. P. (1998). Characteristics and outcomes of drug-exposed and non drug-exposed children in kinship and non-relative foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 20, 475–501. Carra`, E., & Marta, E. (1995). Adolescenza e relazioni familiari [Adolescence and family relations]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent adolescent relationships in the transition to adolescence: Continuity and change in interaction, affect and cognition. In R. Motemayor, G. Adams & R. Gulotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: a transitional period. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent–adolescent relationships and influences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 331–361). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
44
ROSNATI, IAFRATE, SCABINI
Crespi, T., & Sabatelli, R. (1997). The children of alcoholics and adolescence: Individuation, development and family system. Adolescence, 32, 407–417. D’Atena, P., & Ardone, R. G. (1991). Rappresentazione familiare e comunicazione. Contributo empirico su famiglie con adolescenti [Family representation and communication. A study on families with adolescents]. Terapia familiare, 35, 37–48. Dell’Antonio, A. (1996). Avere due famiglie: immagini, realta` e prospettive dell’affidamento eterofamiliare [Having two families: Images, reality and perspectives on foster care]. Milano: Unicopli. Dubner, A. E., & Motta, R. W. (1999). Sexually and physically abused foster care children and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 367–373. Feigelman, W. (2001). Comparing adolescents in diverging family structures: Investigating whether adoptees are more prone to problems than their nonadopted peers. Adoption Quarterly, 5, 5–37. Greco, O. (1996). La strada dal lutto alla capacita` di legame nel passaggio fra due famiglie [From the mourning to the bond in the passage through two families]. Minori e Giustizia, 2, 17–28. Greco, O., & Iafrate, R. (1993). Tra i meandri dell’affido. Un percorso di ricerca [Among the windings of foster care. A research itinerary]. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Greco, O., & Iafrate, R. (2001). Figli al confine. Una ricerca multimetodologica sull’affidamento familiare [Children at the boundary. A multimethod research on foster care]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Haugaard, J. J. (1998). Is adoption a risk factor for the development of adjustment problems? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 47–69. Howe, D. (1997). Parent-reported problems in 211 adopted children: Some risk and protective factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 401–411. Iafrate, R. (2001). Relazioni familiari, percezione dei confini e benessere degli adolescenti in affido [Family communication and perception of boundaries as predictors of adolescent foster-children well-being]. Eta` Evolutiva, 69, 72–79. Jones, L. (1998). The social and family correlates of successful reunification of children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 20, 305–323. Jonson-Reid, M., & Bivens, L. (1999). Foster youth and dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1249–1262. Kliman, G. (1996). The personal life history book: A psychoanalytically based intervention for foster children. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 1, 159–162. Lanz, M., & Rosnati, R. (1995). La comunicazione familiare: uno studio sulle famiglie con adolescenti [Family communication: A study on families with adolescents]. Ricerche di psicologia, 19, 81–98. Levy-Shiff, R. (2001). Psychological adjustment of adoptees in adulthood: Family environment and adoption-related correlates. International Journal of Behavioural Psychology, 25, 97–104. Levy-Shiff, R., Zoran, N., & Shulman, S. (1997). International and domestic adoption: Child, parents and family adjustment. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 1, 109–129. Mackie, A. J. (1985). Families with adopted adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 5, 167–178.
McNichol, T. (1999). The impact of drug-exposed children on family foster care. Child Welfare, 78, 184–196. Miller, B. C., Fan, X., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & and Van Dulmen, M. (2000). Comparison of adopted and nonadopted adolescents in a large, nationally representative sample. Child Development, 71, 1458–1473. Monheit, L., Mauffret-Stephan, E., Pandolfo, M., & Levi, G. (1997). Vulnerabilita` psicologica e depressione nei bambini in affidamento familiare e istituzionale [Psychological vulnerability and depression in children in foster care and in institutes]. Psichiatria dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza, 64, 195–204. Noack, P., & Puschner, B. (1999). Differential trajectories of parent–child relationships and psychosocial adjustment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 795–804. Noller, P. (1995). Parent–adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 77–111). London: Sage. Noller, P., & Callan, V. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions of the nature of their communication with parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 349–362. Nunziante, Cesaro, A., & Ferraro, F. (Eds.) (1992). La doppia famiglia. Discontinuita` affettive e rotture traumatiche [The double family. Affective discontinuities and traumatic ruptures]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Assessing family functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 104–137). New York: Guilford Press. Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1982). Family inventories in family social science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Palacios, J., & Brodzinsky, D. (2005). Recent changes and future directions for adoption research. In D. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption. Research and practice (pp. 257–268). Westport, CT: Praeger. Quinton, D., Rushton, A., Dance, C., & Mayes, D. (1997). Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: Research issues and evidence. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2, 393–413. Quinton, D., Selwyn, J., Rushton, A., & Dance, C. (1999). Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: Ryburn’s "reanalysis" analysed. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 519–531. Rosnati, R. (2005). The construction of adoptive parenthood and filiation in Italian families with adolescents: A family perspective. In D. Brodzinsky & J. Palacios (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption. Research and practice (pp. 187–209). Westport, CT: Praeger. Rosnati, R., & Marta, E. (1997). Parent–child relationships as protective factors for preventing adolescent’s psycho-social risk in adoptive and non-adoptive families. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 617–631. Scabini, E., & Cigoli, V. (2000). Il famigliare. Legami, simboli e transizioni [The family. Bonds, symbols and transitions]. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 03:53 02 May 2015
PARENT–ADOLESCENT COMMUNICATION
Scabini, E., & Iafrate, R. (2003). Psicologia dei legami familiari [Psychology of family bonds]. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino. Scabini, E., Lanz, M., & Marta, E. (1999). Psycho-social adjustment and family relationships: A typology of Italian families with a late adolescent. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 633–644. Scabini, E., & Marta, E. (1994). Family with late adolescents: Social and family topics. In M. Cusinato (Ed.), Research on family resources and needs across the world. Milano: LED. Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Rosnati, R. (1995). Rischio familiare e rischio sociale: una ricerca sulle famiglie con tardoadolescenti [Family risk and social risk: A research on families with late-adolescents]. In M. D’Alessio, P. E Ricci Bitti & G. Villone Bertocchi (Eds.), Gli indicatori psicologici e sociali del rischio [Psychological and social indicators of risk] (pp. 285–299). Napoli: Idelson Liviana. Seaberg, J. R., & Harrigan, M. P. (1999). Foster families’ functioning, experiences and views: Variations by race. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 31–55.
45
Sharma, A. R., McGue, M. K., & Benson, P. L. (1998). The psychological adjustment of United States adopted adolescents and their nonadopted siblings. Child Development, 69, 791–802. Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Steinberg, L. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty. Developmental Psychology, 17, 833–840. Wells, K., & Guo, S. (1999). Reunification and re-entry of foster children. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 273–294. Westhues, A., & Cohen, J. S. (1997). A comparison of the adjustment of adolescent and young adult inter-country adoptees and their siblings. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 47–65. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zlotnick, C., Kronstadt, D., & Klee, L. (1998). Foster care children and family homelessness. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1368–1370.
