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

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

N = 616 families, each with two participating children. Child M age = 14.9 years. Families with 2 adopted children: N = 285 Families with 1 adopted child, 1 biological child: N = 124 Families with 2 biological children: N = 208 M age of adoption = 4.7 months. All adoptees placed within 2 years of age. 27.3% domestically adopted, 72.3% internationally adopted. Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS) Participants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis 1: Child conflict varies by FCP. Hypothesis 3: Adoption status and FCP interact such that... Study Hypotheses H3a: Among adoptive families, conflict varies by FCP. H2b: Among non-adoptive families, conflict does not vary by FCP. Hypothesis 2: Child conflict varies by adoption status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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