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
Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS)
Participants
N = 616 families, each with two participating children.
Child M age = 14.9 years.
Families with 2 adopted children: N = 285
Families with 1 adopted child, 1 biological child: N = 124
Families with 2 biological children: N = 208
M age of adoption = 4.7 months.
All adoptees placed within 2 years of age.
27.3% domestically adopted, 72.3% internationally adopted.
Self-reported parent-child conflict
25
Dark Bars: Adoptive
Mean conflict level
Light Bars: Biological
p < .05
p < .05
p < .05
p < .05
Adolescent-mother
Adolescent-father
20
Mother-adolescent
Father-adolescent
15
Family Member
Rueter et al, 2009
Within family comparisons:
Self-reported parent-child conflict
25
Dark Bars:
Adopted child
Light Bars:
Mean conflict level
Biological child
p < .05
p < .05
p < .05
Adolescent-mother
Adolescent-father
20
Mother-adolescent
Father-adolescent
15
Family member
Rueter et al, 2009
Observed parent-child conflictual behavior
Dark Bars: Adoptive
Mean conflict level
Light Bars: Biological
p < .05
p < .05
Rueter et al, 2009
Family Communication Patterns Theory
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004)
Optimal family functioning requires that members achieve a
shared social reality
Shared social reality exists when family members
(A) Agree.
(B) Accurately perceive their agreement.
Family Communication Patterns Theory
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004)
Shared Social Reality
Achieved through reliance on a combination of 2 orientations.
Conversation Orientation: Emphasizes conversation
to achieve shared social reality.
Conformity Orientation: Emphasizes conformity
to achieve shared social reality.
Family Communication Patterns (FCP)
High
Protective
Consensual
Laissez-Faire
Pluralistic
Low
High
Conversation Orientation
Child conflict levels by
Family Communication Pattern
Protective
Consensual
Moderate conflict
Lowest conflict
Laissez-Faire
Highest conflict
Pluralistic
Moderate conflict
Conversation Orientation
Study Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1:
Child conflict varies by FCP.
Family
Communication
Pattern
Child
Conflict
Study Hypotheses
Hypothesis 2:
Child conflict varies by adoption status.
Family
Communication
Pattern
Child
Conflict
Adopted
vs.
Non-adopted
Study Hypotheses
Hypothesis 3:
Adoption status and FCP interact . . .
Family
Communication
Pattern
Child
Conflict
Adopted
vs.
Non-adopted
Hypothesized interaction between
Family Communication Pattern and adoption status
Protective
Consensual
Adopted higher
Adopted similar
than non-adopted
to non-adopted
Laissez-Faire
Pluralistic
Adopted higher
Adopted higher
than non-adopted
than non-adopted
Conversation Orientation
Study Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1:
Child conflict varies by FCP.
Hypothesis 2:
Child conflict varies by adoption status.
Hypothesis 3:
Adoption status and FCP interact such that . . .
H3a: Among adoptive families,
conflict varies by FCP.
H2b: Among non-adoptive families,
conflict does not vary by FCP.
Measuring Family Communication Patterns
Observed
Control
M
F
E
Y
Observed
Communication
M
F
E
Y
Observed
Listening
M
F
E
Y
Observed
Warmth
M
F
E
Y
Family
Communication
Patterns
(4 Latent Classes)
Rueter et al, 2008
Dark Bars:
Adoptive
Light Bars:
Biological
Rueter et al, 2009
Measuring Child Conflict
Sum of 4 observed ratings:
Child hostility to (1) mother and to (2) father.
Extent to which child’s behavior was
characterized as angry, hostile, contemptuous.
Child coercion to (3) mother and to (4) father.
Extent to which child’s behavior was
characterized as demanding, threatening.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1: Child conflict varies by FCP.
Protective
Consensual
Moderate conflict
Lowest conflict
Laissez-Faire
Highest conflict
Pluralistic
Moderate conflict
Conversation Orientation
Hypothesis 1:
Child conflict levels vary by FCP
Mean conflict level
Observed Child Conflict by Family Communication Pattern
Hypothesis 2:
Child conflict levels vary by adoption status
Observed child conflict by adoption status
Dark Bars: Adoptive
Mean conflict level
Light Bars: Biological
Hypothesis 3:
Adoption status and FCP interact
Mean conflict level
Observed child conflict by adoption status and FCP
Dark Bars:
Adoptive
Light Bars:
Biological
Conclusions and Future Directions
Family
Communication
Pattern
Family
Shared
Child
Social
Reality
Conflict
Adopted
vs.
Non-adopted
Child
Conflict
Conclusions and Future Directions
Family
Communication
Pattern
Family
Shared
Child
Social
Reality
Conflict
Adopted
vs.
Non-adopted
Child
Conflict
Observed warm, supportive behavior
Dark Bars: Adoptive
Mean warmth level
Light Bars: Biological
15
Mother-adolescent
Father-adolescent
10
Family member
Rueter et al, 2009
Observed parental control
10
Dark Bars: Adoptive
Mean control level
Light Bars: Biological
5
Mother-adolescent
p < .05
Father-adolescent
0
Family member
Rueter et al, 2009