l') 9111'
.41.”. I‘-l-'I:4'{
I

  

   
 
 
 

“14'1le?
:1 : -,,...““1.111:11~:‘.3,I;1:-fi . ~. 23.... - . 1
' ~"‘1' 'I"':"' .. 1'r .'-',I 1. -: ,-4-I4_
w m [I'F‘Ijsiilv'fi'”3.424112441434 41“ .2 4 I J'.',111"':r'j£"" ""'?‘£;:":'r-I":II‘: {.246 a") 't' ::‘;:u I ';_R:4gif:'€4 :4‘
. (I. '9'!“ . 5}'(_> '44‘4'444.’4:":. 5:0, .3}. 4.41.51; 44464.. 44:44” '} ' 'M’ 4.4fi E» 1.
'Ifiulmmig'jiw .o I.4I""'4' 33414245411444.4'4’ ”I"! 14'.
II , S...
I .. ”3'35 3-4. ELI 3’2flz":§. . 4 JR”, .
. 1.44;? 4" 1.12;:
.' I'.

5...:IIIIII I 1":114 1'
‘I" ‘ I
I I41. I.::I"‘I:

31.1 1

D
I
-l
I
.l
I'l_.'

 
   
 

I.

1"...” :l

i |.. |I'.

-' O 1*:
I

'41
.‘4: f . .
I ‘zi. .
‘ 1-..." ‘11.» ‘1': 1-1
I 1-.I: ‘4'. ‘
'«I ”.4 ' I4. . 4
I “IS; I .‘J .:‘-':""'I I 'E m 4 .5.
(.41 :I'L'V‘
‘19
I- '9..:JFI'I44;‘ I - 1
‘ V::J.£ "Il

 

 
 
   

   

     
 

 

'41
III 41.1" U ' I": '4‘ I S'I'Ig
' 'I II
4 h In 7:4. I't. ' ”4.1%. .4 I I'I:: I" ""u.1 " I“? a
"44‘ 'IHI I 31.! I" " I;YSI'I' ". I <WI4'T. h“ \ "Hl‘
'- .. :1 H.111 "IF“.II' ~11 .1111" 1' ~-
" $1M I'I‘" " I 'l r " III? 1":I 3- 144-45.?“ "I‘J'I. 'ri'n S
1 {'1 '11 " 1-191" "'51.” 1"Q‘-.' :11 '"I:'-l1"115".1:"'a'.."f'v'n""~'--'p" ".I‘1 4
I {‘53 ‘lg :II I! " L 4' I...'r' 4"". II." I I I! I' 4 '41:". IP: .1 "r 'EII'I: .Sl'.""4- Ilrrt' 'H‘ “I'EIII'I‘IIRV‘I
' ' II! J ' ' I ' .' ' " ' .‘ . ‘.._I'. .' 4 4'. .
1 ‘1’ "'1. '3'“... . ' -. ‘ I""-':.I+:11 1.. * u.- L..-._'1-::.. .11.; r. ,
I ' " (M4 17“ '1'{""II"1'~ 1.0;: .'i 1.41;." 1! ‘1); "4 ' ' "" ‘1' . :.' ' 1‘13 ' "'1. I" 1" ' 2'1"“ »' " '11'54’1‘m
‘ _4 p... .1. l! . “'44. ’f i R: QII‘I‘I " .: ; .'; | I U l ‘ .. .‘l . - 1'. 0; uu'c?:'. '0; I . , .1'II,I:.' "I ‘n: U" 4- - _. .4.
5'? l" ""'\{I""' .1 IILH": 1:14: . 43". I' 'I igt‘ ‘4] I' }I.JP"I1I'nl-'. II" "- ' ' " "" I'." If " 1 I" "L '1" '5' h."' ”"1; ‘1' ”In" "4'." I‘ .7 y .3125"
hl.‘ ')"I"' '.'-I .2412" .,\ NI. 1 6 "5 '44'4u441o‘." r. 1, " 1:1."4" -._" ;4‘}I""- .- ~_'{5_ .J
» 41.113 1' . “1-111 "1 ' J 1 1 1. I ' ~ r .- m . - r1-»—:~'~~
4 ' ' 4 '.' I'DII“ ‘3} 4 I u'Ii L I HI I . , ."'. . " a I'. '41 "I?“ 4 ' I ‘ o-‘u- . IN-“ (“414 .I... I. g
I L 4%”? I '\L '11’0'11 “I?” . .'.. 'Ii-h ' 'fh " 'I' {'1‘ J' '1 ’3”. " I '1'91'93‘ '11-'1'... .I'“ “$11? 1'.“ "1".‘1.1.+1-:1'»" ' "1%"
I | ..' 44" I 4' a I' ”I. . 4h. 4. I . 44 71- 4 I .4, 'l I I" 4 .I. 4'. :4 0.4 '4' . .4 ,I.. 4". .
4 ._ '4‘ I. 4'4 ”4 4 4'4. "'Iii'ld‘ I I3" 'I"..l1. 4 I! ’|_I.I'I.:‘.." .4 t {a .4.‘ ‘4 4.. ' ‘l 4 I: 4 I ' “"4 44.. 'I'VIO:¢’I.lI .14.. J.” ‘ I.) :-?49 2:: .144 :14 I‘I..|54 II'I- ,Ir- 4
I I.” II I 4.. --' “4 4 ', __ 0.1.1." 4 “I . I .u "I! ' 4: a 44 a. . -J 4__" |_f-'4y,l.~nj_.1'°u.,'- ._
I g i 4|. 3 II 4' l' v '4 4 It" [I I 4 I '4' \ . I I1 I , . I '
I lf’ 1 .1 0" 4' H. 4 I: (I, ‘4 .1“ 'l \ J)“. I I lu’.‘ "47L 4.~‘l':: II' I. ‘5}..444 4. I ..‘b'4.:r\1"51 . II‘I I Us." 1"": «o I" 4.4 'I'
1 I. II -' " "I ' 'I'F'II'O '}'("'f"1' " 4- “4m“ '7" '. I 'I I ‘I 'I +, . w I ”144:” .o'. ": I. filth. II'.‘ .: I'm-'1 I'Vr {-
' 'III ’ 11+ ”1.111 1’1-1" 1"" . 'I'I 'l '1 '.. ' 1' '- ' r"‘1-I- '. ‘1 1'}. I'M 1‘-
(I J ? qr ”III 4'“. I H'I'Ia‘C-‘IH .4414} I .. [I‘M I”... 4 I I“. , .I II. 4 . "a -4 ' 4 .VI'Jgrc P. .—
1. "'1 "I " 1'. " "'1' "I... ‘11 T'I . '- I!» .'. 1"" ' .I ' 1 . III!” . "'17-'11 "'2. ‘ "I 1': “HR-1.... "I
I fi‘. '4 I'1 [LI 5!. 4 ltfit' 4 44:4 '4'144’4'r'l4l . “I”. I o4 Jul... | ‘34 'l 4 4 4 | 4 4.". 13.144: 4.4:. ISI‘I. '1 I. l‘ .5':.a‘“|:“ 4:
. ”I I 4. 4". 4 | f .44 . Ir'i 44'“ 0... If.“ 4. “'-'4 J I .I. ' I I I. I0 .14 -' .".(.4..\'.: ' ("I
4. 4 4. ”'r' _1_ I 4 l I .4 4 I I I .1 4 4. 4.. I 4 'I l I . I 1 4 41', ..4 . u
44'“: 141I.‘r|..}434.4444i4'4 I) I I I. 1 I I ' 10.049..." 424441444444: '4'; I J I ' MT ' z I ' 4‘ ' u ’4'“ I ' 4"‘I'44'I . ' :I .‘41
4» .41 I. .1. a... l-r i. . i 44 4‘ 4* 444'4 Ir 4‘. U __ I" -' ; ". 4' I _I‘.I 0'. 1 "'1- ' | I. '3‘". ,1 I " ' r" 4 \I" 4‘ ' IS .I'
-' II I" ’ I " "'r I I ' I I ' “I '1‘ 1'1 ‘ I 4' 1 II I . 'I ' ' ' I]
in tIII-m-I: 1.". 1111.1" ~'-I..1.' I .-.II' " 1. 1H 1 . '-'r . .n. u .1 '1 ..
I'h' "" I " 4+ 'III' " “'Ill‘ 1... “I" ”II“: ' I . 'JI '1 ' l' “0." 1 v‘l‘ 4" c‘ ' 1 II 4 I 4 I...". . " 4:" 5 '1 ~ '4' ‘I' II 4 P __ 1a.. '4 '4 I
r ' I 4 4.. 'I. 4.94“" r “£44- I I 4.! . 44344;. .H‘ 44 It: :I'l '14. 44:4,: 4' 4 4 4 1 . .1 I444 p14' 44 f _4 I _;_. r 4
I ' 'I'Ha '4‘! I '." {'T'I" Ilfi'I 1 "' 'I“" 'I ll" ll' " VHVI "I' '1 " 'I '4 I .I 'y ' "cow“
- ' ' ' . .~ .. 1' .. -' 11.71 ; . :1. ~- , -. . .1 . .,
" “M. ‘ ' M' I. J ' {44' "' 5'11" ”'3" "I 1"" k.” "1)" f! "1': w" I? ”I! "' '11 ' i. 1. I I'
,. . l-1 I II . J ' .1. -. '\ r. - I 1 ' .- . 11:1: '
J | I . 4." 4 I, ‘) " ._IK I I '4' ;I'- I Iii”. ] II. . .4 4 ‘3. ' 4 I 4 4. I I ‘i .4 “I" k. '4 I’d-.
I! 'I I4" {II-1” :"|' .4 . m 4 'I'44444 I 4:. “£141 .III'I )1:- 4c: . 44-3 ,l' I' 4.1 .; .. ”41' ”In ' 4:44.14 . 4 .4. 44,. '
i I”. :. "'" ,. “12:14! [1" "5&3! 444.4 '4 I gin-{4' _ III" '. "I“. r.- 44.4“ "4 1'4414' '24:.4'149' '5 4 41.." if}. -" ”BI-’4: I'lr' _ I
‘1 " - If!" ' '99:"? IN" I p “a"?! 1' 1.1.51“ “-15 I""'I'"-. "'". i' ”2"" ':'."'-:H u ""Irv '
WI'IL ”144' 4";‘3 4141'- '1". ' " :1- 1'. " ‘ I'y. ' ' l' w ' .'..~:.' - " ‘
I'n'u" 4|I| :'|l|.'a'l [1'4” "' «L'Hll'in' - I".'4" '.L"-«I4'4If~1441"41 '.I'.‘ ".4
u ,I I I “-4 . I _ "I4 .-
(‘41| ‘0‘ “I; ”Lulu,“ #4444 4'11 1" . In” 4.{I .III 44- ‘ .
. 1 .. .s 1 44.4141 . _ ..~e J.
AMI-u." ‘0‘ " ' ' I' ”I. ' 'I ‘
[1.1- '

23% .a 0.1”.“-

i ' ‘
g? j}
11--..-. _-. ..... .i

l

3-."45'- rant}

- '9 } ‘ .
a3- —- w-éfi-_:’~-—_ ‘ u—‘v
flu... in

r r.‘- V1"

' r?
‘-J‘ biv--

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
EARLY AND DEFERRED DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION

presented by

Gary H. Paape

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Master of Arts (kgfiwin Psychology

Max

/
Major professor

Bertram Karon
Date May 17; 1985

0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

L.

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
.—c—.

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiil
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.

 

b1; av J", " fl

, .« m
' _' ‘ " gin?!

ogg.hts;

/ If! ‘ I -
m are .-

15}

53mm; 42 Moon

 

 

 

 

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
EARLY AND DEFERRED DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION

By

Gary H. Paape

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1985

ABSTRACT

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
EARLY AND DEFERRED DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION

By

Gary H. Paape

The experiment attempted to test contentions that
telling the young child about being adopted- as advised by
many adoption specialists- makes the adoptee vulnerable to
shame, dependency, and separation anxiety. The converse
position was also tested: that deferring telling until
Latency engenders feelings of inferiority. Fifty females
and thirteen males, age eighteen and older,
self-administered the experimental protocols and returned
them by mail. Those Told Early and those who reported
Deferred Telling did not differ significantly on the Korpi
Shame Scale, the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, nor on
TAT measures of Separation Anxiety and Inferiority.
Questionnaire data indicated that parents who deferred
telling were perceived as less straightforward,
approachable, and empathic concerning the adoption than were
parents who told early. The results suggest that time of
telling is less important than the investigation into and
working through of the parents' and child's insecurities and

ambivalences that surround the adoption.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the course of working on this thesis I
often-times found myself describing to others how well the
members of my committee complemented each other in their
areas of expertise, how reasonable they were to work with,
and how I consider each to be a role model in my
professional develOpment.

I would first like to thank my chairperson, Dr. Bertram
Karon, for his encouragement and assistance in the
development and completion of this thesis and for much more
aside from the thesis. I find it very difficult to express
the nature of the tremendous impact that my mentor and
friend has had upon my growth. It seems that I'm forever
finding myself trying to understand people through his
astute and humane views. I consider it a welcome burden to
attempt to repay my debt to his mentoring by striving to
develop as a psychologist and similarly influencing the
growth of others.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr.
Terry Allen. During the past several years I've very much
admired and envied Dr. Allen's understanding of statistics

ii

and research methods as well as the skill and caring with
which he is able to teach these difficult subjects. It has
been my fantasy that I'll someday be able to enter so fine
an understanding of these areas to become a competent
researcher.

I am also grateful to Dr. Robert Caldwell who, in
addition to suggesting several much-needed substantive
changes in the thesis, caught my careless errors in many of
the details that are so important to professional work. I,
along with the other graduate students who have worked with
him, regard Dr. Caldwell as an exemplary role model in his
diligence and in the manner in which he relates to his
students.

I would like to thank Kathy Long for the consideration
she showed me in scoring the TAT stories in so short a time.
This consideration was nothing new: Kathy has been there
for me in those very difficult times when I have most needed
friendship.

And, to Sandy, my never-ending love.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES OI...OOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO0...... Vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 000......IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Viii
INTRODUCTION OOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000......0...... 1

The Early Disclosure Position .................. 1
The Deferrred Disclosure Position .............. 3
The Dilemma for Adoptive Parents ............... 10
Research Findings Relevant to the Controversy .. 11

PURPOSES AND HYPOTHESES OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... 22

The Deferred Telling Position .................. 22
The Early Telling Position ..................... 23
Exploratory variables 0.000000000000000000000000 24

METHOD 0..0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 27

Subjects ....................................... 27
Definitions .................................... 29
Instruments .................................... 31
Korpi Shame-Guilt Test ...................... 31
Interpersonal Dependency Inventory .......... 33
Thematic Apperception Test .................. 35
TAT Ratings .............................. 38
Questionnaire .................................. 39
Procedure ...................................... 41

RESULTS 0.......00...0.0000000000000COIOOOOOOO0...... 43

Reliabilities .................................. 43
Correlation of the Measures .................... 47
The Time of Telling Controversy ................ SO
Comparative Data ............................ 51
Exploratory Findings ........................... 52
Parenting Variables ......................... 52
Measures of Adjustment ...................... 59
Variables Involving Adoption Issues ......... 63

DISCUSSION 0......O...O'COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 69

MEthOdOIOgical Issues OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO. 69
iv

validities Of the Measures OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO 70

The Deferred Telling Position .................. 72
The Early Telling Position ..................... 74
The Time of Telling Controversy ................ 76
Exploratory Findings ........................... 78

REFERENCES 0.00.0000....00...OOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 82

APPENDICES 0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI 89

APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX

APPENDIX

A:

O.

m CDfiEdCIO

Cover Letter ...................... 89
Participant Research Consent Form . 9O
QUCStionnaire coo-00000000000000... 91
TAT Instructions .................. 93
Korpi Shame-Guilt Test ............ 94
Interpersonal Dependency Inventory 98
Request for Summary of Results

and Entry Form for Drawing ........ 101
TAT Scoring Manual ................ 102

LIST OF TABLES

Table ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Page
1. Summary of Hypotheses .......................... 25
2. Characteristics of Participants ................ 28

3. Descriptive Statistics and Summary
Of HYPOtheSiS TeStS ......OOOOOOOOOOCOOOO.... 44

4. Correlations Between Dependent and Independent
Variables and Characteristics of
PartiCipantS 0.0.0.0..........OCOOOOOOOOOOOOI 45

5. Correlations Between Measures and
Independent Variable with Variance
Due to Age Partialed out ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 46

6. Reliability Coefficients for the K88 and IDI ... 48
7. Correlations Between the Measures .............. 49

8. Korpi Shame Scale: Comparison of Mirman's (1984)
High, Medium, and Low Shame Subjects with
Scores by Age at Initial Disclosure ......... 53

9. Interpersonal Dependency Inventory: Descriptive
Statistics for Cross-validating Samples
and Groups by Age at First Disclosure ....... 54

10. Exploratory TAT Scales: Means, Standard
Deviations, Interrater Correlations
and Reliability Coefficients ................ 55

11. Correlations Between Parenting Variables ....... 56

12. Correlations Between Parenting Variables
and Characteristics of Participants ......... 58

13. Correlations Between Exploratory Adjustment
Measures and All Adjustment Measures ........ 6O

14. Correlations Between Exploratory
Adjustment Measures and Characteristics
Of PartiCipants O.......OOOIOIOOOOOOOOOOO.... 6]-

vi

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Correlations Between Parenting

Variables and Adjustment Variables ..........

Correlations Between Adoption Issue Variables ..

Correlations Between Adoption Issues
and Characteristics of Participants .........

Correlations Between Adoption
Issues and Parenting Variables

Correlations Between Adoption
Issues and Adjustment Variables

vii

62

65

66

67

68

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AdptThme.........

AprChblty. O O O .0 O.

AttrineI-OOOOOOOO

AtmptSrch.......

coercnOOOOOOOOOOO

ConsdrSrch.......

EmpthYOOOOOOOOOOO

Fantsy...........

IAUTOOOOOOIOIOOO

IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

IEMRELOOOOOOOOOOO

TAT theme concerning any aspect of
adoption.

Approachability of the adoptive parents
regarding the adoptee's concerns around
adoption.

Adoptive parent's attribution of
undesirable aspects of the adoptee to
the adoptee's heredity.

Adoptee attempted search for
birthparent(s).

TAT theme involving coerciveness of
parent(s).

Adoptee considered searching for
birthparent(s).

Parents' empathies for the adoptee's
feelings about being adopted.

TAT theme indicating propensity for
engaging in fantasy.

Interpersonal Dependency Inventory:
Assertion of Autonomy Scale.

Interpersonal Dependency Inventory.

Interpersonal Dependency Inventory:
Emotional Reliance on Another Scale.

viii

ILSOCO...........

IncongOOOOOOOOOOO

InfOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

KGSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

KSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

LrningDis. .....

NtBlngOOOOOOOOOOO

Nadpted Sibs.....

sePOOOOOOOOOOOOOI

StrtEWdOOOOOIOOOO

Interpersonal Dependency Inventory:
Lack of Social Self—Confidence Scale.

TAT theme involving incongruence of
parents' perceived benevolence with the
actual needs of the person.

TAT theme indicating feelings of
inadequacy or inferiority.

Korpi Guilt Scale.

Korpi Shame Scale.

Adoptee's report that he or she has
experienced difficulties in learning
(Learning Disorder).

Adoptee's report of having had feelings
that he or she did not belong in the
adoptive family.

Number of siblings in the adOptive
family who were the parents' biological
(non-adopted) children.

TAT theme indicating anxiety around
separation.

Adoptee's report regarding whether
the adoptive parents were straightforward
in discussing the adoption.

ix

INTRODUCTION

Telling a child of his or her adoption is often a
difficult ordeal for both parent and child. Adoption
specialists have long recognized the difficulties as well as
the importance of this task and have responded with a wealth
of instructive literature. Though little of this literature
has been based on research, much of it appears to offer
prudent, well-considered advice that is likely to be
facilitative of the telling process. In recent years,
however, several psychoanalysts have taken issue with the
long-standing prescription to begin the telling process
while the child is very young. They contend that early
disclosure is traumatic and disruptive to the child's
psychological development and have supported this contention
with compelling clinical evidence. Nevertheless, this
hypothesis has not been adequately tested and, therefore, a
controversy exists. For the adoptive parent, knowledge of’
this controversy forces a difficult choice. Uncertainty

regarding disclosure is increased.

The Early Disclosure Position
Since World War II, the standard advice of adoption

1

2

specialists has been that the child should be told about the
adoption as early as possible (Lifton, 1979). A number of
rationales have been offered for early telling. First, it
has been assumed that early telling facilitates a
naturalness to adoption for the child. Knight (1941)
assured adoptive parents that the child told early "would
very likely think little of it and forget it." (p.71). A
second rationale is, perhaps, a contradiction of the first:
early telling ensures that the child has adequate time to
work through distress engendered by knowledge of adoption
(Peller, 1961). A third reason that has been offered is
based on the belief that between mother and child there
exists a special understanding or sensitivity. In this
view, early telling reveals to the child something which, on
some level, is already known (Peller, 1963). Finally, the
rationale offered most frequently has been that early
telling makes it less likely that the child will first learn
of the adoption from someone other than his or her parents
(Kornitzer, 1968; Winnicott, 1957). The scenario typically
described is that of a neighbor maliciously telling the
naive adoptee of the adoptive status. The underlying
premise is that in learning of the adoption from someone
other than the adoptive parents, the child's trust in the
adoptive parents is undermined (Klibanoff & Klibanoff, 1973;
Knight, 1941).

Within the past ten to fifteen years, the press for

"earliest possible" telling appears to have lightened and to

3
have been challenged by a less rigid approach. Most
adoption specialists have moved in the direction of a more
relaxed disclosure of adoption at an early age (two to
four), with an ongoing process of discussion over a number
of years, geared to the questions asked by the child and to
the child's general maturity level (Sorosky, Baran, &
Pannor, 1978). Within this new approach, parents are to be
guided by the child's needs as to when to first tell. For
example, a number of adoption specialists advise that
parents respond to the child's questions about his or her
origin and/or childbirth with disclosure about the adoption
(Lifton, 1979). A general rule is that parents should
introduce only as much detail about the adoption as the
child can understand and is interested in (Bettelheim, 1970;
Klibanoff & Klibanoff, 1973; McNamara, 1975; Rohr, 1971).
It has also been suggested that, if by age five or six, the
child has not inquired about his or her origin or of
childbirth, parents might initiate the discussion about
adoption (Lifton, 1979). Despite this shift in orientation,
it is clear that adoption specialists still consider early

telling to be the optimal practice.

The Deferred Disclosure Position

Reaction to the early telling position came from the
field of psychoanalysis. Schecter (1960) was first to voice
a concern. Revealing that 13.3 percent of his caseload were

adoptees (a figure that he mistakenly believed to be one

A
hundred times- rather than ten times- the incidence of
adoptees in the general population), Schecter asserted that
adoption is fertile ground for the development of neurosis
and psychosis. Implicated as a pathogenic factor was the
practice of early telling. Sghecterdobservgduthatmpatients,

re .1- ULFW mi" "

who were told of their adoptions in early childhood wtended

.- I-I"
,, —-‘_.~a»"‘ "h"

to make Poorly integrated identificatiaasi resale!!! galiP

...-

01113553 int°umsgeslmieiw12:42

M-.."- ...—.—-~ '“"

and were deficient gin” their
capacitieswwforwmdexglqplng“ElQSQReSSMwithwnthnns. Schecter“

reasoned that the immature ego cannot, cope with the
WW..." MFW“"- .«I..."._...,......,_._.....-,...... K.) L,-;',v.rv-—r"~'- ~1"“v"""" ‘ ' '“T'M' ‘°" ”.30,“ 1‘

“mac, .-flw~~"b~““'w‘s

knowledge 9i adoption: revelation of adoption is experienced
by the child as a severe narcissistic injury. This injury,
claimed Schecter, engenders character change and symptom
formation. Schecter called for further investigation into
the ramifications of early disclosure.

Unaware of Schecter's observations, Lili Peller (1961)
took issue with the prevalent practice of adoption agencies
of pressuring adoptive parents into early and repeated
telling. Peller described the young child as existing in a
world of fantasies wherein reasoning is dominated by
wishes, irrational fears, and misunderstandings. The child
believes, claimed Peller, that his or her wishes- good and
evil- are the reason for anything that happens to him or
her. She reasoned that, when a young child is told about
the adoption without having asked about his or her origin,
the information is either quickly repressed or becomes

entangled in a web of archaic fantasies. Repeated telling,

5

in her view, only serves to push the child into clinging to
these fantasies with an increasing intensity. Peller warned
that prescriptions for what and when to tell about adoption
do more harm than good. She believed that, in general,
adoption should be revealed when the child's ability to
reason is sufficiently developed so that confrontation with
this emotionally-charged situation can occur without threat
to the developing ego.

Schecter (1967), reporting on the proceedings of the
Panel on Adoption at a 1966 meeting of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, cited support for his
contentions in a presentation by Miriam Williams. Williams
presented a number of vignettes about the lives of adopted
children which suggested that the age at which the child is
told of the adoption is important to the adoptee's feelings
of security. She asserted that latency is the earliest
stage in which the child is capable of a realistic
understanding of adoption and that, therefore, disclosure
during latency would do least to undermine the child's
feelings of security.

The most recent and most compelling case against early
telling has been made by Wieder (1977a, 1977b, 1978). In
three case studies, Wieder (1977a) examined the consequences
of early disclosure and concluded that disclosure about
adoption is traumatic for the preschool-age child and is
likely to result in chronic damage to the adoptee's

self-esteem. The patients he discussed- ages 15, 27, and 9-

6

had been living with their adoptive parents from the first
postnatal week and had learned of their adoptions by age
three. According to Wieder, their developments and
relationships to their adoptive mothers were clinically
indistinguishable from blood-kin children up to the time
they were told of their adoptions. Wieder claimed that,
after disclosure, each child's behavior, thought contents,
and relationships showed dramatic changes that could
differentiate them from blood—kin children. Wieder observed
that each child experienced the disclosure as a mortifying,
shaming rejection by the adoptive mother. He stated that
this felt rejection engendered fearful fantasies of
abandonment, overwhelming separation anxiety, and a
tenacious dependency on the adoptive mother. For each of
the adoptees, the adoptive mother became ambivalently and
confusedly viewed as a powerful person who could either save
the vulnerable child or get rid of the bad child.

The effects of the early tellings did not appear to be
transient. Wieder (1977a) observed persistent, deleterious
effects in the adoptees' developmental processes, object
relationships, cognitive functioning, and fantasy lives.

Exaggerated dependence and passivity persisted ~(throughput

~“Wrml. ' , w,,;.. - c-¢-. r .. ,v

n'r wife's-«3”,,
‘ H,~r-—"”

all phasesrofmtheirmdevelopments.fl.Markedflfeelingshgf shame

and worthlessnessflvflbecame,m persistent attitudes that

w r .,‘rfiw“|~g-.- ramJ'U-n
\“w’”

contributed _to chronic U_feelings of loneliness Wanda“
unhappiness. _The feelings of worthlessness were regularly
"u. "‘1: K, pr" "

revealed in statements of anal self-abasement: the adoptees'

7
felt that they had been "gotten rid of" as are feces.

Several deleterious effects [in cognitive functioning
were also noted (Wieder, 1977a). Wieder stated that because
adoptees reacted to reminders of their adoptions with shame,
fear, and hatred, they developed a tendency to defend
against disclosure with denial and isolation. When these
defenses were applied to areas of their lives other than the
adoption story, a more general disturbance developed.
Aloofness from relationships and from learning situations
became enduring aspects of these defenses.

Cognitive disturbances were also seen in a tendency
toward illogic and a belief in the "probability" of
fantasies. Insofar as family romances had some bases in
reality, the sense of fantasy as being real was accentuated
(Wieder, 1977b). Because fantasies seemed real, they became
stimulants that furthered anxiety: their palliative function
was impaired (Wieder, 1977a).

Another of the chronic problems in psychological
adjustment that Wieder considered to have stemmed from
traumatic early disclosure was a conflict in identification.
Wieder (1977a) discerned two distinct influences on the
develOpment of the adoptees' egos and superegos. The first
was the normal incorporation of and identification with the
nurturing or adoptive parents. The second, an artifact of
learning of adoption, was an identification derived from
fantasies about the biological parents. The biological

parents were fantasied as being hateful, impulse-ridden

8
persons. Having identified with these fantasied images, the
adoptees felt hateful, bad, and dangerous. Wieder (1977a)
observed that when the adoptees experienced sexual and
aggressive impulses, they believed that these impulses were
the result of the evil genetic inheritance from the
biological parents.

After presenting this clinical data as evidence for his
contentions that early disclosure is traumatic for and is
damaging to the personality of the adopted person, Wieder
(1978) turned to developmental psychology (Balint, 1969;
Bloss, 1966; Kris, 1956; Mahler, 1968) to develop an
explanation as to why disclosure would be predictably
traumatic to toddlers. Wieder's explanation is briefly
summarized as follows.

Through the first half-year of life, "mother" is
represented in sounds, feelings, and sensory impressions
that are associated with cycles of tensions and
satisfactions. If this representation could be verbalized,
it might be: "mother is me, I am mother, we are one." As
internal and external reality become differentiated the
representation of mother changes: "mother is she, I am me;
we are two but belong to each other." When a blood-kin
child learns intellectually of its biological mutuality to
mother, the feeling of belonging to each other that was
initiated through nurturance is reinforced. Unconsciously,
the child determines that "blood ties" physically perpetuate

the bond of mother and child.

9

When the two or three year old child is told of his or
her adaption, he or she is receiving this information at the
height of the separation-individuation phase and during the
anal stage of development. This information, no matter how
kindly given, is understood in the context of this
developmental experience and is incorporated into fantasies.
In essence, the message received may be: "mother is not me,
I am not mother; I am not part of her; the one who made me
gave me away as if I were stool. I don't belong." These
impressions would be reinforced with the parents'
repetitions of the adoption story.

Early disclosure about adoption, then, interferes with
the inner experience of mother as nurturer: the
conceptualization of nurturing mother is contradicted by the
disclosure of another mother. This confusion of who is
mother undermines basic trust and produces mistrust of the
stability and permanence of the relationship to the
nurturing parent. A toddler, then, does not need to know
that he is adopted but needs to know that he belongs to the
people he experiences as parents.

Wieder (1977a) acknowledged that disclosure is not the
only traumatic influence but that it is a mutable one in the
young child's life. Recognizing that not all adoptees
encounter the same difficulties or suffer them to the same
extent, he claimed that trauma eventuates from early
exposure and that there appears to be no escape from the

damage to self-esteem subsequently incurred. Wieder (1978)

10
would offer no "best" time for disclosure: he cautioned that
precise pinpointing of when structure, phase conflicts, and
cognitive development are optimal is difficult to
generalize. He stated that it appears that the longer the
communication of adoption can be put off the better for the
mental health of the child. Wieder (1977a) also pointed to
the need for clinical studies to assess the consequences of

deferred disclosure.

The Dilemma for Adoptive Parents
Contention of the early telling position appears to
have added to the uncertainty adoptive parents experience in
the telling ordeal. Lifton (1979) recounted the reactions
of adoptive parents to a presentation made by Wieder at
Hofstra University in 1977. She wrote:
Adoptive parents felt deceived on hearing the
"tell later" view. There were moments when their
anger resembled a lynch mob. .... A father,
reflecting the underlying despair of the group
said, "Most of us feel we're floundering. Can't
we develop a philosophy to follow through on?"
(p.189).
Subsequently, several parents backed the panel, describing
detrimental effects that early disclosure appeared to have
for their children.
Lifton (1979) proposed that many adoptive parents have

a need to see the age at which they "told" as the source of

-- .— ‘fifl-‘n-

 

 

 

 

 

11
their children's problems. She suggested that the issue of
time of first telling has been overplayed and should be
defused. Although it is likely that some adoptive parents
displace responsiblity or overvalue expert advice, these do
not negate the fact that the experts have presented these
parents a dilemma. Receiving contradicting advice on a
matter the experts claim to be of important developmental
significance, adoptive parents are left with a dubious

choice.

Research Findings Relevant to the Controversy

Elucidation of the effects of early telling might be
furthered by a review of adoption research. Schecter's
(1960) claim that the percentage of adoptees seen for
psychiatric help far outnumbers the proportion of adoptees
in the general population gave impetus to psychological
research concerning adoption. Schecter's claim has found
support. Research has indicated that child and adolescent
adoptees are referred for psychiatric treatment two to five
times more often than are their nonadopted peers (Brinich,
1980); although there is a one percent incidence of
nonrelative adoptees in the general population (0.8.
Children's Bureau; 1964), mental health agencies have
reported two to fifteen percent incidences of adoptees in
their populations (Borgatta & Fanshel, 1965; Goodman,
Silberstein, & Mandell, 1963; Humphery & Ounsted, 1963;

Reece & Levin, 1968; Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, & Work,

12
1964; Sweeny, Gasbarro, & Gluck, 1963: Toussieng,1962: Work
& Anderson, 1971).

Clinical studies have also revealed consistent trends
in the symptomatology of adopted children and adolescents.
Referral problems have regularly fallen into two categories:
acting out behaviors such as stealing, impulsivity,
aggression, and sexual acting out (Eiduson & Livermore,
1953; Goodman & Magro-Nora, 1975; Jackson, 1968: Kirk,
Jonassohn, & Fish; 1966; Lindholm & Touliatos, 1980;
Menlove, 1965; Offord, Aponte, & Cross, 1969: Reece & Levin,
1968: Schecter et al., 1964; Simon & Senturia, 1966) and
learning disorders or underachievement in school (Elonen &
Schwartz, 1969: Goodman et al., 1963; Kirk et al., 1966).

Only a few adoption studies have direct relevance to
the time of telling controversy. Elonen and Schwartz (1969),
Kornitzer (1968), and Eldred et a1. (1976) have investigated
adoptees' reactions to initial disclosure. These studies may
be seen as relevant to the hypothesis that early telling is
inherently traumatic for the child. Eldred et a1. (1976)
also attempted to test the hypothesis that early telling
fosters chronic, deleterious changes in the adoptee's
psychological adjustment.

Elonen and Schwartz (1969) reported on a longitudinal
study of adoptive families. In 1942, a research plan had
been devised that undertook a periodic check on adopted
children and their families through the children's sixth

birthdays. A follow-up investigation, scheduled for after

13
the children's sixteenth birthdays included assessments of
emotional adjustment, physical condition, and collection of
data concerning major events in the adoptees' lives.
Forty-three families participated in the follow-up study.
At the time of the final assessments, subjects ranged in age
from 16 to 22 years.

One of the major events for which data was collected
was initial disclosure about adoption. Elonen and Schwartz
did not investigate reaction to disclosure by age told.
They stated that adoption agencies had recommended that the
children be told at an early age and that most of the
parents had done so. The data recorded were the parents'
accounts of the children's reactions to initial disclosures
about adoption.

In 64 percent of the 43 families, parents reported that
the child accepted the disclosure about adoption without
overt reaction. In eight percent of the cases, parents felt
that the child never accepted the fact of his adoption.
Traumatic reaction to initial disclosure was revealed in
only one case and it was reported that this child overcame
the reaction within six months. No reports were available
for the remaining children.

Elonen and Schwartz did not offer an interpretation of
these findings. It appears that they regarded them as
support for their general conclusion that being adopted is
not a causative factor per se in the emotional problems of

adopted children.

14

The most comprehensive study on adoption has been the
work of Kornitzer (1968). Kornitzer interviewed and/or
corresponded with individuals from 503 adoptive situations
in the London area. The individuals surveyed included
biological parents, adoptive parents, and 664 child,
adolescent, and adult adOptees. Information was sought
regarding many facets of the adoption experience.
Considerable attention was devoted to the telling process.

The aspect of this investigation most relevant to the
time of telling issue is the data on reactions to initial
disclosures. Kornitzer did not discuss reactions to
disclosure of children under age five other than to say that
in the survey group, there were some children well under age
five who were upset when told. Instead, she concentrated on
reactions to initial disclosure of children over age five.
British adoption agencies considered disclosure after age
five to be of potential detriment to the psychological
adjustment of adoptees. By analyzing reactions to initial
disclosures where these occured after age five, Kornitzer
attempted to determine the validity of this assumption.

0f the 233 adoptees that constituted the relevant
survey group, Kornitzer reported that 63 (27 percent) were
first told of their adoptions after age five or were told by
persons other than their parents. About half of these were
told at seven to nine years of age. All had learned of
their adoptions by age eighteen. As in Elonen and Schwartz

(1969), the data recorded were parents' accounts of their

15
children's reactions to initial disclosures.

The results indicated that 17 of the 63 children showed
no reaction; 16 were said to be "interested." Six were
reported to be briefly or slightly disturbed whereas seven,
though showing little or no disturbance at the time of first
telling, later had reactions that seemed linked to the time
of telling. Eight children were immediately disturbed but
showed no apparent problems later. Seven showed strong
immediate disturbance and persisting problems with behavior
difficulties or tension regarding the adoption. Two of the
children showed strong disturbance with recurrent major
psychological problems. Kornitzer cautioned that the
reports of the parents were sometimes biased by sympathetic
observation: some parents reported details that suggested
considerable disturbance but said that the child showed no
reaction.

After discussing details of a number of the parents'
reports, Kornitzer concluded that age at which disclosure is
first made is not, by itself, important to the emotional
adjustment of adoptees. She proposed that it is the ability
of the adoptive parent to disclose in a straightforward,
sympathetic way that effects a healthy adaptation to
knowledge of adoption. This manner of disclosure engenders
an openness about adoption that allows the child to seek
further information and reassurance from the adoptive
parents. Problematic adjustment, according to Kornitzer, is

effected by an evasive first telling that restricts the

 

 

 

16
degree and quality of information the child is able to
receive from the adoptive parents.

Eldred et al. (1976) is the only study to have directly
addressed the time of telling controversy. As part of an
investigation into conflicting assumptions about adoption
practices, Eldred et a1. attempted to test Schecter's (1960)
contention that the increased susceptibility of adoptees to
psychological difficulties is influenced by early disclosure
about adoption. To test this hypothesis, Eldred et al.
studied adoptees' reports of their reactions to initial
disclosures and analyzed psychological adjustment of the
adoptees by age they reported to have first been told.

The data were collected as part of a study of the
etiology of schizophrenia. Samples of adoptees were
selected from the Danish adoption register to constitute
three groups: adoptees having biological parents diagnosed
as schiZOphrenic or as manic-depressive, adoptees having
adoptive parents diagnosed as schizophrenic or as
manic—depressive, and adoptees having biological parents
with no histories of psychosis and with psychiatric
histories of adoptive parents free to vary. Two hundred
sixteen adult adoptees were seen in psychiatric interviews;
none was a psychiatric patient. The subjects were not aware
that their adoptive status was the reason for their
selection.

To assess psychological adjustment, two outcome

measures were constructed: a rating of the quality of the

 

(11‘
we
in
the
Chi

the

l7

parent—child relationship and a psychopathology score. The
measures were derived from information in the psychiatric
interviews. Information for each subject was sorted into a
forced-normal distribution with scores ranging from one to
twenty (a higher score indicated a poorer parent-child
relationship or greater psychopathology). Three judges
scored the protocols for the parent-child relationship
scores. They achieved interrater reliabilities of .83, .85,
and .87. Two judges sorted for the psychopathology variable
achieving a reliability coefficient of .94. For the 87
percent of the sample that knew of their adoptions, neither
age at which they learned of it- whether at less than five,
between five and twelve, or over twelve- nor the source of
the information- parent or other- proved to be related to
either outcome score.

Eldred et al. also reported that those adoptees who
recalled positive or indifferent reactions to initial
disclosures more often learned about their adoptions earlier
than did those who reported negative reactions. Eldred et
al. described the effect of age at first telling upon
quality of reaction as a linear function: negative reactions
were increasingly reported as reported age at first telling
increased. Given these findings, Eldred et a1. suggested
that negative reactions to disclosure might be reduced if
children are told about their adoptions early in life by
their adoptive parents.

Review of the relevant adoption studies indicates that,

18

currently, there there is little research evidence to
support the case against early telling. Whereas the
observation that adoptees are vulnerable to psychological
difficulties has been substantiated, it is not at all clear
that early disclosure plays a pathological role. The
findings of Elonen and Schwartz (1969) regarding reported
reactions to what were predominantly early disclosures do
not appear to differ substantially from the reports of
reactions to initial disclosures made after age five that
were recorded by Kornitzer (1968). In both studies, the
majority of parents reported having observed little
disturbance in their children's reactions to initial
disclosures. The findings of Eldred et al.(1976) also failed
to offer support for the deferred telling position. No
differences were found between groups by age at first
telling when compared on two measures of psychological
adjustment; early disclosure was associated with fewer
self—reports of negative reaction.

Despite the direction of these findings, dismissal of
the case against early telling seems unwarranted.
Examination of these studies reveals a number of potential
confounds that might serve to undermine the interpretability
of their results.

The findings that majorities of parents reported having
observed positive or indifferent reactions to initial
disclosures (Elonen & Schwartz, 1969; Kornitzer, 1968) must

be interpreted with caution. As indicators of the

19

children's experiences regarding initial disclosures, the
parents' reports are probably misleading. Adoption research
suggests that adoptive parents tend to minimize or to deny
their distress about adoption. In follow-up studies of
adoption agency placements, Biskind (1966) and Ripple (1968)
observed that adoptive parents were reluctant to acknowledge
perplexities and problems concerning adoption. Lifton
(1979) explained the tendency of parents to downplay issues
about adoption as being part of a denial that pervades the
adoption experience. She labeled this denial "the Adoption
Game." According to Lifton, the fundamental rule of this
game is that everyone- biological parents, the legal system,
adoptive parents, siblings, adoptees- act "as if" the
adoptee were a biological offspring. It seems likely than,
that the reports of parents in these studies (Elonen &
Schwartz, 1969; Kornitzer, 1968) were biased by a reluctance
to acknowledge problems concerning adoption and by a
tendency toward denial insofar as the topic of disclosure
may have given emphasis to the adoptive status.

Caution must also be exercised when interpreting the
finding of Eldred et al. (1976) that the number of negative
reactions reported by the adoptees increased as a function
of reported age at first telling. Although this finding was
interpreted by Eldred et al. as support for the early
telling position, it cannot be determined from these data
that early telling did not have a detrimental impact.

Recall that Peller (1961) considered early, repeated telling

 

re
re
E1
di

ba:

ina
et
Cor
mom
pSYc
init

aPpr

20

to be detrimental insofar as it enhanced and prolonged the
child's frightening, archaic fantasies. Eldred et al.'s
subjects, adult adoptees, may have been unable to link
childhood disturbances to learning of adoption and/or had
repressed much of these fantasies. Given the more mature
ego, disclosure after age five is likely to arouse overt
reactions that are linked in conscious experience to
knowledge of adoption. Therefore, the finding that negative
reactions were a linear function of reported age at first
telling might have been an artifact of ego maturity at time
of initial disclosure and of memory.

A third finding that harbors a danger of
misinterpretation is Eldred et al.'s (1976) finding that
groups of adult adoptees did not differ by source of nor
reported age at first telling on the ratings of parent-child
relationship and psychopathology. From these results,
Eldred et al. concluded that the circumstances surrounding
disclosure of adoption may not be pathogenic on a long-term
basis.

This finding is, however, the product of an
inappropriate test of the deferred telling position. Eldred
et al. assumed that, were the deferred telling position
correct, those adOptees who recalled early telling would be
more likely to rate lower on diffuse measures of
psychological adjustment than those adoptees who recalled
initial disclosures at ages five and over. A more

apprOpriate test of the latency hypothesis would have been

21
to compare the groups on problems in adjustment that are
specific to early development. This would have been
congruent with the position taken by advocates of deferred
telling that early telling is inherently traumatic and makes
the adoptee vulnerable in those aspects of psychological

adjustment that are rooted in early development.

PURPOSES AND HYPOTHESES

In light of the shortcomings of the relevant studies,
it appears that the time of disclosure controversy has yet
to receive adequate evaluation. The purpose of this study
was threefold. First, it attempted to evaluate the validity
of the contention that early disclosure has a deleterious
impact on aspects of the adoptee's psychological adjustment
that are rooted in early development. Second, it attempted
to determine whether initial disclosure during the latency
period makes the adoptee vulnerable to certain difficulties
in psychological adjustment suggested by proponents of early
telling. Third, it gathered information about various
aspects of adoptees' experiences in an attempt to gain
further insight into some of the psychological issues

surrounding adoption.

The Deferred TellingiPosition

Wieder (1977a; 1978) described problems in
psychological adjustment that stemmed from the trauma of
early disclosure. Of these problems, he cited shame,
dependence, and separation anxiety as being endemic to the

22

 

be
Fe
19
it

711

diffj
most
lead
The .
Occur:
that
wrong ‘

23

personalities of those patients who were told early. Shame,

dependency needs, and separation anxiety are considered to

be rooted in the first three years of life (Erikson, 1959;

Fenichel, 1945; Jacobson, 1964; Kaufman, 1980; Wursmer,

1981). Therefore, to evaluate the deferred telling position

it was hypothesized that, if early telling makes the adoptee

vulnerable in aspects of early development, then:

1. adoptees who were told early would, as adults,
score higher on a measure of shame than would those
for whom first telling was deferred;

2. adoptees who were told early would, as adults,
score higher on a measure of dependency needs than
would those for whom first telling was deferred;

3. adoptees who were told early would, as adults, score
higher on a measure of separation anxiety than would

those for whom first telling was deferred.

The Early Telling Position

 

Advocates of early telling have described a host of
difficulties engendered by delayed telling. One of their
most grave remonstrations has been that delay in telling may
lead to chronic feelings of inadequacy or of inferiority.
The development of these feelings has been described as
occurring in several ways. First, the adoptee may reason
that the delay in telling implies that there is something
wrong with being adopted (Wishard & Wishard, 1979). Second,

because the adoptee has not had time to work through

24

feelings about being adopted, he or she may be especially
vulnerable to comments and taunts of peers (Doss & Doss,
1957). Third, the school-age adoptee may be very sensitive
to the stigma of illegitimacy (Kornitzer, 1967).
Possession of inferiority feelings during the latency stage
has been linked to deficits in the individual's capacity for
industry. Erikson (1959) contended that a sense of
inferiority— the feeling that one is inherently not as good
as others- hinders the child's development of perseverence
and abilities to work and to share with others.

In evaluation of the early telling position it was
hypothesized that, if initial telling during latency makes
the adoptee vulnerable to feelings of inferiority, then:

4. adoptees who were first told during latency would,
as adults, score higher on a measure of inferiority
feelings than would those who were told early.

A summary of the hypotheses is presented in Table 1.

Exploratory Variables

Whereas the primary purpose of this study was to
evaluate positions in the time of telling controversy,
information was also gathered for exploratory purposes.
Areas of inquiry included learning disorder, psychological
ramifications of having non-adopted siblings, patterns in
adoptive parenting, ways in which adoptive parents dealt
with disclosure about adoption, and attitudes concerning the

search for birth parents. Discussion of the questions

Table 1

Summary of Hypotheses

 

 

Position

Hypothesis

 

Deferred Disclosure

Early Disclosure

Early telling makes the adoptee
vulnerable 'in aspects of early
development, therefore, adoptees who
were told early will, as adults:

1) score higher on a measure of shame
(Korpi Shame Scale) than will those
for whom telling was deferred;

2) score higher on a measure of
dependency needs (Interpersonal
Dependency Inventory) than will those
for whom telling was deferred;

3) score higher on a measure of
separation anxiety (TAT Scale for
Separation Anxiety) than will those
for whom telling was deferred.

When initial telling is deferred until
the latency period, the adoptee is
made vulnerable to feelings of
inferiority, therefore, adoptees who
were first told during latency will,
as adults:

4) score higher on a measure of
inferiority feelings (TAT Scale for
Inferiority) than will those who were
told early.

 

25

26

which addressed these issues and their rationales has been

deferred to the Method section.

METHOD

Subjects
Subjects were recruited via classified advertisements

in The Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, The Grand

 

Rapids Press, The Lansing State Journal, and The State News.
Request was made of persons who had been adopted early in
life, ages 18 and over, for participation in psychological
research. Volunteers were asked, in a phone conversation, a
series of questions to screen them for three criteria:
adoption in the first eighteen months of life, race same as
that of adoptive parents, and knowledge as to when adoption
was first disclosed.

Experimental protocols and postage-paid return
envelopes were mailed to 107 volunteers. A drawing for a
$30 award was offered as an incentive for participation.
Seventy-two persons returned the protocols; sixty—three
fulfilled the criteria for eligibility. Characteristics of
the subjects- by age at first disclosure of adoption and for
the entire sample- are listed in Table 2.

Whereas the groups were quite similar in regard to
education, sex, and age at adoption, those for whom telling

27

 

the

Table 2

Characteristics of Participants

 

 

 

Group Disclosure Age Age Sex Educ Age Adopted
ASA 14. £12 MF _§2 21.8.2
Told Early * * 31.7 11.1 5 24 13.9 2.1 4.3 5.8
n=29
Told Ages
4-6 4.9 .9 30.0 13.0 2 9 14.0 2.3 3.8 4.3
n=11
Telling
Deferred 11.9 6.4 39.9 15.3 6 17 13.1 2.4 4.7 5.0
n=23
Latency
Told 9.1 1.8 40.4 16.1 4 13 12.9 2.2 5.6 5.5
(A subset of
Telling Deferred)
n=l7
Entire
Sample 6.6 5.6 34.4 13.5 13 50 13.7 2.3 4.4 5.2
n=63

 

Note: Age at first disclosure is in years, Age, and Education are in

years; Age at adoption is in months.

* Average age at first disclosure cannot be calculated for Told Early
as members of this group most often reported that they "always knew" of

their adoptions or "were raised with this knowledge."

28

 

 

 

29
had been deferred were, on the average, older than those for
whom first telling had been early (pfi.05). Males comprised
only 24% of the sample. In adoptee groups, it is common
knowledge that men tend to be reluctant to acknowledge
feelings about being adopted and/or to discuss adoption as
being an important issue in their lives. Insofar as the
sample was attained by advertisement, the participants
seemed predisposed to acknowledge feelings about adoption;
they were especially communicative of their attitudes and

experiences concerning the search for birth parents.

Definitions

Adoptive status was defined as the subject's report
that he or she had been adopted. Insofar as monetary
remuneration was to be given only one subject, it was
unlikely that anyone misrepresented himself or herself to
gain entry into the study. The stipulations that subjects
be adopted in the first year of life by parents of the
adoptee's race were made to facilitate cogent interpretation
of the data.

Time of telling was defined as the subject's report of
his or her knowledge as to when it was first stated that he
or she had been adopted. This method of determining age at
first telling was hardly ideal but it avoided the
difficulties that surround the enlistment of parents'
participation.

Initial disclosure was considered to have been early

30
where it was reported to have occurred prior to age four.
This demarcation was artificial. Most adoptees who were told
early do not know at what age they were told and, therefore,
the majority of those told early reported that they had
always known about their adoptions and/or that they were
raised with this knowledge.

Telling was defined as delayed or deferred where it was
reported to have first occurred after the adoptee's seventh
birthday. Seven year olds are generally considered to be in
the latency stage; the advocates of deferred telling suggest
that, in general, telling should be deferred at least until
latency. Accordingly, subjects in the telling deferred
group were first told at age seven or at any age thereafter.

Initial telling was defined as having occurred during
the latency period where it was reported to have first taken
place from ages seven through twelve. Although age at
puberty is quite variable, twelve years of age seems to be a
conservative estimate in terms of inclusiveness. The
latency told group was not sampled separately but was a
subset of the telling deferred group.

None of the hypotheses addressed initial telling that
occurred from ages four through six. These subjects were,
therefore, not grouped for the purpose of testing
hypotheses. Their data were, however, used in the analyses

pertaining to the exploratory variables.

31

Instruments

Propensity for shame was measured by the Shame Scale of
the Korpi Shame—Guilt Scale. Dependency needs were measured
by the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory. Separation
anxiety was measured by number of separation themes in
stories told to three cards of the Thematic Apperception
Test. Inferiority feelings were assessed by number of
themes involving inferiority feelings told in response to

the same three Thematic Apperception Test cards.

Korpi Shame-Guilt Test

Shame has received little attention from psychological
researchers and, therefore, few measures of shame exist.
Mirman (1984), in a study which investigated factors
influencing proneness to shame and proneness to guilt, cited
the Korpi Shame Scale (KSS) as being superior to other
measures of shame in its combination of face validity,
brevity, and the capacity to differentiate shame and guilt.
In the present study, length of the experimental protocol
was of concern, so, the Korpi was selected for use.

The Korpi Shame-Guilt test (Appendix E) is a revision
of the Beall Shame-Guilt test (Beall, 1972), a Likert format
test that presents 103 situations and requires the
respondent to evaluate, on a one through five scale, how
upsetting each would be for him or her. Beall established
construct validity by having several clinicians rate each

item of an item pool as either shame- or guilt-inducing;

32
items that could not be classified as either were dropped.

Korpi (1977) reduced the length of Beall's test. His
final form was a 36-item test that had a Cronbach—alpha of
.76 (cited in Mirman, 1984).

In a post hoc examination of the Korpi Shame Scale,
Mirman (1984) listed several categories of shame activators
that the items appeared to be examples of and asked four
persons well-acquainted with the concept of shame to
indicate which of these labels described each of the 17
shame items. Those labels which were scored for a
particular item by three or more of the raters were then
used as a category into which that item was placed. This
resulted in the identification of five subscales by which
subjects were found, in a correlational analysis, to respond
differentially. The subscales were: (a) lack of competence
at work or in a task of some sort; (b) social incongruity or
inappropriateness; (c) shame about aspects of one's own
body; (d) interpersonal incompetence or failure, or
shame-producing relationship needs, interests, attitudes or
activities; and (e) shame about one's experience or
expression of feelings.

No normative data have been published for the Korpi
Shame-Guilt test. Mirman (1984) classified 107 introductory
psychology students by level of shame experienced— High,
Medium, and Low- via a composite measure of shame that was
arrived at by standardizing and then summing the scores from

Cattell's Susceptibility to Embarassment Scale, the revised

 

F)
in
(1
th‘
81"
am
to
int
obj

and

Pro
beh;
On
Chem

Chem

the

lack

33
Stanford Shyness Survey, and a TAT scale for shame.
Mirman's (1984) mean Korpi Shame scores by level of shame
experienced were used in this experiment for purposes of

comparison and these are listed in the Results section.

Interpersonal Dependency Inventory

The Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI, Appendix
F) is a 46—item self-report measure which assesses
interpersonal dependency needs in adults. Hirschfeld et al.
(1977) defined interpersonal dependency as a complex 'of
thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors that revolve
around the need to associate closely with, interact with,
and rely on valued other people. The scale was constructed
to encompass three approaches to the concept of
interpersonal dependency: the psychoanalytic theory of
object relations, social learning theories of dependency,
and the ethological theory of attachment.

Each of the 46 items makes a first-person statement
professing an attitude or describing a characteristic
behavior. The subject is requested to rate each statement,
on a four-point scale, as to whether it is: very
characteristic of me, quite characteristic of me, somewhat
characteristic of me, or not characteristic of me.

Hirschfeld et al. (1977) factored three dimensions from
the 46 items: emotional reliance on another person,

lack of social self-confidence, and assertion of autonomy.

34

These scales were described as follows:

(a) Emotional Reliance on Another Person (IEMREL) assesses
the degree and intensity of a relationship to a single other
person. It is a scale that measures "a wish for contact
with and emotional support from specific other persons...
(the) dread of loss of that person, (and a) general wish for
approval and attention from others" (Hirschfeld et al.,
1977); (b) Lack of Social Self-Confidence (ILSOCO)
addresses the relationship to people in general. It is a
scale that measures "a wish for help in decision-making, in
social situations, and in taking initiative" (Hirschfeld et
al., 1977); (c) Assertion of Autonomy (IAUT) addresses the
degree to which an individual is indifferent to or
independent of the evaluations of others and is, therefore,
scored in the opposite direction of the other two scales.
It is a scale that measures "preferences for being alone and
for independent behavior," and expresses the conviction that
one's "self—esteem does not depend on the approval of
others" (Hirschfeld et al., 1977).

To obtain evidence on the validity of the measure,
Hirschfeld et al. (1977) administered the inventory to
samples of Normals (n=121) and Psychiatric Outpatients
(n=66). It was assumed that psychiatric patients have
greater dependency needs than normals. The Normals were
obtained in a mailout inquiry to residents of several small
communities in California. There were 64 males and 57

females in this group, with ages ranging from 16 to 85

35

(M=4l); 64% had one or more years of college education. The
Patient sample included 19 males and 47 females, with an
average age of 31 (range 18-65); 42% had some college
education. Psychiatric patients scored significantly higher
(p<.01) on the scales for Emotional Reliance on Another
Person and Lack of Social Self Confidence, but were
insignificantly different on Assertion of Autonomy.
Split-half reliabilities on the three scales for the Normal
sample were .86, .76, and .84 respectively; and, for the
Patient sample they were .85, .84, and .91. Means and
standard deviations on the three scales for these
cross-validating samples were used in this experiment for
purposes of comparison and these data are given in Table 9.
Thematic Apperception Test

The Thematic Apperception Test or TAT (Murray, 1943)
consists of twenty pictures (with alternatives by sex and
age for several cards) to which the subject is asked to tell
stories. The pictures are varied in content and in degree
of structure for the purpose of eliciting fantasies about
important areas of the subject's life.

Each subject was presented three TAT cards (male
subjects received the BM cards and female subjects received
the GF cards):

Card 1- A boy is gazing at a violin.
Card 6BM- An elderly woman stands with her back turned

to a young man. The latter looks perplexed.

36
Card 6GF- A young woman sitting on a sofa looks back
at an older man who seems to be addressing her.
Card 7BM- An older man is looking at a younger man who
is staring into space.
Card 7GF- An older woman is sitting beside a girl,
speaking or reading to her. The girl holds
a doll and looks away.

Card one usually elicits fantasies about childhood as
it really was (Karon, 1981); therefore, it was regarded as
being sensitive to feelings of inferiority and of separation
anxiety. Cards six and seven tend to elicit fantasies about
the relationship with mother and with father (Karon, 1981).
These were included to investigate parenting issues in
adoption.

The TAT stories were scored for eight themes. The
scoring criteria for Separation Anxiety and Inferiority were
created prior to the experiment. The other six dimensions
and their criteria were created for exploratory purposes and
were developed after reading the subjects' stories. The
themes and their scoring criteria are described in the rater
training manuals in Appendix H. The scales which were used
to test the hypotheses were as

follows:

Theme 1: Separation Anxiety
Hero anticipates, reminisces about, fears, or is separated

from another person by death or any other cause: Score 2.

37
Hero has received or another person has received bad news or
is troubled- sad, depressed, despondent, not confused,
perturbed, etc.- but the details of the news or troubling

matter are not specified: Score 1.

Theme 2: Inferiority
Hero expresses feelings of futility, inadequacy, or doubt

regarding self or an activity: Score 2.

Where hero ALSO expresses a recognition of the possibility
of achieving adequacy or adequate performance in this or in

another pursuit: Score 1.

After examination of the TAT stories, six additional
themes were identified. These themes were derived
empirically: a theme was identified if it appeared
frequently or was especially salient. The themes might be
grouped into three categories: parenting themes, adjustment
themes, and themes relevant to adoption issues.

Due to their seemingly high frequency, two parenting
themes- Coercion and Incongruence- were identified.
Coercion was indicated where a parent or caretaker imposed
something upon the hero against the hero's will.
Incongruence involved a parent's or caretaker's belief that
he or she was acting out of benevolence for the hero where
there was also indication that the hero's needs were not

being met.

38

There were two adjustment themes: Acquiescence and
Paranoia. Acquiescence was identified where the hero
deferred to the parent's or caretaker's coerciveness. 0n
the basis of a small number of salient stories, the Paranoia
theme was created to identify themes in which the hero
perceived him or herself as being in danger of harm.

Another salient theme that was present in a relatively
small number of stories involved an indication that the hero
or participant had a high propensity for fantasy. This
Fantasy theme was included as an adoption issue in
consideration of Lifton's (1979) claim that adoptees are
sometimes vulnerable to obsessive fantasying. Finally,
themes that focused on some aspect of adoption were
identified as Adoption themes. This dimension was included
as a gauge for determining which of the subjects used the
TAT stories to specifically relate sentiments about

adoption.

TAT Ratings

Two graduate students in clinical psychology
independently scored the 189 stories- three stories by each
of 63 subjects- for each of the eight themes. The raters
were trained separately in one hour sessions according to
the guidelines listed in the TAT Scoring Manual (Appendix
H). The stories were assigned to the raters in three
segments (by TAT card). The raters were blind to group

membership of subjects. The subject's score for each theme

39
was the sum of the raters' scores for that theme over the

subject's three stories.

Questionnaire

A 20-item questionnaire was constructed to gather
information relevant to the hypotheses tested and for
exploratory purposes. The questionnaire is included in
Appendix C within the experimental protocol. Nine items
requested information necessary for testing the hypotheses,
or, were more generally relevant to the time of telling
controversy. These items addressed: age at adoption,
concordance of race with that of adoptive parents, age,
education, occupation, number of siblings, age at first
telling, how adoption was first disclosed, and reaction to
initial disclosure.

The content of the remaining items might be sorted into
two categories: patterns in adoptive parenting and issues
surrounding the adoption experience. Questions concerning
adoptive parenting inquired about the subject's assessments
of: the approachability of the adoptive parents in response
to the subject's concerns regarding adoption; whether the
parents were straightforward or evasive in the manner in
which they dealt with the subject's adoption; the parents'
empathies for the subject's feelings about being adopted;
whether the parents ever attributed to the subject's
heredity, aspects of his or her person or behavior that were

perceived as undesirable; and, the amount of information the

40
adoptive parents provided the subject about his or her birth
parent(s).

The items concerning approachability and
straightforwardness were included to investigate Kornitzer's
(1968) contention that these are requisites of healthy
adjustment to knowledge of adoption and to gauge parents'
insecurities and/or ambivalence about the adoption. The
empathy item was included to determine whether perceived
empathy was related to Korniter's dimensions and was also
considered to be a measure of the subject's regard for the
parents in their handling of the adoption experience.
Indications of destructive parenting and/or of ambivalence
about the adoption were sought by the item concerning
attribution to heredity. The item which addressed the
amount of information given about birth parents was included
to examine the amount and type of information that adaptive
parents are willing and capable of providing their children
about their histories.

Six of the questions addressed a range of adoption
issues. Adopted children are over-represented among those
identified as suffering learning disorders; with the hope of
gaining insight into this area of concern, the participant
was asked if he or she had ever experienced problems in
learning. Insofar as alienation from the adoptive family is
a concern of both adoptees and adoptive parents, the
participant was asked if he or she had ever felt that he or

she did not belong to the adoptive family; data from this

 

 

41

question were to be analyzed in relation to the other data.

At present, searching for birth parents has received a
great deal of media attention and is the topic of a major
movement among adopted people. In an attempt to gain some
general information regarding this important issue,
participants were asked if they had ever considered and/or
attempted a search for birthparents and what their opinions

were about searching.

Procedure

 

Each subject self-administered the experimental
protocol and returned it in the stamped, addressed envelOpe
provided. After a cover letter (Appendix A) which eXplained
the purpose of the study and a form which described consent
to participate (Appendix B), was the 20-item questionnaire,
the three TAT cards, the Korpi Shame-Guilt Test, and the
Interpersonal Dependency Inventory. The order was the same
for all subjects. The subject was instructed to telephone
the experimenter should he or she have any questions or
concerns about the items, protocol, and/or the nature of the
study. No calls were received.

Instructions for each section are listed in the
protocol (Appendices A-G). Instructions for the TAT were
most likely to have an impact on responses. They were as
follows:

In the next several pages is a set of three pictures.

In the spaces provided, please write a brief story

42

about each individual picture. You might write about
what's going on, what the characters might be feeling
and thinking, what led up to it, what the outcome
might be. Don't take much time to plan the story:
simply write what comes to mind. Please don't be
concerned that your story isn't good enough or about
crossing out mistakes. None of us can write a truly
good story in the few minutes that we would like you
to spend on these stories.

The final page of the protocol contained forms for the
request of a summary of the results and for participation in
the $30 drawing (Appendix G). These were detached from the
completed protocols upon their receipt by the experimenter.
This was done so that subjects' identities could not be
linked to their responses. The experimenter selected the
name of the recipient of the award by a blind draw from the
subjects' completed forms. On November 30, 1984, a $30

money order was mailed to this person.

RESULTS

Statistics describing the groups' performances on the
measures and Efvalues for the hypothesis tests are given in
Table 3. No significant differences were found between the
groups on any of the measures.

Correlations of the dependent and independent variables
with characteristics of the participants are presented in
Table 4. Although age of the subjects was related to age at
first disclosure (£5.25, pfi.05), there was no statistically
significant correlation between age at initial disclosure
and any of the measures when the variance contributed by
age was partialed out (Table 5).

There was also a relationship between male sex and the
measure of separation anxiety (gs.36, 2K.01). After
partialing out the variance contributed by sex, early
disclosure came close to being significantly related to

higher separation anxiety (£3 -.22, p<.10).

Reliabilities
Reliability scores for the Korpi Shame Scale (K88) and

43

Descriptive

Table 3

Statistics and Summary of Hypothesis Tests

 

 

Measure
Group

In
H!
m
U

Pooled Var.
tyvalue

DF

2-Tailed
Prob.

 

Korpi Shame
Scale (KSS)

Told Early

Telling
Deferred

Emotional Reliance

on Another (IEMREL)

Told Early

Telling
Deferred

Lack of Social

Confidence (ILSOCO)

Told Early

Telling
Deferred

Assertion of
Autonomy (IAUT)

Told Early

Telling
Deferred

TAT Scale:
Separation Anxiety

Told Early

Telling
Deferred

TAT Scale:
Inferiority

Told Early

Latency Told

29 54.6 10.85

23 56.0 11.04

29 41.9 10.97

23 44.6 11.07

29 30.3 7.01

23 29.5 4.45

29 28.9 1.14

23 26.3 6.48

29 1.86

23 1.74

29 1.45

17 1.47

2.37

2.51

1.64
1.64

1.46

50

50

50

50

50

44

.637

.388

.608

.154

.857

.966

 

44

Table 4

Correlations Between Dependent and Independent Variables and
Characteristics of the Participants

 

 

 

DiscAge KSS IEMREL ILSOCO IAUT SEP INF

Disclosure

Age - .OO .02 -.O3 .16 -.11 -.10
Age .25* -.07 -.17 .02 .03 -.09 -.05
Sex .05 .04 .01 .04 -.15 036** '009
Age at
Adoption '004 -012 “006 004 -006 002 .11
N 0f $1133 "011 .16 009 001 .05 010 -002
Non-adoptive

 

*: pfi.05, two-tailed.

**: p§.01, two-tailed.

45

Table 5

Correlations Between Measures and Independent Variables
With Variance Due to Age Partialed Out

 

 

KSS IEMREL ILSOCO IAUT SEP

INF

 

Disclosure
Age .02 .06 _004 .16 -009

 

46

47

the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI) are listed in
Table 6. Cronbach alpha, an estimate of reliability based
on the average correlation among items (the internal
consistency) and the number of items, was computed for the
Korpi Shame Scale and the scales of the Interpersonal
Dependency Inventory. Reliabilities were satisfactory: they
ranged from .73 to .88.

Interrater reliabilities were determined for the TAT
variables by correlating the raters' scores for each scale
and then using the Spearman-Brown formula to estimate the
increased reliability resulting from the use of the sum of
two ratings. The interrater correlation coefficients for
these variables were: Separation Anxiety, I£3.86;
Inferiority, £3.75. With the Spearman-Brown adjustments,
the reliablity coefficients for these variables were:
Separation Anxiety, £3.92; Inferiority, £3.86. These

reliabilities were also satisfactory.

Correlation of the Measures

 

Correlations between the measures are presented in
Table 7. Emotional Reliance on Another (IEMREL) correlated
with the Korpi Shame Scale (KSS, £3.51, p<.001) and with
Separation Anxiety (£3.25, p<.05). Insofar as each is
rooted in early development the overlap was to be expected.

The validity of the Inferiority scale as being
representative of later childhood as opposed to earlier

developmental issues is suggested by its relationships with

Table 6

Reliability Coefficients for the KSS and IDI

 

 

 

Measure N of Items Cronbach Alpha

Korpi Shame Scale 18 .83

IDI: Emotional

Reliance on Another 17 .88

IDI: Lack of Social

Self-Confidence 15 .81

IDI: Assertion

of Autonomy 14 .73

 

48

Table 7

Correlations Between the Measures

 

 

KSS IEMREL

ILSOCO

IAUT

SEP

INF

 

Korpi
Shame Scale

IDI: Emotional
Reliance on Another

IDI: Lack of Social
Self-confidence

IDI: Assertion
of Autonomy

TAT Scale:
Separation Anxiety

TAT Scale:
Inferiority

- .51***

.34**

.51***

 

*: pfi.05, two-tai

**: ‘pfi.01, two—tai

led.

led.

***: pfi.001, two-tailed.

49

 

50
the other measures. Whereas Inferiority did not
significantly corrrelate with the measures most strongly
influenced by early development- Separation Anxiety (£3.01),
KSS (£3.15), and IEMREL (£3.16)- it tended to correlate
slightly with the somewhat more diverse measure, Lack of

Social Self—Confidence (ILSOCO £3.21, pfl.10).

Time of Tellinngontroversy

The findings did not support the Early Telling
position: the mean number of Inferiority themes told by the
Latency Told group was nearly identical to that of the Told
Early group (Table 3). The absence of differences between
the groups could not be attributed to the reliability of the
measure as it was satisfactory: r3.86.

None of the Deferred Telling hypotheses was supported
by the results (Table 3). The groups differed little in
their scores on the KSS and, the difference was in the
direction opposite of what was predicted. The same was true
of the outcome on the IEMREL. The groups were also
strikingly similar in their scores on the ILSOCO.

There were, however, two trends in the data. Early
Tolds demonstrated a slight tendency to score higher than
the Deferred Telling group on the Assertion of Autonomy
scale (pfi.20). This trend was in the direction opposite of
that predicted under the deferred telling position. The
other trend was concordant with the prediction: after

partialing out the variance contributed by Sex, Early Tolds

51
came close to telling significantly more separation themes
than did those in the Deferred Telling group (p<.10).

The meaning of this trend on the Separation Anxiety
Scale is quizzical, and, of course, may well represent
chance. There really is no support in the study for the age
of telling being a major variable- it is conceivable that
other qualities of the parent-child relationship are far

more important.

Comparative Data

 

A possible explanation for the lack of findings might
be that the adoptees, as a group, scored relatively high on
the KSS and the IDI and that, thereby, differences were lost
due to a ceiling effect. Without a matched control group of
non-adoptees to evaluate this explanation, it is necessary
to compare these results with those of other studies.

No normative data have been published for the Korpi
Shame-Guilt Test. As presented in the Method section, mean
Korpi Shame scores for Mirman's (1984) High, Medium, and Low
Shame groups were used for comparison. As indicated in
Table 8, subjects in the Early and Deferred Telling groups
scored, on the average, higher on the Korpi Shame Scale than
did Mirman's Medium Shame group but lower than his High
Shame group. Unfortunately, Mirman (1984) did not report
the variances of the scores and, therefore, no tests for
significance can be made for these differences.

Normative data for the Interpersonal Dependency

52
Inventory were also presented in the Method section. Means
and standard deviations on the three scales for the
cross-validating samples and groups by age of initial
disclosure are presented in Table 9. Across the three
scales, performance of those Told Early looked quite similar
to that of Hirschfeld et al.'s (1977) Normal group. The
Telling Deferred group scored higher than the Normals on the
Emotional Reliance scale (pfi.01) but lower than the Patients
on the Lack of Social Self—confidence scale (p<.05).
Whereas the causes of these inconsistencies in the direction
of differences are unclear, it seems that ceiling effects

were not responsible for the lack of findings in the study.

ExploratoryiFindings

Means, variances, interrater correlation coefficients,
and corrected reliability coefficients for the scoring of
the six TAT variables are presented in Table 10. Interrater
reliability for the Incongruence scale was moderate;
coefficients for the other measures seemed satisfactory.
0f the IDI and Korpi Shame-Guilt scales, the Korpi Guilt

Scale (KGS) was the least reliable (Cronbach Alpha, £3.73).

Parenting,Variables

Correlations between the Parenting variables are listed
in Table 11. Kornitzer's (1968) criteria for successful
adaptation to knowledge of adoption— parental

straightforwardness and approachability- correlated highly

Table 8

Korpi Shame Scale: Comparison of Mean Scores of Mirman's (1984) High,
Medium, and Low Shame Subjects with Scores by Time of First Telling

 

 

 

Group Mean Score on the KSS
Mirman
High Shame 59.37
Medium Shame 51.91
Low Shame 44.26
Told Early 54.6
Telling Deferred 56.0

 

53

Table 9

Interpersonal Dependency Inventory: Descriptive Statistics for
Cross-validating Samples and Groups by Age at First Disclosure

 

 

 

Emotional reliance Lack of social Assertion
on another person self—confidence of autonomy
Sample u a). u .82 u s;
Normals,
cross-validating 39.6 9.4 29.1 7.2 28.1 7.0
Psychiatric
patients,
cross—validating 43.3a 11.4 33.5b 8.0 26.9 7.5
Told Early 41.9 11.0 30.3 7.0 28.9 1.1
Telling Deferred 44.6c 11.1 29.5d 4.4 26.3 6.5

 

a: Mean higher for Patients than Normals, p$.05, two—tailed.
b: Mean higher for Patients than Normals, pfi.01, two-tailed.

c: Mean higher for Deferred Telling group than for Normals, pfi.01,
two-tailed.

d: Mean lower for Deferred Telling group than for Patients, p§.05,
two—tailed.

54

Table 10

Exploratory TAT Scales: Means, Standard Deviations,
Inter-rater Correlations and Reliability Coefficients

 

 

 

TAT Correlation Spearman—Brown
Variable M _S_Q Coefficient Coefficient
Coercion 1.46 1.25 .72 .84
Incongruence .86 .93 .53 .69
Acquiescence .89 .98 .60 .75
Paranoia .98 1.29 .78 .88
Fantasy .60 .96 .65 .79
Adoption Themes 1.43 2.19 .86 .92

 

55

Table 11

Correlations Between Parenting Variables

 

 

 

Strtfwd Aprchblty Empthy Atriner Coercn Incong
Straight-
Approach-
Attribute
to Heredity - .02 .03
Coercion - .03
Incongruence -

 

**: p§.01, two-tailed.

***: p$.001, two-tailed.

56

57

with each other (£3.75, pfl.001) and with parental empathy
(£3.74 and £3.80, pfl.001). Given this large overlap, these
variables will be referred to as the "Parenting Triad."
Thirty-nine participants reported that their parents
discussed their adoptions in a straightforward manner,
thirty-one reported that their parents were approachable in
response to their concerns around adoption, thirty-six
reported that their parents had empathy for their feelings
about being adopted.

Substantial negative coefficients (£3—.38, pK.01;
_3-.41 and £3-.45, pfi.001) were manifested between the
variables of the Triad and the measure of parental
ambivalence: parent's attribution of undesirable
characteristics to the adoptee's heredity (Attriner).
Eleven participants reported occurences of such
attributions.

Several of the Characteristics of the Participants were
associated with the Parenting variables (Table 12). Age at
initial disclosure (pfi.01) and Age (pK.05) correlated
negatively with the Triad, that is, those told later and
those who were older perceived their parents as being less
approachable, straightforward, or empathic concerning the
adoption. Disclosure Age and Age correlated positively with
parents' attribution of negative characteristics to heredity
(£3.43, pfl.001; £3.32, p<.05) while Education was negatively

correlated with Attriner (£3-.32, p<.05).

Table 12

Correlations Between Parenting Variables and
Characteristics of Participants

 

 

Strtfwd Aprchblty Empthy Atriner Coercn Incong

 

Disclosure

Age ‘027* -026* ’026* 032* -023 “003
Sex

(13F, 2=M) .00 -.O9 -.05 .05 -.O6 -.22
Age at

N of Sibs .12 -.11 .Ol —.17 .09 .03

Non—adopted

 

*: R< o 05 , two-tailed o
**: pfl.01, two-tailed.

***: p§.001, two-tailed.

58

59
Measures of Adjustment

Correlation coefficients for the three exploratory
Adjustment measures with all of the adjustment measures
are given in Table 13. Correlations between the three
Adjustment measures and Characteristics of the Participants
are described in Table 14. Table 15 lists correlation
coefficients for all of the Adjustment variables with the
Parenting variables.

Two of the IDI scales- IEMREL and ISOCO- were
significantly correlated with Coercion (£3.30, pK.05 and
.£3.35, .p<.01). Only IEMREL, however, correlated
significantly with Acquiescence (£3.31, pfi.05).

Females tended to score higher than did males on the
Korpi Guilt Scale (£3.33, pfi.01). The Korpi scales were
significantly intercorrelated (£3.30, pfi.05). Both of these
coefficients were concordant with those obtained by Mirman
(1984).

Acquiescence scores correlated negatively with Age
(£3-.28, pfl.05), that is, the younger participants told more
TAT themes involving acquiescence to a parent than did older
participants. Due in large part to the overlap in in their
scoring criteria- parental coercion always preceeded an
acquiescent response— a large coefficient was manifested
between Acquiescence and Coercion (£3.68, pfi.001).

Small but statistically significant correlations
existed between scores on the Paranoia scale and two other

variables. Paranoia was positively correlated with

Table 13

Correlations Between Exploratory Adjustment Measures and
All Adjustment Measures

 

 

 

Korpi Guilt Scale Acquiescence Paranoia

KSS .30* .06 -.02
IEMREL .09 .31* .14
ISOCO .12 .11 .23
IAUT .10 .12 .21
Separation

Anxiety -.03 .07 .01
Inferiority .04 .15 .08
KGS - .03 .06
Acquiescence - .10
Paranoia -

 

*: p§.05, two-tailed.

**: p§.01, two-tailed.

6O

Table 14

Correlations Between Exploratory Adjustment Measures and
Characteristics of Participants

 

 

 

Korpi Guilt Scale Acquiescence Paranoia

Disclosure

Age "oOl -001 .05
Age .08 -.28* -.07
Education .10 .13 .14

Age at

Adoption -.03 -.06 -.12
N of Sibs .09 .09 .05

Non-adopted
Sibs (N of) .08 -.01 .09

 

*: 'pfi.05, two-tailed.

**: pfi.01, two-tailed.

61

Table 15

Correlations Between Parenting Variables and Adjustment Variables

 

 

Strtfwd Aprchblty Empthy Atriner Coercn Incong

 

KSS .10 .02 -.04 —.04 .10 .03
IEMREL -.19 —.06 —.06 .07 .30* -.04
ILSOCO -.07 -.06 -.11 .05 .35** -.07
IAUT .06 -.01 -.04 .10 .01 .02
Separation

Anxiety .02 -.02 -.02 -.02 .03 -.01
Inferiority -.O6 .02 .02 .13 .02 -.08
KGS .04 .06 -.01 —.08 .03 -.14
Acquiescence -.12 .01 .03 .09 .68*** .07
Paranoia —.11 -.19 -.16 .26* .16 -.08

 

*: p§.05, two-tailed.
**: pfi.01, two-tailed.

***: p_<.001, two-tailed.

62

63
Attriner (£3.26, pfi.05), that is, those whose parents
attributed some of their undesirable attributes or behavior
to their heredity more often told Paranoia themes. 0n the

average, females scored higher than did males on this scale

(£3.27, £<005) 0

Variables Involving Adoption Issues

Intercorrelation of the variables concerning Adoption
Issues are presented in Table 16. Table 17 lists
correlation coefficients for Adoption Issues with
Characteristics of the Participants. Correlations between
the Issues and Parenting variables are given in Table 18.
Coefficients for Adoption Issues with Adjustment measures
are listed in Table 19.

Eleven participants reported that they have or had
experienced difficulties in learning (LrningDis). A
statistically significant coefficient existed between
Learning Disorder and TAT Adoption Themes (£3.37, pfi.01)
Other tendencies were associated with Learning Disorder:
Education (£3-.24, pK.10), Attriner (£3.20, lp<.10),
Inferiority (£3.20,lp<.10), and Male Sex (£3.18, pK.20).

Over half of the participants (36) reported having felt
that they did not belong to their adoptive families
(NtBlng). Not Belonging was correlated with two of the
Characteristics of the Participants: Number of Siblings
(£3.26, p<.05) and Number of Non-adopted Siblings (£3.25,

lp<.05), and, tended to be correlated with Age at Initial

64
Disclosure. Not Belonging correlated significantly with all
of the Parenting variables except Coercion:
Straightforwardness (£3-.35, pfi.01), Approachability
(£3-.43, pfi.001), Empathy (£3-.45, pK.OOl), Attriner
(£3.29, pfi.05), and Incongruence (£3.28, pfi.05).

Fifty-one of the participants claimed that they have
considered searching for birth parent(s); thirty-five
reported having attempted searches. Consider Search was
positively correlated with Attriner (£3.29, pfi.05).
Attempted Search correlated negatively with Parental
Approachability (£3-.25, pfi.05), Parental Empathy (£3-.31,
pfl.05), and Acquiescence (£3-.3O, pfi.05). Whereas Attriner
was correlated with Considered Search, Attriner was not
significantly correlated with Attempted Search (£3.16,

p<.20).

Table 16

Correlations Between Adoption Issue Variables

 

 

LrngDis AdptThme Fantsy NtBlng CnsdrSrch AtmptSrch

 

Learning

Disorder — .37** .15 -.05
Adoption

Themes (N of) - .12 .11
Propensity

for Fantasy - .03

Felt Did Not Belong
to Adoptive Family -

Consider Search
for Birth Parent

Attempted Search
for Birth Parent

. 68***

 

**: p$.01, two-tailed.

***: 2§,001, two-tailed.

65

Table 17

Correlations Between Adoption Issues and Characteristics of Participants

 

 

LrngDis AdptThme Fantsy NtBlng CnsdrSrch AtmptSrch

 

Disclosure

Age _005 _003 -003 020 -005 -008
Age .08 .26* —.17 -.17 -.18 .07
Sex
(13F, 23M) .18 -.12 -.20 -.06 .00 .05
Age at
Adoption -004 .04 —011 -013 -022 -019
N of Sibs .10 .18 .09 .26* .08 .02
Nonadopted
Sibs (N of) .02 .19 .08 .25* .03 .04

 

*: pf.05, two-tailed.

66

Table 18

Correlations Between Adoption Issues and Parenting Variables

 

 

LrngDis AdptThme Fantsy NtBlng CnsdrSrch AtmptSrch

 

Straight-
Approach-
Attribute
to Heredity .20 .18 .03 .29* .29* .16
Coercion .10 .07 .02 .01 -.01 -.14
Incongruence -.02 -.O7 .21 .28* .07 .01

 

*: pfi.05, two-tailed.
**: ‘p§.01, two-tailed.

***: p§.001, two-tailed.

67

Table 19

Correlations Between Adoption Issues and Adjustment Variables

 

 

LrngDis AdptThme Fantsy NtBlng CnsdrSrch AtmptSrch

 

KSS .15 .25* .13 .15 .11 .01

IEMREL .04 .24 .16 .21 .04 .06

ILSOCO .05 .11 .12 .05 .02 .02

IAUT —.08 .04 -.06 .06 .01 .07

Separation

Anxiety .07 .06 .06 .08 -.11 -.19

Inferiority .20 .08 .08 -.O6 -.08 -.11

KGS .06 .36** .14 .02 .13 .03

Acquiescence -.16 .09 .11 .20 -.18 -.30*
Paranoia -.03 -.O9 .09 .16 -.06 -.O6

 

*: p$.05, two-tailed.

**:‘p§.01, two-tailed.

68

DISCUSSION

Methodological Considerations

By using newspaper advertisements for recruitment, a
diverse sample of seemingly good generality was obtained.
It was apparent, however, that there were two dimensions
along which the sample was not representative of adoptees:
gender and attempted search for birth parents.

As discussed in the Method section, the low proportion
of male participants (24% of the sample) might be
attributable to the reluctance of male adaptees to accept
and/or address feelings about being adopted. The reason for
this reluctance might be as simple as the workings of
cultural prescriptions which inhibit males from discussing
their feelings. If, however, this reluctance and/or failure
to volunteer participation were associated with deficits in
aspects of early development, the sample bias would
undermine the test of the Deferred Telling Position.

Although it is not known what percentage of adoptees
search for birth parents, it is apparent that searchers were
over-represented in the sample (55%). Psychological
characteristics of searchers and non-searchers have yet to

69

70
be identified. There is uncertainty, therefore, as to
whether failure to search was also associated with early
developmental aspects of adjustment.

There are no established theoretical rationales to
support the tenets that male adoptees or adoptees who do not
search suffer greater shame, dependency, or separation
anxiety than do female adoptees or searchers. In this
sample, Attempted Search did not significantly correlate
with the Korpi Shame Scale (KSS) nor with the Interpersonal
Dependency Inventory (IDI). Attempted Search, however,
tended to correlate negatively with Separation Themes
(£3-.19, p<.10) and a significant correlation existed
between Separation Themes and male gender (£3.30, p<.05).
The magnitudes of these correlations are not sufficient to
warrant a great deal of concern about the internal validity
of the investigation. Discretion in interpretation of the

findings is indicated.

Validities of the Measures

 

Under ideal circumstances, the validities and/or
sensitivities of the measures selected to test the
hypotheses would have been established or determined in
advance of the investigation. Unfortunately, there are very
few measures of shame, dependency, or inferiority. No
measure could be found to assess separation anxiety.
Although the KSS and the IDI appear to be the best brief

measures of shame and of dependency, they were created

71

relatively recently and, therefore, their validities have
not been sufficiently established. Insofar as they were
created for this investigation, the scoring criteria for the
TAT scales are likewise suspect. The pertinent question,
then, is to what degree was the failure to find differences
between the groups due to insufficient validities or
sensitivities of the measures.

As discussed in the Results section, the pattern of
correlations between the measures appears to support the
validities of the measures. The KSS and IDI were
significantly correlated and, the measure of Separation
Anxiety tended to correlate with both. This convergence
seems to indicate that each measure taps early developmental
issues. It also appeared that the Inferiority measure was,
as intended, not addressing aspects of early development as
much as aspects of development of the latency period. The
Inferiority measure was not correlated with the measures of
early development- KSS and Separation Anxiety- but tended to
be correlated with the Lack of Social Self-confidence scale
(ILSOCO), a scale which seems likely to tap aspects of both
early and latency development.

With several measures, including both projective and
multiple-choice formats, the Deferred Telling position
received a more adequate evaluation than did the Early
Telling position. The consistency of the failure to find
differences between the groups and the correlational

evidence for the validities of the measures suggest that the

72

measures were adequate to test the hypotheses.

The Deferred Telling Position

The contention that early telling is traumatic and
thereby makes the adoptee vulnerable in aspects of early
development- shame, dependency, and separation anxiety- was
not supported by the findings. The mean KSS and IDI scores
of the Told Early group were very similar to those of the
Deferred Telling group. As discussed above, there was but
one trend in the direction predicted by a hypothesis: when
the variance contributed by gender was partialed out, those
told Early came close to telling significantly more TAT
stories with themes involving separation than did those in
the Telling Deferred group. This trend provides a little
support for the Deferred Telling position, but the absence
of predicted differences on the other measures should make
us cautious about drawing conclusions.

Although shame and dependency were not related to age
at first disclosure, it appears that they are significant
issues for adoptees. On the KSS, both groups had mean
scores between those of Mirman's (1984) High and Medium
Shame groups (although the variances for these scores are
not known); and, on the IDI, both tended to have mean scores
in between those of Hirschfeld et al.'s (1977) Normal and
Patient groups. Most notably, on the Emotional Reliance on
Another scale (IEMREL), the Telling Deferred group had a

higher mean score than did the Normal group (pfi.01).

73

The investigation suggested some association of
dependency with coerciveness in parenting. Small but
statistically significant coefficients existed between

Parental Coercion and IEMREL (£3.30, pfl.05), and the Lack of
Social Self-confidence scale- ILSOCO (£3.35, pfl.01). This
relationship was most clearly manifested in the cases of
those who had extreme scores on both the KSS and the IDI.
Seven of the participants (four Told Early and three Telling
Deferred) scored at least one standard deviation above the
mean on both the KSS and IEMREL or ILSOCO. Six of the seven
told TAT stories that involved coerciveness of parents; none
of the subjects told themes which were suggestive of trauma
around knowledge of adoption. It appears, then, that
elucidation of elevated dependency among adoptees might
require investigation of pathogenic patterns in the
parent-child relationship.

In conclusion, it might be said that Wieder's (1977),
1977a, 1978) remonstrations against early disclosure were
over-stated. Whereas his adopted clients may have been
traumatized by early disclosures about their adoptions,
early told adoptees do not appear to suffer more shame,
dependency, or separation anxiety than do those for whom
telling had been deferred. It seems likely that patterns in
the parent-child relationships made Wieder's clients
vulnerable to distress around adoption and that
identification of these patterns would have better served

adoptive parents than did the prescription against early

74

telling.

The Early Telling Position

The results failed to support the Early Telling
hypothesis: the Latency Told and Told Early groups did not
differ as to mean number of Inferiority themes told.
Likewise, age at initial disclosure was not related to other
variables which are potentially influenced by
inferiority-based deficits in industry: Education (£3-.03)
and Learning Disorder (£3-.05).

Unfortunately, the investigation did not test other
serious contentions made by advocates of early telling: that
deferred telling engenders mistrust and/or denigrates the
adoptee's regard for the adoptive parents. Regarding the
latter contention, some insight might be garnered from the
exploratory data. Parental Empathy- an indication of the
adoptee's regard for the parents' sensitivities to and
emotional support regarding the adoptee's feelings-
correlated negatively with age at initial disclosure
(£3—.36, p,.01); that is, those for whom telling had been
deferred more often reported absence of parental empathy.

At first glance, it appears that this relationship
suggests that deferred telling is damaging to the adoptee's
regard for the parents. It seems more likely, however, that
it is the parents' insecurities or ambivalence about the
adoption that effect both delay in telling and the

denigration of regard. As discussed in the Method section,

75

several Parenting variables were considered to be indicative
of parents' insecurities or ambivalence about adoption. In
the sample, these variables were associated with age at
initial disclosure: parents who told late were less likely
to be straightforward (£3-.39, p,.01) or approachable about
adoption issues (£3-.39, “p<.01); parents who deferred
telling more often attributed undesired characteristics of
the adoptee to his or her heredity (£3.43, pfi.001).
Perceived parental empathy was correlated with parents'
straightforwardness (£3.74, pK.001) and empathy was more
likely to be perceived as absent where parents attributed
undesired characteristics to heredity (£3-.74, p<.001).

It is clear, then, that parents who deferred telling
were less approachable than were parents who told early. It
also seems likely that these parents had greater
insecurities or ambivalence about adoption or, at least,
were less able to effectively c0pe with these feelings than
were parents who told early. One might speculate about the
psychological impact of the ineffective coping. Contrary to
some unapproachable parents' manifest desire to "protect"
the adoptee from knowledge of adoption, the adoptee's need
for support is sacrificed to the safeguarding of the
parents' insecurities. Anger, fear regarding potential
reasons for the avoidance of discussion, and damage to the
adoptee's communication skills are likely to result.
Research is needed to examine the nature of the ambivalence

and insecurities of adoptive parents and to develop means to

 

76

help them resolve or better cope with them.

The Time of Telling Controversy

Neither early nor deferred telling was associated with
stage-specific deficits in adjustment. The lack of findings
lend support to Lifton's (1979) assertion that the time of
telling controversy should be defused. In fact, family and
adoptive situations are so variable as to preclude
definitive rules about how and when to tell.

In light of the evidence that deferred telling was
associated with perceived lack of parental empathy, it
appears that the most popular advice- to tell early and
according to the child's questions and needs- may be
appropriate. Early disclosure might be advocated as being
preventive of a situation that has the potential to fracture
the parent-child relationship: that is, where the child
learns about the adoption from someone outside the family.
The content of an early disclosure must be guided by an
awareness that the child lacks the cognitive development
necessary to understand what it means to have been created
inside of another mother. The parent, then, should not
emphasize the adoption nor attempt to explain it in detail.
For example, to the preoperational child, the chosen baby
story is likely to imply subtle rejection. The adoption
worker might assist the parents to make early disclosure in
a manner that is congruent with the child's needs,

curiosity, and the family's style of interaction.

77

Whether the worker suggests early or deferred telling,
he or she might also emphasize that time of telling is not
so important as are approachability and an active support
regarding the child's adoption concerns. Much as is the
case for sexuality, the parents' abilities to address these
concerns are limited by the parent's insecurities and
ambivalences about the child and adoption. Insofar as the
parents' express concern about disclosing, the time of
telling question might be used as an opportunity to foster
acceptance for the parents' conflictual feelings and to then
explore and help work through potential ambivalence
insecurities. As the parents work through these feelings,
the adoption worker might also teach the parents ways to
engage the child in play that enable them to explore and to
help the child work through fantasies about adoption,
especially the fantasy that the child has been or may be
gotten rid of. Investigation of patterns of successful
parent-child interaction about adoption could also be of
much benefit.

Such interventions must be carried out with a great
deal of care. Unlike biological parents, parents who adopt
through agencies are subject to a great deal of evaluation
and intrusion. The worker, then, must actively make him or
herself approachable by being sensitive to and emphasizing
acceptance for the parents' feelings. This behavior might
be viewed as a model for the parents' approachability to the

child.

78

Eyplorat0£nyindings

As discussed in the Method section, there were a number
of statistically significant correlations among the
exploratory variables. Only a few of these relationships-
those pertaining to Paranoia themes, feelings of alienation
from the adoptive family, and the search for birth parents-
were of enough interest to merit further consideration.

The Paranoia variable was created out of concern
stemming from TAT stories of six participants in which the
heroes were in danger of being physically harmed by an
unknown other. Paranoia was also scored for 23 other
participants who wrote stories in which the heroes
experienced transient states of fright, startle, or panic.
Unfortunately, as was the case with each of the adjustment
measures, there was no nonadopted control group with which
to compare for prevalence of the theme and, therefore, it
could not be ascertained whether the adoptees told a
disproportionate number of Paranoia themes. As might be
expected, parental attribution of undesirable traits to the
adoptee's heredity (Attriner) was positively correlated
with Paranoia themes (£3.26, pfi.05). Unexpectedly, females
told more Paranoia themes than did males (£3.27; pfi.05).
This difference might not be interpreted as implying any
differential vulnerability by gender to paranoid feelings.
Most of the Paranoia themes were told to card 6GF, the

manifest content of which is more likely to be construed as

79

startle than that depicted by cards 6BM or 7BM. The male
adoptee is, in this research, an enigma. Psychological
research is needed to investigate concerns and adjustments
of male adoptees.

As discussed above, alienation from the adoptive family
(as indicated by the adoptee's report of having felt that he
or she did not belong to the adoptive family) was correlated
with each of the parenting variables except Coercion.
Simply put, those who felt alienated rated their parents as
less empathic, less approachable, less straightforward, and
told more TAT stories involving Parental Incongruence than
did those who did not report feelings of alienation. Number
of siblings and number of siblings who were parents'
biological offspring were also associated with feelings of
alienation (£3.26, ‘p<.05; ‘£3.25, pfi.05). It has been
suggested that some adoptive parents react to their
insecurities about the biological heritage of their adopted
children and their anxieties around sexuality and/or
toilet-training by splitting their adopted children as to
"good and bad seed" (Lifton, 1979). The relationships
between the parenting variables and feelings of alienation
and between number of siblings and feelings of alienation
may have been influenced by such splitting. Understanding
the reasons for these relationships will require further
investigation into patterns of relationship in adoptive
families.

Whereas searching for birth parents has received a

80

great deal of media attention and is the topic of a rapidly
growing movement among adoptees, little is known about the
psychological motives for searching or of the
characteristics of searchers. Opinions about motives and
psychological characteristics have tended to be dogmatic as
to advocacy for or oppositon to searching. In an article
addressing difficulties engendered by the search for birth
parents, Eda LeShan, a family therapist, compared the
adoptee's "need" to search with an impulse to lie or to
steal. The mature adoptee, she contended, has learned to
control the impulse to search. Lifton (1979), on the other
hand, claimed that the desire to search is always with the
adoptee and that the commitment to search is arrived at as
the self evolves into a striving for authenticity and
self—autonomy.

Although Lifton's (1974) claim that all adoptees desire
to search may be over-stated, it appears that the majority
of adoptees— as indicated by 81% of this sample- give
thought to searching. The contention that adoptees search
as they become autonomous was not supported by the data:
Attempted Search was not correlated with the IDI Assertion
of Autonomy scale (£3.07). It appears, however, that lack
of autonomy might inhibit searching. Those who told TAT
themes involving acquiescence to parents were less likely to
have reported having attempted searches than were those who
did not tell acquiescent themes (£3-.33, pfi.01). It also

appears that those who search might be more dissatisified

81
with the emotional support they received from their adoptive
parents than are those who do not search. This was
evidenced by small but statistically significant negative
correlations between Attempted Search and parent's
Straightforwardness (£3—.32, pfi.05), Approachability
(£3-.25, lp<.05), and Empathy (£3-.31, ‘p<.05).
Unfortunately, these findings fail to provide much insight
into the motives for searching and do not address the
psychological impact of the search. It is imperative that
researchers investigate these issues while the search
movement is yet young and before significant changes are

made in laws pertaining to the openning of adOption records.

REFERENCES

Balint, M. (1969). Trauma and object relationship.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 59, 429-435.
Beall, L. (1972). The Shame—Guilt Test. Unpublished

manuscript, The Wright Institute, Berkeley, CA.
Bettelheim, B. (1970, October). What adoption means to a

child. Ladies Home Journal, pp. 18-20.

 

Biskind, S. (1966). Helping adoptive families meet the

issues in adoption. Child Welfare, 4;, 145—163.

 

Bloss, P. (1966). The concept of acting out in relation to
the adolescent process. In E. Rexford (Ed.), ‘5
developmental approach to the problems of acting out

(pp. 153-175). New York: International Universities

 

Press.
Borgatta, E.F., & Fanshel, D. (1965). Behavioral
characteristics of children known to psychiatric

 

outpatient clinics. New York: Child Welfare League of
America.

/Brinich, P. (1980). Some potential effects of adoption.
The Psychoanalytic Studyyof the Child, 35, 107-132.

82

83

Doss, C. & Doss, H. (1957). If you adopt a child.

 

New York: Holt.
Eiduson, B.N., & Livermore, J.B. (1953). Complications

in therapy with adopted children. American Journal of

 

Orthopsychiatry, 23, 795-802.

Eldred, C., Rosenthal, D., Wender, P., Kety, S.,
Schulsinger, F., & Jacobsen, B. (1976). Some aspects of
adoption in selected samples of adult adoptees. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 279-290.

Elonen, A., & Schwartz, E. (1969). A longitudinal study of
emotional, social, and academic functioning of adopted

children. Child Welfare, 48, 72-78.

 

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle.
New York: Norton.
Fenichel, O. (1945). The ypsychoanalytic theory of
neurosis. New York: Norton.
\/Goodman, J.D., & Magro-Nora, R., (1975). Adoption and

its influence during adolescence. Journal of the

 

Medical Society of New Jersey, 12, 922-928.

 

Goodman, J., Silberstein, R., & Mandell, W. (1963).
Adopted children brought to child psychiatric clinics.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 2, 451-456.

Hirschfeld, R., Klerman, G., Gough, H., Barrett, J.,
Korchin, S., & Chodoff, P. (1977). A measure of
interpersonal dependency. Journal of Personalipy

Assessment, 4;, 610-618.

84
Humphery, M. & Ounsted, C. (1963). Adoptive families
referred for psychiatric advice: Part 1. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 109, 599-609.
Jackson, L. (1968). Unsuccessful adoptions: A study of two
cases who attended a child guidance clinic.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 41, 389-398.

Jacobson, E. (1964). The self and the object world.

 

New York: International Universities Press.

Karon, B. (1981). The thematic apperception test. In
A. Rabin (Ed.), Assessment with _projective techniques:
A concise introduction (pp. 85-120). New York: Springer
Publishing Company.

Kaufman, G. (1980). Shame: The ,power of caring.
Cambridge, MA: Shenkman.

Kirk, D., Jonassohn, K., & Fish, A. (1966). Are adopted
children especially vulnerable to stress? Archives
of General Psychiatry, £4, 291-298.

Klibanoff, S., & Klibanoff, E. (1973). Let's talk about

adaption. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

 

Knight, R. (1941). Some problems involved in selecting and
rearing adopted children. Bulletin of the Menninger
Clinic, 5, 65-74.

Kornitzer, M. (1967). Adoption. London: Putnam.

Kornitzer, M. (1968). Adoption and family life. London:

Putnam.

85
Korpi, D.R. (1977). Psychohistorical aspects of shame and

guilt as functions of political ideology. Dissertation

 

Abstracts International, 33, 2866B.

Kris, E. (1956). Recovery of childhood memories in
psychoanalysis. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,

_3, 54-89.

LeShan, E. (1977, March). Should adoptees search for their
"real" parents? Woman's Day, pp. 33-39.

Lifton, B. (1979). Lost and found: The adoption
experience. New York: Dial Press.

V/Lindholm, B., & Touliatos, J. (1980). Psychological
adjustment of adopted and nonadopted children.
Psychological Reports, £3, 307-310.

Mahler, M. (1968). On human pymbiosis and the
vicissitudes of individuationnyol. 1: Infantile
psychosis. New York: International Universities Press.

McNamara, J. (1975). The adoption adviser. New York:
Hawthorne Books.

Menlove, F. L. (1965). Aggressive symptoms in emotionally
disturbed adopted children. Child Development, 33,
519-532.

Mirman, M. C. (1984). Shame and guilt: activators,
associated unconscious dangers, and defenses.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Murray, H. (1943). Thematic apperception test manual.

Cambridge: Harvard University.

86
Offord, O.R., Aponte, J.F., & Cross, L.A. (1969).
Presenting symptomatology of adopted children.
Archives of General Psychology, 33, 110-116.
Peller, L. (1961). About "telling the child" of his
adoption. Bulletin of the Philadelphia Association for
Psychoanalysis, 3, 145-154.

Peller, L. (1963). Further comments on adoption. Bulletin

 

of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis, 33,
1-14.

Reece, S., & Levin, B. (1968). Psychiatric disturbances in
adopted children: A descriptive study. Social Work,
.33, 101-111.

Ripple, L. (1968). A follow-up study of adopted children.
The Social Service Review, £3, 479—499.

Rohr, F. (1971). How parents tell their children they are
adopted. Child Welfare, 39, 298-300.

Schecter, M. (1960). Observations on adopted children.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 3, 21-31.

Schecter, M. (1967). Psychoanalytic theory as it relates
to adoption. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 33, 695-708.

Schecter, M., Carlson, P., Simmons, J., & Work, H.
(1964). Emotional problems in the adoptee. Archives
of General Psychiatry, £9, 109-118.

Simon, N. & Senturia, A. (1966). Adoption and psychiatric

illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 858-868.

 

87

Sorosky, A., Baran, A., & Pannor, R. (1978). The adoption
triangle. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press.

Sweeny, D., Gasbarro, D., & Gluck, M. (1963). A
description of adopted children seen in a child
guidance center. Child Welfare, 33, 345-349.

Toussieng, P. (1962). Thoughts regarding the etiology of
psychological difficulties in adopted children. £3333
Welfare, £3, 59-65, 71.

U.S. Children's Bureau (1964). Psychiatric problems of
adopted children. Child Welfare, £3, 137.

V/Wieder, H. (1977a). On being told of adoption. Egg
Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 33, 1-22.
M/Wieder, H. (1977b). The family romance fantasies of

\,

adopted children. The Psychoanalypic Quarterly, 5g,
185-200.
a/Wieder, H. (1978). On when and whether to disclose about

adOption. American Psychoanalytic Association Journal,
33, 793-811.

Winnicott, D.W. (1957). Mother and child: Apprimer of
first relationships. New York: Basic Books.

Wishard, B. & Wishard, L. (1979). Adoption: Thetgrafted
££gg. San Francisco: Cragmont Publications.

Work, H., & Anderson, H. (1971). Studies in adoption:
Requests for psychiatric treatment. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 127, 948-950.

88
Wursmer, L. (1981). The mask of shame. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDICES

Cover Letter

Participant Research Consent Form

Questionnaire

TAT Instructions

Korpi Shame-Guilt Test

Interpersonal Dependency Inventory

Request for Summary of Results and

Entry Form for Drawing

TAT Scoring Manual

APPENDIX A

COVER LETTER

MICHIGADJSTATE UNIVERSYTY

 

DFPARTMPN] (H PMIHULOUY IAN] IANSINL ‘ MN Ill(-AN - 4882-34”?
PSVIHUIUOY RIM H“ H Bl'ILDIXG

The Adoption Disclosure Study

This study is being conducted by Gary Paape under the supervision
of Bertram P. Karon, Ph.D. for the Department of Psychology at Michigan
State University. The primary purpose of this study is to investigate
the processes by which adoptees learn of their adoptions and the impact
that these have on their personalities. The study is designed to test
conflicting assumptions that adoption specialists have made about the
telling process. A second purpose of the study is to gather some
information for the planning of a study that would investigate issues
surrounding the search for birth parents. As you may well know, these
are areas of concern for adoptees and adoptive parents in which there
has been some controversy. Your participation in this study will,
hopefully, help to clarify some of these issues. _

In this study, you will be asked to complete three tasks; this
should require an hour or two of your time. First, you will be asked to
complete a twenty-item questionnaire that is aimed at gathering
information about you and your experience of being adopted. Second, you
will be asked to make up three brief stories to three pictures. These
pictures are part of an exercise that is frequently used in
psychological research. Third, you will be asked to complete an 82-item
questionnaire that asks you to respond to a variety of situations,
attitudes, and actions. Although this may sound like a great deal to
request of you, the whole process should take a little over an hour and
you will have the satisfaction of having contributed to an investigation
of issues that are of significant concern to fellow adoptees and
adoptive parehts.

If you choose to participate in the study, you are free to
discontinue your participation at any time without penalty. Your
participation does not guarantee any beneficial results to you. Results
of the study will be treated with strict confidence annd your answers
and identity will remain anonymous. Upon your request, you can receive
additional explanation of the study and its outcome by providing your
name and address on the last page of the protocol. These will be
separated from the pages that contain your responses so that your
identity will be in no way linked to your reSponses.

After you have completed the protocol, please return it by mail in
the accompanying envelope as soon as possible. As an incentive to
return your protocol promptly, a $30 award will be presented to ppg_of
you who return your protocol before November 15. The name of the winner
will be drawn from the names and addresses that you may choose to
provide on the last page of the protocol. Once again, your name will
not be linked to your responses and will be used for no other purpose
than to send the feedback sheet, if requested, or for the drawing.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

Gary Paape
Department of Psychology
Snyder Hall
Michigan State University
355-2159
484—3813

MW 'u an Alhmuln-r 1‘ Han 7.1qu ()fvpurlumn Inuuuhnn

89

1.

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANT RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

I have freely consented to take part in a scientific
study being conducted by Gary H. Paape under the
supervision of Bertram P. Karon, Ph.D., Professor of
Psychology.

I agree to take part in the study entitled The Adoption
Disclosure Study. I understand that the study deals
with the processes by which people learn about their
adoptions and the effects these processes have upon the
personalities of adoptees.

I understand that I am free to discontinue my
participation in the study at any time without penalty.

I understand that the results of the study will be
treated with strict confidence and that I will remain
anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the
study will be made available to me at my request.

I understand that my participation in the study does
not guarantee any beneficial results to me.

I understand that, at my request, I can receive
additional explanation of the study after my
participation is completed.

Return of the completed protocol will indicate your consent
to participate.

90 .

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE

Please answer the following questions. Write your response

next

to or beneath the question. if you run out of space,

feel free to use the back of the page.

10.

11.

12.

13.

How old are you?

What is the highest grade in school that you have
achieved?

Were you ever held back a year in school or were you
ever considered to have difficulties in learning?

What is your occupation?

How many brothers and sisters do you have?

How many of your brothers and sisters were adopted?
Are you the same race as your adoptive parents?

How old were you when you were adopted?

About how old were you when you first found out that
you were adopted, or, did you always know?

How did you first find out that you were adapted?
Do you feel that your parents spoke to you about your
adoption in a straightforward way, or, do you feel

feel that they were evasive?

Did you ever feel that you didn't really belong to
your adoptive family? If so, at what age or ages?

Do you feel that your adoptive parents had empathy for

or were understanding of your feelings about being
adopted?

91

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

92

Can you remember how you felt when you first learned
that you were adopted? If you can, please describe
how you felt.

How much did your adoptive parents tell you about your
birth parents? Circle as many as are apprOpriate:
Nothing; Very little; Everything they knew; All that I
wanted to know; Not as much as I wanted to know.

While growing up, how free did you feel to approach
your parents for support regarding your concerns about
being adopted?

Did your adoptive parents ever attribute your
misbehavior or things about you that they didn't like
to your heredity?

Have you ever seriously considered trying to find out
the identity of your birth parent or parents, or, did
you know this without having searched?

Have you ever actively tried to find out the identity
of your birth parent or parents?

What are your opinions and feelings about adoptees
searching for their birth parents?

APPENDIX D

TAT INSTRUCTIONS

In the next several pages there is a set of three
pictures. In the spaces provided, please write a brief
story about what's going on, what the characters might be
feeling and thinking, what led up to it, what the outcome
might be. Don't take much time to write or to plan the
story: simply write what first comes to mind. Please don't
be concerned that your story isn't good enough or about
crossing out mistakes. None of us can write a truly good
story in the few minutes that we would like you to spend on
these stories.

93

APPENDIX E

THE KORPI SHAME—GUILT TEST

This is an 82-item questionnaire; it has three
sections. Please read the instructions at the beginning of
each section. Use the answer sheet to mark your answers.
Feel free to detach the answer sheet if you like. Please
don't spend much time on any of these questions. There are
no right or wrong answers to any of these questions. Please
respond to every single item as honestly as you can.

Below are a number of situations in which you might
find yourself, or which you may have experienced. Please
indicate how upset or uncomfortable you think you would feel
in each of the situations described by thoroughly penciling
in the space on the computer sheet provided that best
corresponds to how you think you would feel. For each
situation described rate how you would feel along a scale
which ranges from "not at all upset" to "very upset".

1) Not at all upset.
2) Somewhat upset.
3) Fairly upset.

4) Pretty upset.

5) Very upset.

1. You don't report all of your income so your taxes
won't be such a drain. (KG)

2. Your entire class has to read an article for a paper
due the next day. You don't have time to read it in
the library and the article cannot be checked out.
You rip it out of the magazine and take it with you.
(KG)

3. You work for a small company. One day you take a
couple of folders and a box of paper clips from the
office storeroom home with you because you were
running out. (KG)

4. You are unbelievably awkward trying to play a new
sport. Your friends are trying to teach you and feel
as if you are all arms and legs. (KS)

94

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

95
You're paying the bill after a superb meal in one of
the city's best French restaurants. The waiter in
returning your change gives you too much. You keep
it, acting as if you didn't notice. (KG)

You are caught unexpectedly by someone, talking to
yourself. (KS)

A friend provokes you. In an angry moment you tell
him a secret about his wife that he doesn't need to
know and that you know will hurt him. (KG)

Your boss has planned a big meeting where your
presentation is to be the highlight. You fail to
live up to his expectations and your company loses

the account. (KS)

You are finally involved intimately with someone you
have seen as very attractive but uninterested in you.

You find yourself suddenly unable to perform sexually.
(KS)

You're telling a joke and suddenly realize you are the
only one laughing. (KS)

You accidently let it slip in a conversation something
that was told to you in strict confidence. (KG)

You have a mild case of epilepsy. You forget to take
your pills and have a convulsion before friends who
didn't know. (KS)

Everyone in your neighborhood takes pride in keeping
the neighborhood clean. You're unwrapping a package
and casually toss the wrapper on the street, hoping
that no one will see you. (KG)

You and a friend are both looking at houses. He shows
you a house he has in mind and it's exactly what you
were looking for. He delays and you are afraid
someone else will get it, so you take it. (KG)

A friend asks you to write a letter of reference and
is really depending on your letter. You don't
honestly feel you can recommend him highly, so you
write a mediocre one, but don't tell him. (KG)

You are trying to park your car and smash into the

car behind you, denting the fender. You see someone
walking toward the car and drive off, figuring the
damage was small. (KG)

You're usually very calm when discussing heated
subjects. All of a sudden you hear your own voice
and realize you're almost shouting. (KS)

96

18. You're reading your old diary and can't believe you
wrote such nonsense. You feel ridiculous to have
written down such things.

The following statements describe traits, feelings, or
personal characteristics that might fit you. Please rate
each statement according to how characteristic it is of you,
from "not at all" like you to "very much" like you, by
thoroughly penciling in the appropriate space on the
computer sheet. Be sure to answer every question.

1) Not at all true of me
2) Rarely true of me
3) Somewhat true of me

4) Pretty true of me
5) Very true of me

19. I don't gossip about others. (KG)

20. I blush when someone notices something about me I
wasn't aware of. (KS)

21. I like to think of myself as not caring about public
Opinion and am bothered when I find it isn't so. (KS)

22. I worry about making foolish mistakes and wonder what
other people would think. (KS)

23. I feel nagged about little things around the house
that I failed to do. (KG)

24. I can't stand to see others' feelings hurt. (KG)
25. I worry about giving myself away. (KS)
26. I sometimes worry about cheating or lying. (KG)

27. I have a tendency to make up excuses to avoid
situations that would make me uncomfortable. (KS)

28. When someone else is accused of something, I sometimes
worry I might have done something wrong. (KG)

29. When I have done something wrong I feel better if
I talk about it to someone. (KG)

30. I hate to cry in front of anyone. (KS)

31. I feel bad even if I think bad thoughts about
others. (KS)

32. I try to use kid gloves when saying something unkind.
(KS)

33.

34.

35.

36.

97

I often deceive others into believing things about me
that aren't so. (KS)

Sometimes I accuse someone else of something I did to
cover my guilt. (KG)

I am very modest about my own body, especially about
being seen naked. (KS)

I worry more about failing to live up to my
obligations than failing to achieve my ambitions. (KG)

APPENDIX F

INTERPERSONAL DEPENDENCY INVENTORY

Below are a number of statements that describe traits,
feelings, or personal characteristics that might fit you.
Please rate each statement according to how characteristic
it is of you, from "not at all" like you to "very much" like
you, by throughly penciling in the appropriate space on the
computer sheet. Be sure to answer every question.

1) Not characteristic of me

2) Somewhat characteristic of me
3) Quite characteristic of me

4) Very characteristic of me

37. I prefer to be by myself. (IAUT)

38. When I have a decision to make, I always ask for
advice. (ILSOCO)

39. I do my best work when I know it will be
appreciated. (IEMREL)

40. I can't stand being fussed over when I am sick. (IAUT)
41. I would rather be a follower than a leader. (ILSOCO)

42. I believe people could do a lot more for me if
they wanted to. (IEMREL)

43. As a child, pleasing my parents was very important
to me. (IEMREL)

44. I don't need other people to make me feel good. (IAUT)

45. Disapproval by someone I care about is very
painful to me. (IEMREL)

46. I feel confident of my ability to deal with most of
the personal problems I am likely to meet in
life. (D) (ILSOCO)

47. I'm the only person I want to please. (IAUT)

98

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.
54.

55.

56.
57.
58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.
66.

99

The idea of losing a close friend is terrifying to
me. (IEMREL)

I am quick to agree with the opinions expressed by
others. (ILSOCO)

I rely only on myself. (IAUT)

I would be completely lost if I didn't have
someone special. (IEMREL)

I get upset when someone discovers a mistake I've
made. (IEMREL)

It is hard for me to ask someone for a favor. (ILSOCO)
I hate it when people offer me sympathy. (IAUT)

I easily get discouraged when I don't get what I
need from others. (IEMREL)

In an argument, I give in easily. (ILSOCO)
I don't need much from people. (IAUT)
I must have one person very special to me. (IEMREL)

When I go to a party, I expect that the other
people will like me. (D) (ILSOCO)

I'm never happier than when people say I've done a
good job. (IEMREL)

When I am sick, I prefer that my friends leave me
alone. (IAUT)

It is hard for me to make up my mind about a TV
show or movie until I know what other people
think. (ILSOCO)

I am willing to disregard other people's feelings
in order to accomplish something that is important
to me. (IAUT)

In social situations I tend to be very
self-conscious. (ILSOCO)

I don't need anyone. (IAUT)

I have a lot of trouble making decisions by
myself. (ILSOCO)

67.

68.

69.

70.
71.
72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

100

I need to have one person who puts me above all
others. (IEMREL)

Even when things go wrong I can get along without
asking for help from my friends. (IAUT)

I tend to imagine the worst if a loved one doesn't
arrive when expected. (IEMREL)

I don't like to buy clothes by myself. (ILSOCO)
I tend to be a loner. (IAUT)
I tend to expect too much from others. (IEMREL)

When I meet new people, I'm afraid that I won't do
the right things. (ILSOCO)

Even if most people turned against me, I could
still go on if someone I love stood by me. (IEMREL)

I would rather stay free of involvements with
others than to risk disappointments. (ILSOCO)

What people think of me doesn't affect how I feel.
(IAUT)

I think that most people don't realize how easily
they can hurt me. (IEMREL)

I am very confident about my own judgment. (D) (ILSOCO)
I have always had a terrible fear that I will lose

the love and support of people I desperately need.
(IEMREL)

I don't have what it takes to be a good leader.(ILSOCO)

I would feel helpless if deserted by someone I
love. (IEMREL)

What other people say doesn't bother me. (IAUT)

APPENDIX G

REQUEST FOR SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND ENTRY FORM FOR DRAWING

If you would like a summary of the results of the
experiment, please provide your name and address on the
lines below:

 

 

 

If you would like to be included in the drawing for the $30
award (remember that there will only be one winner and that
you must return your protocol by November 15 to be
eligible), please provide your name and address on the lines
below:

 

 

 

This sheet will be detached from the protocol so that your
identity cannot be linked to your responses. Your name will
be used for no other purpose than to send the feedback sheet
or for entry in the drawing.

101

APPENDIX H

TAT SCORING MANUAL

Coding Instructions

1. Copy the story code on a coding sheet.
2. Write your initials on the coding sheet.
3. Read the protocol from beginning to end.

4. Rate each story for the seven themes according to the
criteria that follow.

5. If you cannot decide how to rate a story, clip the
incomplete coding sheet to the protocol and put it
aside. Go through the easiest ones first, then make a
second run through the pile of more difficult stories.
Continue sorting in this manner until the difficult
decisions become easier. For those that you find most
difficult, note on the coding sheet the criteria that
you based your score upon. Please don't write on the
protocols as I might need them for further scoring.

Conversion of Protocol Code Numbers

In case you want to refer to the TAT card described in
a protocol, look at the last two digits in the code number.
They correspond to the cards as indicated below.

 

9233 TAT Card
01 1
16 6GF
17 7GF
26 6BM
27 7BM

102

103

1. A young boy is contemplating a violin which rests on
a table in front of him.

6GF. A young woman sitting on the edge of a sofa looks
back over her shoulder at an older man with a pipe
in his mouth who seems tobe addressing her.

7GF. An older woman is sitting on a sofa close beside a
girl, speaking or reading to her. The girl, who holds
a doll in her lap, is looking away.

6BM. A short elderly woman stands with her back turned to
a tall young man. The latter is looking downward
with a perplexed expression.

7BM. A gray-haired man is looking at a younger man who is
sullenly staring into space.

THEME 1: INDUSTRY-INFERIORITY

Hero expresses feelings of futility, inadequacy, or doubt
regarding an activity: SCORE 2.

Where hero ALSO expresses a recognition of the possibility
of achieving adequate performance: SCORE 1.

EXAMPLES

a) I don't think I'll ever be able to make this violin sound
good. SCORE 2.

b) I don't think I'll ever be able to make this violin sound
good. I'll keep trying, maybe I'll do okay. SCORE 1.

Hero expresses a desire to discontinue an activity AND
expresses feelings of depression, helplessness, or expresses
a desire to be doing something that does not require being
active in environment (such as being alone): SCORE 2.

EXAMPLE

I sure hate playing this violin. Life is the pits and it
always will be.

THEME 2: SEPARATION ANXIETY

Hero anticipates, fears, or is actually separated from a

significant other by death or by any other cause (e.g.
boarding school, giving up a child for adoption): SCORE 2.

104

Hero has received or a significant other has received bad
news and is troubled (sad, depressed, fearful, despairing)
but the details of the news or troubling matter are not
specified: SCORE 1.

EXAMPLES

This is a picture of me at the Huntington Academy boarding

school. Why do my parents send me away from them every
year? SCORE 2.

The old woman is troubled by something and the young man is
dreading what she might have to say. SCORE 1.
THEME 3: PARENTAL COERCION

Parent or authority figure compels hero to do something that
is contrary to his or her wishes: SCORE 1.

EXAMPLES

a) Parent makes hero study or practice when she or he does

not want to or where hero expresses ambivalence about doing
so: SCORE 1.

b) Hero is losing interest in an activity (it is assumed
that Card 1 reveals parent-child relations even if the
parent isn't mentioned): SCORE 1.

THEME 4: ACQUIESCENCE

Hero gives into the wishes of a parent or an authority
figure: SCORE 1.

EXAMPLE

Why does she insist on reading these boring stories to me
every day? Oh well, she'll be disappointed if I don't
listen, so, I'll pretend that I like it. SCORE 1.

THEME 5: PARENTAL INCONGRUENCE

It APPEARS that a parent, authority figure, or dominant
person is acting or is attempting to act in behalf of a
dependent hero, but the hero's needs are not being met:
SCORE 1.

EXAMPLES

a) Mother reads to the hero but the hero does not enjoy
this activity. SCORE 1.

105

b) A parent offers advice that is not congruent with the
hero's feelings and perceived needs. SCORE 1.

c) A parent attempts to keep information from the hero for
the purpose of protecting or helping the hero, and, this is
perceived by the hero as not being in his or her best
interests. SCORE 1.

d) A husband expresses a desire to do what is best for his
wife (where she is hero) but the wife is ambivalent or is
doubtful as to whether her needs are being met.

THEME 6: PARANOIA

Hero is assaulted or fears physical injury by an unknown
other: SCORE 2.

Hero experiences a transient state of fright, startle, or
panic that seems to be linked to a fear of being harmed:
SCORE 1.

EXAMPLES

a) Hero is pursued by an unknown man and she is convinced
that he is out to get her. She retreats to the safety of
her apartment only to find that he has climbed in the window
and is sneaking up on her. SCORE 2.

b) Hero is thinking about how angry her husband is with her
and is startled to find that he has sneaked up on her. SCORE
1.

THEME 7: ADOPTION THEMES

Any mention of adoption in the content of a story: SCORE 1.
Theme that involves any of the facets of adoption: SCORE 1.
EXAMPLES

Themes involving: illegitimate child, abortion, court
decision regarding custody, stressfulness of teenage
mothering, stealthily searching for something (referent to
the adoption papers), being approached by a stranger
(possible birth parent), etc.: SCORE 1.

THEME 8: PROPENSITY FOR FANTASY

Indication that the hero or participant frequently escapes

into fantasy or describes unusually detailed, developed
fantasies.

106
EXAMPLE

Story describes hero who regularly lives in his own world,
playing the role of the son of the king of China.

" hmhymn

 

3 1293 1