g i. ll
.93 v 3.. \
‘a-lvv A-VJL.‘ .

. A . 415V . . .
tit; £42". F'Nfl... . . ., . .
3%.}..- . . . . wig?

.. Jan
. .. 1.“..nh172... mummy
. V - ' I. A .
...m.u.m.mwma..z... . .

l

"u
.. “Jeggfl

.- i 4 ‘ .
. . )I :17: . .
. . , .. 3... wmuufimsfie . a
1!. . .4 £50.. 7. .51...
. . . .. 3...»; ”via"... . . fawn. 2».
. .. .. ... . ..:.>;

. . . $6....
3;.-. a... s .
mg. m, an»;
. 75)....11 #110954; . I}. 5 91A

. . 5%4ufuC-I-j‘ I.P.’I.|”P}I
. LC uuufifiamwwwfifi ..

19.2.» firm,

fish... 4...

ml A. ”:5.
L..." > lhl..u
: 4 .
. .2 £19 I,
.W I. 9].. .l
gnu»: 11:103.:
’5... S

1. u!
.l. .5 .
\ n, e .[kuitue
. wanna;

 

. . . klllf...‘ v .
. 3...: 1.. iJhB...)
. . ‘ f... Alf uol. .
. ii... .51.... FLE’:
i .. 1.2390 .1
.n i. . . ; .3
VI 5 j .yu‘lll‘ Lad.
.. . .
:f... :21. oi?! 4; 6
.. I!

I... .

93C.

in». . r 14,3

 

.r. .. . .. .. . .5. ...z,..
«aggfifi... .33”: - émfihflmmmfiafim; .r

 

nah..-)

._
was... 3.12.. .
fl...r-n.r; _.» A.

u . 2.5.2.:
{-4 «Mmumiw ‘1
9.2.? ..

tum pnv.€

x .
x; .
92.5.12...
(.1 11.!
Ai'ufin...
walrus

{If

. 2;.
£1229.

. flhmgfilmfiz
H“ L. JVWPMI.

. re

. . . £31.13}.

3. all a.“!6..1....x:)

l b.‘ '1?! "EIJ’OV‘OV‘

llllllllllllllllll

320 079 6409

                                                                             

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

The Psychological Adjustment of Transracial Adoptees:
An Application of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model

presented by

Amanda L . Baden

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D . degree in Counseling Psychology

 

Wllm

Majoryrofessor

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN REFURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECAU£D with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

0'5 0015,9052

 

052 920?“?

 

 

‘_'_1210 as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo WM“

The Psychological Adjustment of Transracial Adoptees:
An Application of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model
By

Amanda L. Baden

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology and Special Education

1999

ABSTRACT
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT OF TRANSRACIAL ADOPTEES:
AN APPLICATION OF THE CULTURAL-RACIAL IDENTITY MODEL
By Amanda L. Baden
In response to the need for increased understanding of the identity process of
transracial adoptees, the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995)
was developed; however, the model has yet to be empirically validated. The model
allows distinctions to be made between racial identity and cultural identity. These
distinctions comprise 16 proposed identities of transracial adoptees and are made up
of the degrees to which individuals: (1) have knowledge of, awareness of,
competence within, and comfort with their own racial group's culture, their parents'
racial group's culture, and multiple cultures, and (2) are comfortable with their racial
group membership and with those belonging to their own racial group, their parents'
racial group, and multiple racial groups. These distinctions are comprised of
dimensions: the Adoptee Culture Dimension, the Parental Culture Dimension, the
Adoptee Race Dimension, and the Parental Race Dimension. The distinctions made
by the model can aid in understanding the counseling needs of transracial adoptees as
they are affected by the identification with racial groups other than their own. In this
study, the Cultural-Racial Identity of transracial adoptees was determined using the
Cultural-Racial Identity Questionnaire (CRIQ; as developed for this study) and a
modified version of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992).
Psychological adjustment was assessed by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI;

Derogatis & Cleary, 1977) and self-esteem was assessed by Rosenberg's Self-Esteem

Scale (SES; Rosenberg, 1965). The sample consisted of 51 transracial adoptees who
completed mail survey questionnaires. The exploratory findings supported the
Cultural-Racial Identity Model by demonstrating that the modified version of the
MEIM successfully yielded variation in the potential Cultural-Racial Identities that
the transracial adoptees reported. Findings did not yield support for differences in
psychological adjustment among transracial adoptees having different Cultural-Racial
Identities but did support a relationship where the Parental Race Dimension and the
Adoptee Race Dimension predict the self-esteem of transracial adoptees. The
implications that the results have for counseling practice and social policy were

discussed.

Copyright by
AMANDA L. BADEN
1999

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this work to my family without whom I would not have
had the experiences, perspective, strength, and support to engage in a project on
transracial adoption. I would like to thank my incredible parents for being available,
supportive, fun, and loving throughout the ups, downs, and in-betweens. My sister,
Rebecca Baden, has been a constant source of support and fi'iendship throughout my life
and my educational pursuits. She also gave me the invaluable gifi of allowing me to draw
upon her life and experiences as a transracial adoptee for this project. Thanks also to my
best friend, Gretchen Van Wye, who is like a sister to me who supported me throughout

the process and who, with my family, helped me believe in myself.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks again to my parents, my sister, and my friend Gretchen. I would also like
to thank my wonderful dissertation chair, mentor, advisor, and friend, Dr. Robbie
Steward. Dr. Steward not only provided me with the theoretical and technical support
needed to undertake this project, but she also provided the invaluable emotional and
personal support that made this project a source of j oy, excitement, and incredible
learning. Thanks also to my fantastic and supportive dissertation committee at Michigan
State University, Dr. Linda Forrest, Dr. Ken Frank, and Dr. Teresa Jones. To the
additional committee members who were kind enough and generous enough to share their
expertise and their time, Dr. Lorna London from Loyola University at Chicago and Dr.
Leslie Hollingsworth from the University of Michigan. Finally, thanks to all of my
friends, especially Freda Ginsberg, who were there when I needed them, who helped me
think clearly about a cloudy and controversial subject matter, and who listened endlessly
to ideas, presentations, and versions.

I would also like to thank all the transracial adoptees whose experiences I have
drawn upon and for whom I am advocating. I hope I was successful and fair in
representing all of their concerns and I thank them for participating in this project and

sharing their lives with me.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEDICATION - - V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -- - - - -- -- -- _ - VI
LIST OF TABLES.-...-- _ - - -- - -- X
LIST OF FIGURES ........ - XI
INTRODUCTION _ - - 1
Critique of Transracial Adoption Policies .................................................................. 6
CHAPTER II - - - - ..... -- .................... 22
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 22
Psychological Adjustment ......................................................................................... 22
Racial Identity ........................................................................................................... 27
Psychological Adjustment, Self-Esteem, and Racial Identity ................................... 31
Intercountry/intemational transracial adoptees in the United States. .................... 43
Transracial Adoption in Foreign Countries .............................................................. 48
Counseling Transracial Ad0ptees ............................................................................. 59
Background Factors Affecting Ad0ptees .................................................................. 69
Pre-adoptive history. ............................................................................................. 70

Age at adoption. .................................................................................................... 71
Summary of the Empirical Literature ....................................................................... 73
Theoretical Conceptualizations: Identity Formation ................................................ 74
Erikson's theory of identity formation ................................................................... 75
Marcia's model of identity statuses. ...................................................................... 76
Vygotsky's cultural historical theory and identity formation. ............................... 78
Identity formation in adoptees. ............................................................................. 79
Identity Formation in Racial Ethnic Minorities ........................................................ 81
Relationship between racial identity and Eriksonian theory. ................................ 81
Identity Formation in Transracial Ad0ptees .............................................................. 85

An empirical study of identity formation in transracial adoptees. ........................ 91

The Cultural-Racial Identity Model .......................................................................... 94
Rationale for the development of the model. ........................................................ 94

A description of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model .......................................... 101
Figure l. The Cultural Identity Axis. - - 105
Figure 2. The Racial Identity Axis ................... 107
Figure 3. The Cultural-Racial Identity Model ............. 109
Figure 4. The Four Dimensions 1n the Cultural-Racial Identity Model .............. 111

V11

The Current Study ................................................................................................... 112
Figure 5. Parental Attitudes and Characteristics Model for Affirming/Discounting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environments 1 13
CHAPTER IH 121
METHODOLOGY 121
Subjects ................................................................................................................... 123
Description of the Sample ................................................................................... 123
Procedure ................................................................................................................ 125
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Sample of Transracial Ad0ptees. ............. 126
Measures ................................................................................................................. 128
Cultural-Racial Identity Measures ...................................................................... 129
C ultural-Racial Identity Questionnaire .......................................................... 130
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure ............................................................... 131
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions ................................................................... 132
Psychological Adjustment and Self-Esteem Measures. ...................................... 133
Psychological Adjustment ............................................................................... 134
Brief Symptom Inventory .............................................................................. 134
Self-Esteem ..................................................................................................... l 3 5
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ....................................................................... 135
Design ..................................................................................................................... 136
Analyses .................................................................................................................. 136
CHAPTER IV 138
RESULTS 138
Analyses .................................................................................................................. 139
Descriptive statistics ........................................................................................... 141
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities 141
The Cultural-Racial Identity Model ........................................................................ 144
Figure 6. Scatterplots of the Cultural Identity Axis and the Racial Identity Axis.
147
Confounding Variables ........................................................................................... 148
Model Predicting Psychological Adjustment .......................................................... 148
Table 3. Correlations of Potential Confounding Variables and Dependent
Variables. 149
Table 4. Correlations of Variables of Interest. 150
Table 5. Predicting Psychological Adjustment. 153
Model Predicting Self-Esteem ................................................................................ 154
Table 6. Predicting Self-Esteem. 1557
Partial Regression Coefficients ............................................................................... 158
Summary ................................................................................................................. 162
Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis for Multicollinearity. 163

viii

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V -- 165
DISCUSSION ...... - - -- -- - ....................... 165
Significance Level For Interpretation ..... 165
Summary _- - - 168
The Cultural-Racial Identity Model - 168
Predicting Psychological Adjustment ..................................................................... 170

Table 8. Significant Findings when Psychological Adjustment is the Outcome. 171
Interpretable findings for psychological adjustment: Using the traditional

significance testing level ................................................................................ 171
Noteworthy findings for psychological adjustment: Using a more lenient

significance testing level ................................................................................ 173

Predicting Self-Esteem ............................................................................................ 174

Table 9. Significant Findings when Self-Esteem is the Outcome.
Interpretable findings for self-esteem: Using the traditional significance testing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

175

level ................................................................................................................ 175
Noteworthy findings for self-esteem: Using a more lenient significance testing

level ................................................................................................................ 177

F it With Existing Research ..................................................................................... 179
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 182
Implications of the Study ........................................................................................ 185
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................... 189
Implications for Future Research ............................................................................ 192
APPENDIX A ................... 197
APPENDIX C - .................... -_ 215
APPENDIX D ................. - 218
APPENDIX G 224
REFERENCES 226

 

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. DESCRIPTIVB STATISTICS FOR THE SAMPLE OF TRANSRACIAL ADOPTEES. ........ 126
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND RELIABILITIES. .................................................. 141
TABLE 3. CORRELATIONS OF POTENTIAL CONFOUNDING VARIABLES AND DEPENDENT
VARIABLES. ............................................................................................................. 149
TABLE 4. CORRELATIONS OF VARIABLES OF INTEREST. ................................................... 150
TABLE 5. PREDICTING PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT. ................................................... 153
TABLE 6. PREDICTING SELF-ESTEEM. .............................................................................. 155
TABLE 7. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR MULTICOLLINEARITY. .......................................... 163
TABLE 8. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS WHEN PSYCHOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT IS THE OUTCOME.
................................................................................................................................. 171
TABLE 9. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS WHEN SELF-ESTEEM IS THE OUTCOME. ........................ 17 5

LIST OF FIGURES

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. The Cultural Identity Axis. - ............ 105
Figure 2. The Racial Identity Axis- 107
Figure 3. The Cultural-Racial Identity Model 109
Figure 4. The Four Dimensions in the Cultural-Racial Identity Model .............. 111
Figure 5. Parental Attitudes and Characteristics Model for Affirming/Discounting
Environments - - - - - - ................ 113

Figure 6. Scatterplots of the Cultural Identity Axis and the Racial Identity Axis....
147

 

xi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Adoption, as traditionally practiced, is a way to pair children without families
with married couples wantng children. Typically, Caucasian couples wanted to adopt
healthy Caucasian babies. Thus, adoption originated as a means for providing children to
"childless white couples" (McRoy, 1989, p. 147), but it was not meant to provide a means
for caring for dependent children. However, after World War 11, many European children
had survived the war but their families had not (Kim, Hong, & Kim, 1979). To
accommodate these children, adoption practices were expanded to include intercountry
adoptions (i.e., adoptions of children born in countries other than the country of the
adoptive parents). Subsequent international conflicts such as the Korean War and the
Vietnam War also resulted in children needing families, so the first intercountry-
transracial adoptions were practiced. By the 19605, contraception, legalized abortion, and
increased social acceptance of single/unwed parenting decreased the number of available
White infants for adoption. Also in the 19603 transracial adoptions (i.e., adoptions of
children of different racial groups than the adoptive parents) within the United States
became a relatively common phenomenon, and Caucasian couples began to adopt
American racial minority children as well.

However, strong opposition to transracial adoption was voiced by the National
Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW), other organizations, and community

leaders in 1972. Throughout the ensuing years, fewer transracial adoptions involving

1

African American children and Caucasian families took place. Adoption agencies were
designed specifically to place African American children with Afi'ican American families.
These agencies gave preference to African American families. Organizations such as the
North American Council on Adoptable Children and the National Committee for
Adoption issued statements regarding their preference for same-race placements (McRoy,
1989). They advocated transracial placements only when same-race placements were
unavailable. Since that time, those transracial adoptions that have taken place have been
primarily intercountry adoptions (e.g., Vietnamese, Korean, Latin American, and Chinese
children adopted by Caucasian parents), but adOptions of African American children by
Caucasian parents continue to be controversial and occasionally take place. Caucasian
families then began to complain that adoption policies giving preference to African
American families were discriminatory (McRoy, 1989).

As the transracial adoption literature demonstrates, terms used to describe racial
designations do not follow current practices of using "Caucasian" and "African
American" for individuals belonging to those groups. For Simplification and for the sake
of consistency, Caucasian Americans will, hereafter, be referred to as "Whites" or
"White" and African Americans or Black Americans having ancestry from African
countries will be referred to as "Blacks" or "Black." Many of the studies and quotations to
be included describe samples as "White" or "Black" and include these terms as racial
descriptors. To ensure accuracy and consistency, these terms were utilized as racial

descriptors throughout this paper as well.

Today, estimates of the number of transracial adoptions that have taken place in
America are difficult to determine. Simon, Alstein, and Melli (1994) noted that the US.
government has failed to implement a law--the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act of l980--making the tracking of children who were adopted impossible. Based on
statistics found through the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), the National
Center for Health Statistics (N CHS), the National Committee for Adoption (N CFA), and
the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC), Simon et al. (1994)
reported that interracial/transracial adoptions account for approximately eight percent of
all adoptions and these adoptions are by Caucasian adoptive mothers. Of this eight
percent, five percent were adoptions of children who were neither Caucasian nor African
American/Black, one percent consisted of Black children adOpted by White mothers, and
two percent were adoptions of White children by mothers of other races. In a 1989 report,
the CLWA (Simon et al., 1994) estimated that approximately 51% of the children who
are waiting to be adopted are from minority racial ethnic groups.

Although Simon et al. (1994) did not report the percentages of Americans who
wish to adopt intraracially and those who wish to adopt transracially, the statistic would
have been quite relevant. Furthermore, statistics which made comparisons based on racial
group membership could have assisted in providing a basis for understanding the
prevalence of families wishing to adopt transracially versus intraracially. Given the small
percentage of transracial placements that do occur, it is reasonable to assume that very

few Whites wish to adopt transracially. However, despite the small numbers, transracial

3

adoptees and transracially adopting White parents are still held under suspicion. Many
minority professionals such as those belonging to the NABSW have protested the practice
of transracial adoption whereas White potential parents have protested the restrictions
placed on transracial adoption. These differing views as well as other views that follow
clearly demonstrate the controversy and its mirroring of the identity crisis in practice.

In reviewing the opposition to transracial adoption that has been expressed,

criticisms and concerns have been targeted at both intracountry and intercountry
adoptions and have been based primarily on questions regarding identity development
and psychological adjustment (Griffith & Duby, 1991; Ryan, 1983; Silverrnan &
F eigelman, 1981; Tizard, 1991). However, criticisms of transracial adoption have not
been limited to the NABSW. Third-world countries from which Americans have adopted
many children and racial ethnic groups such as Native Americans (Ryan, 1983; Tizard,
1991) also have voiced concerns about the effects of transracial and intercountry
adoption. Transracial adoption has been referred to as "cultural genocide," as "the
ultimate expression of American Imperialism," and as leading to "poor" identity
development and psychological maladjustment (Tizard, 1991). Moreover, Gill and
Jackson (1983) grouped the criticisms against transracial adoption as belonging to two
categories, "1 Criticisms based on discrimination against the black community; 2
Criticisms based on the anticipated experiences of a black child in a white family" (p. 4).

With respect to the criticisms described by Gill and Jackson (1983), some of the

more salient criticisms involved the identity confusion and inability to relate to members

4

of their racial communities that transracial adoptees will face. The criticisms in the
second category that they specified were summarized as follows:

«BecauSe of the child's obvious difference of racial and physical background the
parents and other members of the family will come to see the child as 'not
belonging to this family'. Close and intimate family relations will not develop
between the child and other family members.

«Because of obvious differences of racial and physical background the child will
have a self-perception of 'not belonging to this family'. The result of this will be a
deep sense of personal isolation.

«Because the child is adopted by white parents contact outside the home is
primarily white. Although over time, racial background may be insignificant in
the family, it will continue to be crucially significant outside the family. The child
will be unable to relate effectively in the outside world and will retreat into the
family world.

«Identity confusion. Children placed transracially will come to face major
problems of who they are, black or white. The confusion will be experienced as so
central that they will have a poor self-concept and low self-esteem.

«Because the children are black, growing up in white families, they will not be
taught the necessary coping mechanisms for dealing with the hostility and
rejection of white society. These coping mechanisms can only be taught in the
black family.

«Because of being brought up in white families, transracially adopted children
will not be able to relate to members of the black community. They will be
rejected not only by the white community, but also by the black community. (p. 4-
5)

These predictions regarding the effects of transracial adoption have affected the frequency
and ease with which transracial adoption placements have been made. However,
transracial adoption continues to be practiced. Unfortunately, the actual numbers of
transracial adoption placements are difficult to determine. McRoy (1989) reported that
the number of transracial adoptions dropped from a high of 2,500 in 1971 to 1,100 in
1987. She also reported that in 1984, researchers estimated that 20,000 Black children

had been transracially adopted by White couples in America since the commencement of

5

transracial placements.

The continued practice of transracial adoption and the legislation that could be
used to support transracial placements necessitated the identification of responses to
several critical questions. Are transracial adoptees a monolithic group in terms of
psychological adjustment and self-esteem? Are the predictions of low self-esteem,
rejection of transracial adoptees, and identity confusion true? If so, how can we continue
to engage in this detrimental practice? Are there some transracial adoptees who fair better
than others? All of these questions must be answered for a fully informed decision about
the practice of transracial adoption. Thus, over the years many researchers have
investigated the validity of these claims.

Critiques of Transracial Adoption Policies

Hayes (1993) reviewed the literature on transracial adoption and the policies and
practices surrounding transracial adoption. He noted that despite the research on the
success of transracial placements, White parents are only considered "suitable" for
transracial placements if they will commit to providing the adoptees information about
their cultural heritage and encouraging a strong sense of "positive racial identity" (p. 302)
in the adoptees.

Furthermore, Hayes identified that the central professional debate regarding the
ethics of transracial adoption involves the ability or inability of White parents to provide
the support that is required for transracial adoptees to develop their ethnic identity and

gain information about their cultural heritage. This debate has been immersed in rhetoric

6

a?

IF.

A.

la.

Md

\\.~
0

fi

4

proclaiming the "need" or "right" of transracial adoptees to have a sense of ethnic identity
and a cultural heritage. However, as Hayes pointed out and as the author agrees, the
opponents to transracial adoption and the policies limiting or prohibiting transracial
placements are essentially advocating a "correct" way to be a racial ethnic minority
individual. This correct way entails having a "positive ethnic identity" (Andujo, 1988) as
defined by some members of that racial ethnic group. This also implies a single way of
identifying as an ethnic minority. Hayes argued that this viewpoint ignores the
"legitimacy of a plurality of approaches to raising minority children" (p. 304) and that
"the promotion of ethnic identity and cultural heritage iS not the only reasonable way to
bring up a minority child" (p. 304). Hayes (1994) also noted problematic assumptions in
the claim that racial ethnic minority communities, especially African Americans, need
"survival strategies" to combat "endemic societal racism" (p. 306). The need for such
strategies makes transracial placements inadequate for meeting this need. For this claim
to be legitimate, however, requires homogeneous values within racial ethnic communities
and ubiquitous racism in modern society, but because it fails to account for the diversity
of society, it is refutable.

Despite the evidence supporting the adequate psychological adjustment of
transracial adoptees, Hayes (1993) reported that some researchers continue to foretell of
the "inevitable" problems that transracial adoptees will have. These predictions have even
taken the following form: "Transracially adopted children are never normal but only

'apparently normal.’ Beneath the facade of happy well-integrated children lie various

7

neuroses" (p. 308). To resolve the contradictions between the evidence on transracial
adoption and the predictions about it, further research must be conducted. However, the
unsupported assumptions of these researchers and opponents to transracial adoption may
actually be based on political ideology as Hayes (1993) suggested rather than on the
purported aim: the best interests of the child.

On the other hand, the concerns of the NABSW and other opponents of transracial
adoption raise vital issues in this controversy, especially given the history of America and
racial minorities in America. One such issue is the concern regarding the “motives”
expressed by those wishing to adopt transracially. Virtually no empirical research has
been conducted addressing the impact of varying reasons for adopting on transracial
adoptees’ adjustment. Opponents to transracial adoption also question White parents’
ability to competently prepare children and provide essential coping skills to transracial
adoptees, especially given that many biological parents experience difficulty in this area
as well. Finally, a realistic threat exists in the potential resocialization of minority
children by White parents resulting in minority children who may be uncomfortable
unskilled when among those from their own racial group.

As a result of these concerns, alternatives to transracial placements for the large
number of minority children available for adoption have been on the increase over the
past 25 years. The NABSW encouraged shifts in recruitment efforts for adoptive families
by reexamining the criteria for adoption eligibility and by exerting greater efforts in

recruiting Black families for adoptive placements. Kinship care where relatives,

8

especially grandparents, informally adopt children needing homes has historically been
practiced. Unfortunately, legislation does not allow for those providing kinship care to
receive funding to assist in the rearing of these children. Large, urban adoption agencies
have also attempted to blur the boundaries between foster care and adoption to allow
greater numbers of children to have more permanent placements. Native American
organizations have also been vocal in their disapproval of transracial adoption and have
worked to find similar alternatives for their children. Although these efforts are timely
and have been largely successful, the alternatives to transracial adoption have been
primarily focused on finding Black families to adopt Black and biracial children having
one Black birth parent or Native American families to adoptive Native American
children. Thus, alternatives have yet to be found for the vast numbers of children who are
both non-White, non-Black, and non-Native American.

The cultural beliefs of and economic hardships within many Asian countries (e. g.,
China and Korea) have resulted in large numbers of Asian children available for
adoption. However, childless couples from these cultures/countries rarely adopt, thereby
resulting in children who will be difficult to place in same-race families. Furthermore,
members of these countries have voiced fewer objections to transracial placements. For
several years, the vast majority of transracial adoptees were from Korea. Not until the mid
19903 did the Korean government begin to change their policies regarding the availability
of Korean children for adoption. Although some of these countries have made

intercountry adoption more rigorous, children from these countries continue to be adopted

9

 

in great numbers. Thus, transracial adoption continues to be practiced and many
transracial adoptees already exist in the US.

In response to criticisms of transracial adoption placements and to predictions
about the outcomes of such placements, social workers and child developmental
researchers began to study the effects of transracial adoption. Their findings have yet to
allow practitioners, researchers, policy makers, and communities to reach a consensus. As
the literature review will demonstrate, very little evidence has been found to support the
predictions of opponents to transracial adoption. However, as noted by Alexander and
Curtis (1996), professionals investigating these claims have not been representative of all
of groups involved in the controversy. In fact, Alexander and Curtis noted that many of
the opponents to transracial adoption, such as the NABSW and other African American
researchers and professionals, have failed to empirically demonstrate support for their
views and criticisms. Therefore, the findings of proponents of transracial adoption have
been uncontested. Similarly, a recent publication by Project 21(1995), reported that the
group, Project 21 (an African-American leadership group) "agreed that transracial
adoption should be encouraged as a means to provide stable homes for black children
currently in foster care" (p. 1). In their statement, one group member stated, "Isn't it ironic
that the racism groups like this one claim to loath is the same racism that is practiced with
such self-righteousness" (p. 1). This controversy surrounding transracial adoption has
forced individual researchers to "take sides" and to continue to find empirical support for

that position. Unfortunately, in this scramble among professionals, the policy purporting

10

to seek the "best interests of the child" (Hayes, 1993) seems to have been forgotten.

The controversy continues to be debated. In a relatively recent issue of the Mal
of Black Psychology, Alexander and Curtis (1996) critically evaluated the empirical
transracial adoption literature and noted several concerns regarding the methodology and
conclusions that the many of the researchers made. They critiqued the sampling,
measurement, validity, and methodology of several key studies, but noted that “opponents
of transracial adoption, such as NABSW and other African American professionals had
no empirical support for their positions” (p. 232). Because no evidence has been shown to
“support their contention of psychological damage to African American children” (p.
232) who were transracially adopted, Alexander and Curtis cautioned against ruling out
transracial placements as an option for children.

Reactions to Alexander and Curtis’ (1996) paper were also included in the M
of Blac_k Psychology. These reactions ranged from praise for their work and their
conclusions (e.g., Gopaul-McNicol, 1996) to admonitions for their vieWpoints and
conclusions (e.g., Abdullah, 1996; Goddard, 1996). In between the more extreme
reactions were cogent examinations of the status, practice, and potential outcomes of
transracial adoption (e.g., Taylor & Thornton, 1996). Overall, the reactions to Alexander
and Curtis’ (1996) paper suggested that the history of racism, discrimination, and
Oppression in the United States has validly lead to professionals’ concern for the impact
of transracial adoption on the adoptees, especially African American transracial adoptees.

However, extreme positions from both proponents and opponents to transracial adoption

11

may frequently forget the children involved in this controversy.

In a critique of transracial adoption practices in Britain, Cohen reviewed issues
related to identity theory in transracial adoption. Cohen (1994) identified a "genealogical
model of identity as a birthright or inheritance" (p. 58). This identity was described as an
"authentic sense of selflrood" (pp. 58-59) such that lacking an identity means lacking a
core personality or sense of roots. When related to transracial adoption, the concept of
identity was redirected to involve a sense of "roots within a collective ancestry. . .the
assumption of a black identity was made to mean more than being proud of one's own
immediate origins. It meant actively locating an individual life history within the
collective memory of a 'race'" (p. 59). Cohen further delineated his view of how the
psychological theories of Erikson, Maslow, Piaget and others were used to formulate a
common concept of "positive black identities." According to Cohen, the designation of
such identities could then allow for predictions and stories about identity confusion due to
transracial placements. A "positive identity" could only be considered as such if it
incorporated the black community and the "retrieval of lost origins" (p. 67). Cohen also
noted that the Association of Black Social Workers and Allied Professionals proposed a
model of 'psychological nigrescence' in which "the black child who is the 'victim' of
transracial adoption is supposed to go through a series of levels or stages" (p. 67) which
are characterized by the same stages postulated by Cross (1971) and Helms (1990).
Cohen criticized this stance as indicating that "if the individual does not express a sense

of pride in being black then this can only be a symptom of a neurotic or self-destructive

12

defense mechanism" (p. 69). This statement identifies and supports the need to recognize
the heterogeneity in identity experiences and levels of adjustment likely to be found
among transracial adoptees.

Another result of the controversy surrounding transracial adoption has been
disagreement and confusion over the policies that dictate either the practice or the
prohibition of transracial adoption placements. Until some relatively recent legislation,
adoption workers and social workers have been making decisions about adoption
placements based on individual agency's or individual worker's stance on this issue.
However, while still in office, Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) successfully
sponsored the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) in October of 1994 (Project 21, 1995).

This act was designed to prevent discrimination in adoption placements on the basis of
race, color, or national origin, to aid in the recruitment of foster and adoptive families,
and to increase the number of children adopted (Public Law 103-382). Despite these
intentions, the Clinton administration's announcement regarding the interpretation of the
bill resulted in actually making transracial adoption more difficult (Idelson, 1996; Project
21 , 1995). With MEPA, an agency can continue to base an adoption placement on
children's cultural, racial, or ethnic background and on the ability of foster or adoptive
parents to meet the needs of these children; however, this can be only one of the factors
used in the placement. The MEPA does prohibit general rules or agency-wide rules for
adoption placements on the basis of race, culture, or ethnic background. Although the

MEPA represents an improvement over previous legislation, adoption workers still have

13

the freedom to make placements that may be based more on the adoption workers’ beliefs
about effects of transracial placements rather than on the "best interests of the child."
Those making adoption placements may be unfamiliar with current research on
transracial adoptees’ adjustment or they may maintain their opposition toward transracial
placements in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, no financial
penalties or other forms of penalties are in place if these criteria were not met. Thus, the
MEPA is a step in the right direction, but more work needs to be done.

The next form of legislation to be presented is the Adoption Promotion and
Stability Act (HR 3286). This legislation was brought before Congress on May 10, 1996,
but it failed to progress past the Committee on Indian Affairs. Had this law been passed,
it would have allowed adoptive parents to take tax credits for adopting children. This law
was intended to eliminate the "loopholes" found in MEPA. Financial penalties were to be
enacted when/if adoptive placements were shown to be delayed for race or ethnic
matching of adoptable children with adoptive parents (Idelson, 1996). To date, this bill
has been rewritten and re-named and has again been presented in Congress. However, the
new version of the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act, now referred to as the
Adoption Promotion Act of 1997, no longer includes specific references to transracial
adoption placements. The results of these legislative arguments remain to be seen.

The level of analysis used to understand transracial adoption has primarily been
focused on disproving the predictions of opponents to transracial adoption. With that

"goal" having been essentially "achieved," another level of analysis must be employed.

l4

Because transracial adoption is still practiced, professionals still need to determine what
differences currently exist among transracial adoptees rather than focusing on their
differences from other groups. These differences are not merely demographic and may be
of greater importance in explaining the effects of transracial adoption on adoptees.
However, to better understand those effects, a guideline for observing and systematizing
the study of transracial adoptees is needed. One such model was offered by Baden and
Steward (1995) with their Cultural-Racial Identity Model for transracial adoptees. This
model attempts to explain the varying identity statuses among transracial adoptees. The
identity statuses that Baden and Steward postulated differ from previous models of
identity, racial identity, and ethnic identity due to their emphasis on examining the culture
and the race of transracial adoptees separately. They believe that the separate examination
of the cultural identity and the racial identity of transracial adoptees is necessary to fully
depict transracial adoptees' unique experiences in racially and possibly culturally
integrated families. This model can serve as a starting point for extending the study of
transracial adoption and its effects to another level of analysis.

Another argument for the need to conduct studies of transracial adoptees on
another level of analysis is the paucity of studies attempting to make suggestions for the
counseling/psychotherapeutic needs of transracial adoptees. Unfortunately, with a few
exceptions, at this time counseling psychologists have yet to examine the needs of
transracial adoptees. Perhaps it has been assumed that the needs of transracial adoptees

are similar to the needs of traditionally (intraracially) adopted children. To endorse this

15

assumption, however, a crucial factor in development and adjustment is ignored: the
racial and cultural identity development of transracial adoptees. In the case of transracial
adoptees, the racial group membership of the adoptees differs from their adoptive parents'
racial group membership and in many instances, the culture of the adoptees also differs
(e. g., as in intercountry adoptions). These differences have been expected to have a
differential and potentially negative effect on transracial adoptees«an effect that children
adopted intraracially do not experience. Due to the potentially differential experiences of
transracially adopted children, counseling psychologists must be prepared to serve the
needs of these individuals throughout their childhood and adulthood and the implications
for the practice of counseling with these individuals must be determined.

Furthermore, transracial adoption almost always entails the joining of individuals
from not only racially different backgrounds, but also from culturally different
backgrounds (e.g., Chinese, Korean, African American, or Guatemalan culture joined
with the dominant, Euro-American or White culture). As a result, to accurately depict the
unique experiences of transracial adoptees, distinctions between race and culture must be
made. However, such distinctions are difficult to conceptualize and possibly even more
difficult to achieve in measurable ways. Nevertheless, this study will attempt to make
such distinctions so that the experiences of transracial adoptees will be more accurately
understood.

To resolve these issues, further research should be conducted regarding the

identity of transracial adoptees and those factors that contribute to their identity

16

development. The literature in this area provides some helpful information for resolving
this dilemma about identity development. However, when studying transracial adoptees
and their families, the level of analysis of transracial adoption continues to be
problematic. The racial differences between parents and children have been the primary
focus in transracial adoption studies. These studies have overlooked the impact of the
family and the characteristics of parents that are independent of their racial group
membership, thereby under-representing the role of the adoptive parents in the
psychological adjustment and the racial identity of the children. As a result of this
oversight, many of the studies of transracial adoptees have been based on the assumption
that the racial differences of the parents and children are the causes of psychological
maladjustment and "poor" identity development. However, this assumption may be faulty.
For example, perhaps transracial adoptees can be impacted by racial differences and
cultural differences to such an extent that they more closely identify with individuals of
racial groups other than their own and that they engage in cultural practices from cultures
other than the culture of their racial group. Does this necessarily imply psychological
maladjustment? The answer to this question has not yet been demonstrated, but
assumptions that it would result in maladjustment serve as the primary argument against
transracial adoption. Yet another question has also not been addressed regarding this
example. Do those transracial adoptees whose parents have intentionally assisted in the
development of well-defined, "positive," racial/ethnic identities report better

psychological adjustment and self-esteem than those whose parents have not assisted?

l7

These questions must be answered to have more definitive evidence regarding the
implications of transracial adoption on the adoptees.

Furthermore, the controversy surrounding transracial adoption also tends to
assume homogeneity among transracial adoptees. That is, as with members of any
identifiable group, observers tend to assume greater between-group variance and may
neglect to account for within- group differences. Baden and Steward's (1995) model for
conceptualizing the identities of transracial adoptees both allows for and expects
differences among or within transracial adoptees as a group. They hypothesize that all
transracial adoptees will not have a "positive" racial/ethnic identity, nor will all
transracial adoptees experience identity confusion to such a degree that it could be
classified as "maladjustment." In essence, what Baden and Steward suggested is that
transracial adoptees’ individual adaptations will be quite unique. They will all identify
with a culture and they all identify with a racial group, but they do not necessarily all
identify with the same culture or racial group because differences exist within the
population of transracial adoptees. This perspective was validated by the concerns of
Cohen (1994) and Hayes (1993). Finally, an examination of the impact of identity may
have different results when psychological adjustment is assessed and viewed as a separate
entity fi'om self-esteem.

This study seeks to further examine some of the assmnptions regarding transracial
adoptees. With respect to the literature reviewed on transracial adoption, the Studies

purporting to examine racial identity tended to investigate only the racial group

18

preferences and objective racial self-identification of transracial adoptees and not their
racial identity development. These studies conceptualized racial identity as being the

, racial group (e. g., Black, White, Korean, Native American, etc.) to which the adoptees
felt they belonged. This conceptualization of racial identity appears to be based on the
acknowledgment or recognition of racial group membership rather than on feelings about,
attitudes toward, or comfort with one’s racial group. Thus, these other conceptualizations
of racial identity may actually obtain information about the identities sanctioned by
society rather than the actual identities of transracial adoptees.

Alternative conceptualizations of racial identity include attitudes and feelings that
individuals have had toward their own racial group and toward the dominant racial group.

As a result, theories of racial identity development for racial ethnic minority groups have
been developed (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1979; Cross, 1971, 1978), however, these
theories have grouped culture and race together within a single model and assume racial
homogeneity within families. Because this homogeneity is not found in families adopting
transracially, this study will rely upon the recently developed theory for transracial
adoptees, the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995).

The Cultural-Racial Identity Model allows distinctions to be made in identity
between cultural identity and racial identity and among race, ethnicity and culture. It also
accounts for racially heterogeneous families and for parental influence in identity
development. In an effort to create a bridge linking racial group preferences/objective

racial self-identification, racial identity, and cultural identity, this conceptual model was

19

developed in such a way that:

l)transracial adoptees' cultural identities are composed of both racial group

cultural identity and the cultural identity of their parents; and, 2) transracial

adoptees' racial identities are composed of their own racial identity and the racial

identity of their parents. (pp. 8-9)

This model will serve as the foundation upon which this investigation will be
based. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy, applicability, and
comprehensiveness of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model by determining the degree to
which the model validly describes the Cultural-Racial Identities of transracial adoptees
and by identifying differences in the psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees
having different Cultural-Racial Identities. Support for the Cultural-Racial Identity
Model has not yet been empirically demonstrated. In the current investigation, those
dimensions believed to differentiate among transracial adoptees according to their
identities were determined based on Baden and Steward's (1995) model, and these factors
were examined as they affect the psychological adjustment and self-esteem of transracial
adoptees. Two of these factors are the level at or degree to which the transracial adoptee
has knowledge of, awareness of, competency within and comfort with the culture of their
own racial group or the culture of their parents' racial group. The other two factors are the
degree to which the transracial adoptee self- identifies with his/her own racial group and
is comfortable with his/her own racial group or with his/her adoptive parents’ racial
group. Because the vast majority of the transracial adoptions that have taken place in the

United States have been White couples adopting non-White children and because much

of the criticism lodged against the practice of transracial adoption has been directed
20

toward members of the dominant culture as the "socializers" of racial ethnic minority
children (Gill & Jackson, 1983), all transracial adoptees who can participate in this study
must have been adopted by White parents. Thus, references made to the "adoptive
parents' racial group" or their "racial groups' culture", refer to the White culture.

As will be reviewed in Chapter II, distinctions between race and culture have been
historically difficult to conceptualize but are even more difficult to measure in
individuals. As a result, one of the challenges of the current study was to achieve the
distinctions necessary between race and culture.

To increase the current knowledge base regarding transracial adoptees, we must
answer the following questions: Does the Cultural-Racial Identity Model accurately
depict the identities of transracial adoptees? Do different cultural and racial identities
affect the psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees? Do different cultural and

racial identities affect the self-esteem of transracial adoptees?

21

CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
As noted in Chapter One, much of the concern regarding the effects of transracial
adoption has been expressed by practicing social workers, leaders of minority group
communities, and scholars (Chirnezie, 1975; Hayes, 1993). Kim (1995) noted that
"transracial adoption of black children stirred up many controversies regarding their
psychological development, especially with respect to their ethnic identity, or 'cultural
well-being' " (pp. 141-142). To determine the effects that transracial adoption has on
adoptees, several studies investigated the racial identity and subsequent psychological
adjustment of transracial adoptees (Bagley, 1993a, 1993b; F eigelman & Silverrnan, 1983;
Johnson, Shireman, & Watson, 1987; McRoy, Zurcher, Lauderdale, & Anderson, 1982,
1984; Shireman & Johnson, 1986; Simon & Alstein, 1987). The following sections
present an overview of the results of studies focused on transracial adoption, counseling
recommendations for working with transracial adoptees, theories that apply to the unique
experience of transracial adoptees, and the current study.
Psychological Adjustment
The construct of psychological adjustment has been of primary importance in the
examination of transracial adoption, particularly since the statement issued by the
NABSW in 1972 first predicted maladjustment. This maladjustment was expected to
frequently be in the area of identity confusion and the inability to cope with racism. To

address these concerns, studies were initially aimed at measuring the psychological

22

adjustment of transracial adoptees, often in comparison to White children adopted by
White parents (often referred to as intraracial adoption).

One of the early studies of transracial adoptees was conducted by F anshel (1972).
This study examined approximately 100 American Indian/Native American children who
were adopted by White families. Annual interviews were conducted over a period of five
years with the findings based on the transracial adoptees' overall adjustment. The results
of the study indicated that "more than 50 per cent of the children were performing
'extremely well' in all spheres of life and another 25 per cent were performing in a way
that made the outlook for their future adjustment 'very hopeful'. Only 10 per cent of the
children appeared to be experiencing difficulties which made the prognosis of likely
outcome uncertain." (as cited in Gill & Jackson, 1983).

In response to the changing position statements of organizations such as the
NABSW and the Child Welfare League of America, another study was conducted which
attempted to address "whether children are better off adopted by parents of a different
race than they would be if they lived with neither natural not [nor] adoptive parents"
(Grow & Shapiro, 1974, p. ii). To begin to answer this question, Grow and Shapiro
(1974) conducted a study of 125 transracial adoptees who were a median age of 8.8 years
old at the time of the study and were placed in their adoptive homes at a median age of
13.9 months. All adoptees in the study had at least one African-American birth parent and
all had to have been in their adoptive homes for at least three years for inclusion in the

study. Demographic and attitudinal variables were measured regarding such issues as age

23

at adoption, parental perception of the transracial adoptees' "Blackness,” religion, length
of time in placement, income, reason for adoption, and parenting style (strict vs.
permissive). The predictive value of these variables were assessed on the outcome
measures. The "success" of the adoptions were measured using multiple outcome
measures including interviews with parents, parents' responses on the Missouri Children's
Behavior Checklist, transracial adoptees' scores on the California Test of Personality, and
the Teacher's Evaluation Index. Based on all of the outcome measures, Grow and Shapiro
found that 77% of the adoptions were "successful," a rate comparable to success rates for
intraracial adoptions. Grow and Shapiro also computed a summary or overall measure of
success. This summary score of success was found to have a significant relationship with
the parents' perception of their transracially adopted children's Blackness as being
"obvious." In interviews conducted with adoptive parents, information regarding the
parents' beliefs about the degree to which their children were "obviously black" was
collected and found to be related to the overall success scores of the adoptions. Those
transracial adoptees who were "designated as obviously black were more likely to have
average or high scores than were those whose parents felt they were not obviously black"
(p. 110). Furthermore, parents' perceptions of their children's "obvious Blackness" was
compared to the interviewers' perceptions on this same variable. Findings indicated that
50% of the transracial adoptees were seen as relatively light by their parents but only 33%
were similarly described by the interviewers. Approximately 75% of the perception

descriptions were compatible between parents and interviewers and when they were

24

incompatible, the parents tended to view their children as lighter than the interviewers
did.

Other noteworthy findings of this study concerned the predictive value of some
demographic and attitudinal variables. For example, Grow and Shapiro reported that
transracial adoptees who had been in placement for the shortest amount of time (three to
four years) relative to the other members of the sample tended to have low personal
adjustment scores on the California Test of Personality. Low scorers also tended to be in
families who had minority religious affiliations (e.g., not Protestant or Catholic) or who
had no affiliation with any church. Relationships among variables on the social
adjustment scale on the California Test of Personality were also of interest. Low scorers
on this scale tended to be associated "with extreme ends of the income scale, with social
or personal (other than infertility) reasons for adoption, with living in small communities,
with the adoptive mother's uncertainty or ambivalence about the adoption of the
handicapped, and with dissatisfaction with the agency's services" (p. 135). Neurotic
symptoms such as bed-wetting, nightmares, and restlessness were more frequently found
in transracial adoptees under age 12, in boys, in transracial adoptees having mothers
under age 40, and in those living in smaller communities. Physical symptoms such as
colds, headaches, and tiredness were more frequently found in transracial adoptees over
age 10 and in transracial adoptees described as "not obviously black" (p. 150) by their
parents.

With respect to the transracial adoptees' own attitudes about their racial origins,

25

Grow and Shapiro also found results related to demographic and attitudinal variables.
Transracial adoptees tended to feel more discomfort with their appearance if they were
the "darkest" children, if their parents had strong "pro-black" attitudes, if their parents had
"the most initial reservations about the adoption" (p. 198), and if their mothers were
young relative to the sample. Families with more positive attitudes toward Black heritage
were found when the father in the family was a professional, when the family had
frequent contact with relatives, and when the parents reported an positive orientation
toward race. Another important finding reported by Grow and Shapiro was the transracial
adoptees' experience of racial cruelty. Although they acknowledged the ambiguity and
measurement problems presented by this variable, Grow and Shapiro reported that their
analysis "suggested that significantly more such experiences are perceived by parents of
girls, by parents living in communities with a nonwhite population of less than 5%, and
by families with three or more adopted children" (p. 199).

What were formerly called “failed adoptions” were investigated by Barth, Berry,
Yoshikami, Goodfield, and Carson (1988). They sought to predict adoption disruption in
intraracial and transracial adoptions. The study they conducted provided evidence of how
frequently adoptions were “unsuccessful,” thus providing evidence regarding the level of
adjustment of the adoptees while in the adoptive placement. Barth et al. attempted to
identify adoption disruption rates, and to determine characteristics associated with
disruption. Using a sample of 1,155 adoptees, 81% of whom were intraracially adopted

and 19% of whom were transracially adopted and the adoption placement forms, Barth et

26

al. found that 832 adoptions were not disrupted, 94 were disrupted, and the remaining 229
could not be determined. The sample for the study included 158 Black children, 129
Latino children, 20 Asian or Pacific Islander children, and 20 Native American children.
Barth et al. found an overall disruption rate of 10.2 percent within the sample and
examined factors associated with adoption disruption. They found that "previous
placements, an older child, a greater number of child problems, adoption not by a foster
parent, a male child, and adoptive mothers with higher education were all associated with
adoption disruption" (p. 229) but that no differences existed in disruption rate between
intra and interracial matches. That is, transracial adoptions were not found to have
significantly different rates of disruption than intraracial adoptions.
Racial Identity

With the criticisms of transracial adoption mounting, the subject of the "racial
identity" of transracial adoptees appeared to be at the crux of the criticisms (Gill &
Jackson, 1983). To address this criticism, researchers began to study the "racial identity"
of transracial adoptees. However, conceptualizations of racial identity have frequently
differed across disciplines and fields of study. As the following studies will demonstrate,
the primary conceptualization of racial identity was well described by Loenen and
Hoksbergen (1986). They delineated the four aspects of racial identity: identity,
preferences, stereotypes, and aspirations. The following studies to be presented tend to
address preferences, aspirations, and self-identification but, as will be explained later,

they frequently do not include racial/ethnic pride and activism nor do they account for the

27

cultural differences that transracial adoptees experience. Moreover, as has been noted in
some recent papers (Gill Willis, 1996; Harrison, 1996; Taylor & Thornton, 1996) many
of the studies' attempts at measuring racial identity have been flawed for two primary
reasons: First, they ofien rely on the adoptive parents' predictions of their children's racial
identity, and second, they examine the construct of identity prior to adolescence. As will
be discussed in further detail later in the chapter, the process of identity formation and
racial identity formation is theorized to begin in adolescence. Thus, the examination of
racial identity in preadolescent children may be of limited informative value.
Nevertheless, studies investigating the racial identity of transracial adoptees follow.
Shireman and Johnson (1986) reported on a longitudinal study of the
psychological adjustment, racial identity, and sexual identity of transracial adoptees as
compared to intraracial adoptees and adoptees of single parents. All of the adoptees in
the study were Black children. The families in the study were single-parent, traditional
(i.e., Black parents adopting Black children), or transracial (i.e., White parents adopting
Black children). Families were contacted when the children were four years of age and
eight years of age. When the children were four, 36 intraracially adopted children and 37
transracially adopted children were included in the sample. At age eight, 26 intraracially
adopted children and 25 transracially adopted children were included in the sample.
Parents and adoptees were interviewed separately and the Clark Doll Test was
administered. The findings suggested that there were no differences in psychological

adjustment among the three groups of adoptees as determined by objective ratings of the

28

interviews. Furthermore, results of the Clark Doll Test revealed that transracially adopted
Black children had greater awareness of their race (i.e., accurately identified the doll
having a "race" similar to their own) and greater preference toward dolls of their own race
at an earlier age (age four) than did intraracially adopted Black children. However, at
older ages (age eight), both groups of adopted children expressed similar levels of
awareness and preference. Also at age four, almost three-quarters of the transracially
adopted children understood their adoption status whereas less than half of the
intraracially (including both traditional and single-parent) children understood their
adoption status. The authors viewed the difference between intraracially and transracially
adopted children as suggesting that transracial adoptees were developing their “racial
identity” at a rate that was different and possibly problematic than intraracial adoptees.
They believed that this developmental difference in the transracial adoptees' pattern of
racial identity development was "of concern." The follow-up study conducted by Johnson
et a1. (1987) provided additional support for their concern regarding this developmental
difference.

Johnson et al. (1987) conducted a follow-up study of the families from the
Shireman and Johnson (1986) study. Using the sample from the Shireman and Johnson
study, 26 transracially and 26 traditionally (intraracial) adopted families were the
participants. Interviews were conducted with both the parents and the adoptees, and the
Clark Doll Test and the Morland Picture Interview were administered to the children.

Both Shireman & Johnson (1986) and Johnson et al. (1987) were concerned with the

29

finding that transracially adopted children's awareness and preference stayed constant
over time while intraracially adopted Black children's preferences and awareness both
increased more rapidly and exceeded that of transracially adopted children. They
concluded from this finding that the transracially adopted children were developing
differently from intraracially adopted children, and that this developmental difference
may be a precursor to awareness problems in the transracial adoptees' racial identity.
Despite the lack of evidence demonstrating the harmful effects due to the differences,
Johnson et al. assumed that different patterns of development may be harmful. They also
did not address the possibility of ceiling effects on their measures of racial group
preferences and awareness. Furthermore, based on a combination of problems evidenced
and the severity of the problems, the adjustment of the children was assessed. Based on
this form of measurement, approximately 75% of transracial adoptees and 80% of
intraracial adoptees were described as "doing well." However, because interviews were
used, tests of statistical significance were not conducted.

In both the Shireman and Johnson (1986) and the Johnson et al. (1987) studies,
limitations of the studies may have substantially hindered the validity of the studies. First,
the study's methodology was poorly reported so that, without further elaboration from the
authors, the study's replicability would be nearly impossible to achieve. A second
limitation comes from their chosen measures for the constructs identified. The use of
interview data and the Clark Doll test to measure psychological adjustment, racial

identity, and sexual identity may have been questionable means for securing reliable and

30

fl!

:1

(JP

[”0

valid results due to the subjective nature of the reports and analyses. Third, a ceiling
effect may account for the differing patterns of racial identity development. The
transracial adoptees had already been shown to have greater awareness of and preference
for dolls of their own race, thus subsequent trials would inhibit their ability to increase
levels of preference because they may have already responded at the highest levels.

Furthermore, Tizard and Phoenix (1994) reviewed the Clark Doll Test citing that
studies using the test tended to interpret findings to indicate that "black children
experience self-rej ection and low self-esteem because they internalize white people's
negative view of their race" (p. 91). Identity confusion, manifested by Black children
misidentifying themselves as White, was believed to be due to a denial of the individual's
color and racial group membership. As more studies were conducted using the Clark Doll
Tests, later studies found lower proportions of children misidentifying as White.
However, despite its use in early studies, Tizard and Phoenix noted that "the findings of
the doll and photograph studies do not directly attest to racial identity," (p. 92). In fact,
multiple measures have sought to assess racial identity, but as Hollingsworth (1997)
suggested, a commonly agreed upon, valid measure and definition of racial identity must
be obtained before studies such as those reviewed above can have their intended impact.
Psychological Adjustment. Self-Esteem. and Racial Identity

As noted previously, many studies of transracial adoption have attempted to
address the criticisms of transracial adoption by determining the degree to which the

criticisms were accurate and commonly found among adoptees. Because much of the

31

criticism regarding transracial adoption predicts psychological maladjustment, low levels
of self-esteem, and racial identity diffusion, the empirically based studies have attempted
to address these concerns either as a whole or in various combinations. The review to
follow briefly describes these studies and their findings, and offers critiques and
comments where appropriate. An important consideration regarding the following studies
is the methodology and experimental rigor utilized in each investigation. In many of the
early studies (e.g., Simon & Alstein, 1977; Zastrow, 1977), the psychological adjustment
of transracial adoptees was assessed based on the adoptive parents' perceptions of their
adoptive child. In other studies (e.g., Andujo, 1988; McRoy et al., 1982, 1984), the
adoptees themselves were the reporters of adjustment, and in a small number of studies
(e.g., Alstein, Coster, F irst-Hartling, Ford, Glasoe, Hairston, Kasoff, & Wellbom Grier,
1994), trained observers (e.g., research technicians and psychologists) contributed to
measures of adjustment. As will be reflected in the present author's comments and
critiques, the findings of the studies may only be as powerful as the methodology used to
obtain them.

In an early study of transracial adoption conducted by F alk (1970), the
experiences of couples adopting either transracially or intraracially were compared. The
study was conducted with 186 transracially adopting couples and 170 intraracially
adopting couples. The subjects were matched on the population of their community, the
age of the adopting mother, the age of the adoptee at placement, and the year of

placement. Using a questionnaire developed specifically for the study, F alk asked the

32

adoptive parents to complete the questionnaire. The results of the study indicated that,
based on the perceptions of adoptive parents, transracial adoptees were more likely to
have problematic adjustment than intraracial adoptees. Falk also found that the adoptive
parents of the transracial adoptees expected their Black children to have more problems
with such experiences as school, dating, and employment. Moreover, fewer transracially
adopting parents stated less willingness to recommend adoption to others or to do it again
than did intraracially adopting parents. With respect to characteristics of the parents,
transracially adopting parents tended to be more active in their community organizations,
to be more geographically and socially distant from friends and relatives, to be married
longer prior to the adoption, and to be more likely to have children by birth. This study
has several limitations. First, F alk did not report any validation of the questionnaire used
nor did he provide a sample of items. Second, as noted above, using parental reports of
adjustment must be cautiously interpreted due to their potential bias and inaccuracy.
However, in general the findings tend to support those who harbor some skepticism about
transracial adoption.

In a 1977 study by Zastrow, the outcome of transracial placements of Black
children with White parents was studied and compared to the outcome of intraracial
placements of White children with White parents. Families adopting transracially were
matched with families adopting intraracially in Wisconsin in the early 708. They were
matched on the age of the adopted child and the socioeconomic status of the adoptive

parents. All children had to be six years of age or less and adoptions had to finalized prior

33

to participation. Interviews were conducted with the adoptive parents. The results of this
study were intended to provide justification that would either encourage or discourage
transracial adoption. Both groups of parents expressed similar ratios of satisfactions to
dissatisfactions with their adoptive experience, but the transracially adopting parents
expressed more satisfactions in "human relations" whereas the intraracially adopting
parents expressed more satisfactions in "parent-child relationships" (p. 82). Overall
success of the transracial adoptive experience was assessed through satisfaction ratings of
the adoptive parents. Regarding overall satisfaction with the adoptive experience,
findings indicated that 81/82 (99%) of the transracially adopting parents and all
intraracially adopting parents chose either "extremely satisfying" or "more satisfying than
dissatisfying." On the Adoption Satisfaction Scale, both groups of adoptive parents
scored similarly (92.1 for both parents in transracially adopting families and 91.1 for
husbands and 92.2 for wives of intraracially adopting families. Zastrow (1977) interpreted
these findings to indicate that the adjustment of transracial adoptees was determined to be
"good," and that transracial adoption was not detrimental to the adoptee. He stated that
"the results indicate the outcomes of transracial placements are as 'successful' as for
inracial [intraracial] placements" (p. 86). However, Zastrow noted that "because of the
close association between parental satisfaction and personality adjustment, adoption
agencies have some assurance that if a high level of parents' satisfaction is demonstrated
in research of this type, a satisfactory adjustment of the children can also be expected" (p.

11). The interpretation of the findings of this study demonstrate Zastrow's endorsement of

34

this statement. Therefore, when reviewing Zastrow's conclusions regarding the
psychological adjustment of the transracial adoptees in his study, the failure to directly
measure the psychological adjustment of the transracial adoptees themselves must be
considered. It cannot be assumed that the adoptive parents’ perceptions of their children’s
experience is the same as the actual experiences of the children.

Simon and Alstein (1977) surveyed 204 families who had adopted transracially in
the Midwest to determine the relations between the adoptive parents and the transracial
adoptees and between the siblings within the families. They also investigated the
adoptive parents' perceptions of the adoptees' racial identities and the parents'
expectations of the children's future identities. The transracial adoptees included African
American, Native American, Korean, Eskimo, and Mexican children. Using projective
measures such as the Clark Doll Test, pictures, and other instruments, Simon and Alstein
found that transracially adopted children were more "racially color blind and more
indifferent to race as a basis for evaluation than any other group reported in any previous
study, including studies not only on children in the United States but in Hawaii, New
Zealand, and other parts of the world" (p. 1, Simon & Alstein, 1981). They also found
that the parents tended to believe that race did not and would not be a major issue in how
people perceived, evaluated, or related to each other. These adoptive parents were
optimistic but seemingly realistic about the likelihood of their children's
emotional/psychological adjustment and about their children's ability to "relate to the

culture and society of their adopted parents and to the society of their ethnic origins" (p.

35

2, Simon & Alstein, 1981).

In a follow-up study, Simon and Alstein (1981) contacted the families from their
study published in 1977 to assess the families' subsequent experiences and perceptions.
Simon and Alstein were able to contact 71 percent of the original sample (Simon &
Alstein, 1977), and had a return rate of 93 percent on their survey questionnaire. They
found that similar percentages of families lived in predominantly White neighborhoods
(77%) and the remaining families lived in mixed communities. Sixty-three percent of the
transracial adoptees reported that most of their fiiends were White, about one-third had
both Black and White friends, and three percent had mostly Black friends. A large
majority of the transracial adoptees (74%) were considered to be "doing well" in school
with no academic problems or conflicts with teachers, but 14 percent of the children were
described as "slow learners" and another 10 percent were "not motivated." The remaining
two percent had difficulties with teachers.

The racial identity of the transracial adoptees was assessed by asking parents to
report how their adopted children described themselves through racial categories. These
reports differed from the reports of the transracial adoptees' actual racial distributions.
For example, 65 percent of the adoptees were actually African American, but only 45
percent of the parents believed that their children would identify themselves as Black.
None of the children was White, but parents believed that 15 percent of the children
would consider themselves White. Simon and Alstein quoted some of the parents'

surveys and noted the difficulties some of the children had in identifying themselves. The

36

contradictory nature of these findings are of interest particularly in comparison with the
findings of Shireman and Johnson (1986) and Johnson et a1. (1987). Johnson et a1.
(1987) and Shireman and Johnson (1986) showed that the transracial adoptees had greater
awareness of and preference for their racial group membership, but Simon and Alstein's
(1981) findings indicate that the transracial adoptees were perhaps less aware of or more
reluctant to identify themselves according to their racial group membership. These
differences in findings may be due to the sources of the reports. In the Johnson et al. and
Shireman and Johnson studies, the transracially adopted children themselves were
assessed; however, in the Simon and Alstein study the parents of the transracial adoptees
were the sources of the information. However, the results of these studies could also be
interpreted as supportive of the predictions and criticisms of opponents to transracial
adoption.

Silverman and F eigelrnan (1981) studied the psychological adjustment of
transracially adopted Black children as compared to the effects of delayed placement of
children. Based on reports in the literature regarding increased opposition from family
and fiiends toward transracial adoption, especially adoption of Black children, Silverman
and Feigelman stated that "it seems probable that the hostility that does exist toward
transracially adopted Black children does have some negative effect on their adjustment"
(p. 531). However, they also noted that delayed placement of transracial adoptees would
be likely to have an effect on the adjustment of transracial adoptees. Silverman and

F eigelrnan compared 56 White families who transracially adopted Black children and 97

37

White families who intraracially adopted White children on an index of maladjustment.
This index consisted of responses to questions for parents regarding the adoptees overall
adjustment and the frequency of emotional, growth, and physical problems for the
adoptees. They found that both "family opposition" and "age at adoption" were significant
predictors of maladjustment. Significant differences in adjustment were found for the
Black children. However, when controlling for the children's age at adoption, the effects
of the race of the child on scores of maladjustment were no longer significant. Silverman
and Feigelman concluded that these findings "imply that when a choice must be made
between transracial placement and continued foster or institutional care, transracial
placement is clearly the option most conducive to the welfare of the child" (p. 535).
McRoy et al. (1982) looked at both the self-esteem and racial identity of 30
transracially adopted Black children as compared to 30 intraracially adopted Black
children. The mean age of the children in the sample was 13. 5 years. They found no
differences in self-esteem on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale between Black children
who had been either transracially or intraracially adopted. Of these children, 22 (73%)
were racially mixed with at least one Black parent. The Twenty Statements Test was also
used and revealed that transracial adoptees were more likely to make racial self-referents
and to acknowledge their adoption status than were intraracial adoptees. In addition,
interviews consisting of 95 items were conducted with the adoptive parents. These
interview items addressed demographic information of the family, adoption experiences,

composition of the adoptees' school and community environments, relationships, and

38

parental beliefs and attitudes about the adoptees' racial identity. McRoy et al. (1982)
interpreted some of these interview data as indicating that transracial adoptees who lived
in racially integrated communities, attended integrated schools, and whose parents
"accepted their child's black racial identity" (p. 525) tended to have more positive feelings
about their racial group membership than those transracial adoptees who had little contact
with people of their racial group and whose parents de—emphasized their children's racial
identity.

McRoy et al. (1984), using the transracial adoptee sample from the McRoy et al.
(1982) study, detailed the interview data from McRoy et al. (1982) more extensively.
Many of the findings replicated the findings from the interviews reported by McRoy et al.
(1982), were interpreted similarly, and were applied to distinguish the sociopsychological
context that affects the "development of racial self-feelings among transracially adopted
children" (p. 38). The findings from this study were influential in increasing the
understanding of the impact of the environment on transracial adoptees' beliefs, attitudes,
and feelings about their racial group membership. Although these findings provided
important information for transracially adopting parents, they may also differ in present-
day-society due to changes in the social climate unique to each decade.

Another study addressing identity issues for transracial ("transethnic") adoptees
was conducted by Andujo (198 8). This study revealed some of the implicit judgments
made within the social work field regarding transracial adoption. Andujo studied 60

Mexican American children between 12 and 17 years of age, half of whom were adopted

39

b} It:

crnnt‘
p‘filrd.

I".
"" "an
tum—1511

stirrer
lads ts:
accultrrz
L'lfiif 1m;

.inlujo i

CZ-TjD—l

(‘1

Ml Idc

‘V, ‘ '
utxb-I
‘r1

5111

71111: id

9.
\

by White parents and the other half of whom were adopted by Mexican American
parents. No differences were found in the level of self-esteem as measured using the
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale between the transracially adopted and intraracially adopted
children. Differences were found between acculturation levels (using the Mexican-
American Value Attitude Scale) and the ways in which parents dealt with preparing their
children to deal with racism; however, these differences were moderated by the
socioeconomic status of the families. Families adopting intraracially but in high-income
levels tended to rear their children similarly to those adopting transracially (i.e., higher
acculturation level and the de-emphasizing of ethnicity). In discussing these findings and
their implications, a bias of the investigator and, possibly of the field of social work (i.e.,
Andujo is an assistant professor of social work) was clearly indicated.

The denial of one's heritage and emphasis on a "human identity" is potentially

problematic: Ad0ptees who physically appear Mexican American may view

themselves as different from other Mexican Americans and thus deny any
connection with their ethnicity. . . . Because a majority of the transethnic adoptees
studied had not developed a positive sense of ethnicity (manifested as pride in
their ethnic roots and appearance), these individuals may not have reconciled their

inner and outer experiences. (p. 534)

These statements demonstrate explicitly the value judgments placed upon ethnic
identity. Andujo's assumption regarding what constitutes a "positive" ethnic identity has
not been empirically demonstrated by either her study or by other studies on ethnic or
racial identity. In fact, Andujo found similar levels of self esteem among adoptees
despite their different ethnic identities. Therefore, the definition of a positive sense of

ethnic identity may come from a value judgment regarding the "best way to be a Mexican

40

American" rather than from empirically demonstrated evidence on what constitutes a
positive ethnic identity for transracial adoptees (Tizard & Phoenix, 1994). Furthermore,
the “denial of one’s heritage” is not unique to transracial adoptees and can occur among
other racial ethnic minorities raised by their biological parents.

As this review suggests, several studies have been conducted demonstrating the
relationship between racial/ethnic identity and self-esteem and/or psychological
adjustment in transracial adoptees. However, many of these studies have yielded varying
results making interpretation of the outcomes difiicult. In a recent paper, Hollingsworth
(1997) conducted a meta-analytic review of empirical studies which addressed the
racial/ethnic identity and self-esteem of transracial adoptees. To be included in the
review, the empirical studies had to meet the following criteria: (a) were conducted on
transracial adoptees in the United States, (b) made use of comparison groups; (c) included
comparison groups of Caucasian families adopting non-White children (transracial
adoptions), non-White families adopting same-race children (intraracial adoption), and/or
non-White biological children; (d) collected data directly from the transracial adoptees;
(e) categorized biracial children based on the birth parent from a racial ethnic minority
group in America; and (f) used racial/ethnic identity and self-esteem as dependent
variables. Hollingsworth expected to find that transracial adoption would have a moderate
effect on the racial/ethnic identity and self-esteem of transracial adoptees. This was
partially supported by the data. The effect was in the negative direction indicating that

transracial adoption was related to slightly lower racial/ethnic identity or self-esteem

41

levels for transracial adoptees when compared to that of intraracial adoptees. However,
when self-esteem and racial identity were analyzed separately, adoption status (transracial
versus intraracial) was not related to lower levels of self-esteem but it was related to
lower levels of racial/ethnic identity. Hollingsworth also found that the age of transracial
adoptees at the time when the studies occurred impacted the effect of transracial adoption
on racial identity. This finding suggests that racial/ethnic identity may decrease as the
transracial adoptees become older. However, the mean ages of the children in each of the
studies were below age 18. In only five of the nine included samples of transracial
adoptees, the adoptees had mean ages in adolescence. The fact that the adoptees were
adolescents may reflect the process of identity formation and racial identity formation
through which the adoptees may be progressing.

The meta-analytic review (Hollingsworth, 1997) also revealed that heterogeneity
among the studies exists. This heterogeneity was explained by determining that the
publication source (i.e., journal articles vs. meeting presentations vs. theses), the year of
publication, the geographical recruitment area, and the sample size served as potential
moderators of the effects found in the study. Hollingsworth identified the study conducted
by Andujo (1988) as an outlier due to its large effect size. Without inclusion of the effect
size of the Andujo (1988) study, the homogeneity of the studies in the meta-analysis
would have increased, thereby allowing greater generalization of the results of the meta-
analysis. Hollingsworth suggested that one explanation for the Andujo (1988) study as an

outlier may be due to differences between biracial children as in the McRoy et al. (1984)

42

study and children who were Mexican American. Because many of the transracial
adoptees included in the Andujo (1988) and McRoy et al. (1984) studies were biracial,
their physical or phenotypic appearance and racially-mixed heritage may have impacted
their racial identity statuses. Hollingsworth further noted the importance of studying
differential effects of transracial adoption on children of racially mixed heritage.

The reviews of the above studies were primarily based on domestic transracial
adoptions. Although some of the studies included adoptees who may have been born in
foreign countries, the focus of the studies was on their adjustment, racial identity, and/or
self-esteem as a result of being transracially adopted in America. As the following set of
studies will demonstrate, other researchers have specifically addressed the transracial
adoption of foreign-bom children by American families. Unique to those studies is the
attention paid to the adoptees' pre-placement histories and the controversy surrounding
intercountry adoptions.

Intercountry/internationg transracial adoptees in the United Sta_t_e_s_.

As a result of the political nature of transracial adoption placements in the United
States, the criticism of such placements has restricted and complicated the adoption of
Black children by White parents. In recent years, various developing countries around the
world have allowed people from other countries to adopt the children from these
countries. Alstein, Coster, First-Harding, Ford, Glasoe, Hairston, Kasoff, and Wellbom
Grier (1994) estimated that "since the mid-19508, more than 100,000 foreign-bom

children have been adopted by American families" (p. 262). They also cited that foreign

43

born children are still being adopted by Americans at a rate of approximately 10,000 per
year—about one-sixth of all nonrelative adoptions.

Although the Republic of Korea was, at one time, the primary source of foreign-
bom children who were adoptable, other countries have opened their doors as well.
Currently, China represents a large source of intercountry/transracial adoptions. With a
large number of transracial adoptees being adopted from foreign countries having
different cultural practices, religions, and languages, the previous studies focusing
primarily on Black children adopted by White parents may not adequately address the
issues surrounding intercountry/transracial adoptions. Factors such as prejudice, racism,
and cultural differences still apply; however, additional factors of stereotypes and
language difficulties for each of the racial and cultural groups involved must be
examined. Because many of the female children being adopted from China were
abandoned due to strict birth rate laws (Bagley, 1993a), these children tend to have less
information about their personal histories and their medical histories and they tend to
have experienced the additional trauma that accompanies abandonment.

Due to the tendency of foreign-born children to be older at the time of their
adoption, many researchers have focused their work on examining the effects of age at
adoption on adjustment. Welter (1965) compared 36 foreign-bom adoptees with
American adoptees who were matched on several characteristics. All adoptees were

between four and 12 years of age at adoption. Welter found no significant differences in

the number of problems expressed. However, foreign-bom adoptees reported fewer

44

"inter-psychic-interpersonal" problems but more cultural problems. Overall, the
adjustment of the foreign-born adoptees was higher than that of the American-born
adoptees.

Kim (1977) studied Korean transracial adoptees. His sample was 406 Korean and
Black-Korean children between 12 and 17 years of age and adopted by White parents.
The sample was divided into a group of 195 children who were adopted before age one
and 211 who were adopted after age six. At the time of the assessments, the adoptees
were adolescents ranging in age from 12 to 17 years of age. Kim was interested in
studying the issue of identity among transracially adopted adolescents. He administered
the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and a questionnaire. Although all of the transracial
adoptees had " good adjustment," those adopted earlier (before one year of age) were more
well-adjusted in all areas than were the older adoptees.

In another study of Korean transracial adoptees, Kim, Hong, and Kim (1979)
examined the adjustment of 12 adoptees having a mean age of five years two months
reared by New York families. The children were adopted after age three. Kim et al. found
many learning and behavioral problems in the children. These problems were interpreted
to be related to English language acquisition problems, acculturation problems, and the
shock of "transcultural transplantation." However, these findings must be viewed with
caution given the lack of a comparison group for examining results. Despite the likely
problem of finding a comparison group of Korean adoptees reared by Korean families

given the cultural and practical restraints that rarely if ever resulted in this form of

45

intraracial adoption, the findings of Kim et al. (1979) study must be interpreted with this
limitation in mind.

Alstein, Coster, First-Harding, Ford, Glasoe, Hairston, Kasoff, and Wellbom
Grier (1994) reported data from interviews done with 29 young adult transracial adoptees
who were born in Asian countries. The interviews addressed the adoptees' psychological
adjustment, their relationships with their adoptive families, their academic achievement,
friendships, activities, ambitions, and religious practices. The data for the study consisted
of the interviewers’ reports of their clinical observations. The interviewers noted that
"practically all adoptees felt that the adoption made absolutely no difference in family
dynamics and that the parent-adoptee relationship was the same as with biological
children and their families" (p. 265). They also concluded their data "do not appear to
show any distinct differences that would lead to the expectation that being adopted a
priori causes trauma" (p. 265). The observations comprising the data for this study were
compelling evidence regarding the impact of transracial adoption. However, as with all
interview data and clinical observations, the data must be considered with caution.

In a recent case review of transracial adoptions of Korean children, Kim (1995)
noted that "the transracial adoption of Asian children has not received much scientific
attention nor controversy" (p. 142). However, despite its lack of attention, this group has
increased for many years and Korean children comprise the large majority of these
adoptees in the United States. Between the years of 1976 and 1981, approximately 50%

of all foreign adoptions in the US. and 59% in 1986, were of Korean children (Kim,

46

51'-
‘ t
A

YD

1K0}

1995). Although the numbers have decreased and the Korean government has recently
begun to discourage international adoption, the adoption of Korean children by American
couples continues to occur. Kim estimated that 80,000 Korean children have been
adopted by American farrrilies. Kim cited the social and cultural factors in Korea that
contributed to the high availability of Korean children for adoption, but he also noted that
stereotypes of the Asian countries have made these children popular for transracial
adoptions.

In Kim's review of the literature on Korean adoptees, he grouped findings
according to developmental periods. His findings suggested that "Korean children seem
to be doing better than adoptees of other ethnic groups" (p. 149). Of particular interest is
his finding that although Korean adoptees did better academically, received less
professional psychiatric care for problems, and did better in emotional, developmental,
social, and academic areas than did White or Black adoptees, the Korean adoptees
showed more discomfort about their appearance than did White adoptees. Kim also
reported findings indicating the adoptees often identified themselves as "American" rather
than "Korean-American" or "Korean." Due to Kim's conclusion that the Korean adoptees
did better than others, he deveIOped some hypotheses regarding this finding. He suggested
that they may have been less traumatized prior to adoption than others. Other
explanations offered for their adjustment were the lower prevalence of child abuse in
Korea due to the high value placed on children, the self-fulfilling prophesies of positive

outcomes for Korean adoptees, the lower risk of behavioral and emotional problems in

47

girls coupled with the greater numbers of adopted Korean girls, and the temperamental fit
of Korean children within American culture.
Transracial Adoption in Foreign Countries

Although the controversy about the practice of transracial adoption has not been
limited to America, some professionals believe that race relations, the history of racial
tension, and the diversity of races in the United States make transracial placements in the
US. qualitatively different fiom transracial adoption in other countries (Hollingsworth,
1997). These differences are likely to have an impact on the psychological adjustment and
racial identity of transracial adoptees. However, despite the social and political
differences that exist among America, the United Kingdom, and The Netherlands (i.e., the
three countries where transracial adoption has primarily been studied), the findings from
the studies in countries outside America are of value and can inform the current study.

In a review of the empirical evidence regarding intercountry adoption, Tizard
(1991) cited many of the criticisms that have been lodged by the Third World and some
Western social workers, especially in Britain, against intercountry adoption. Those
Opposing intercountry adoption have called the "practice . . . a new form of colonialism,
with wealthy Westerners robbing poor countries of their children, and thus their
resources" (p. 746). Moreover, national pride is involved in the debate. Implied by the
practice of intercountry adoption is that these countries cannot care for their own children.
Knowledge of the abuses of intercountry adoptions in some countries causes wariness and

fears of "trafficking in children" and children being bought and sold by "baby brokers."

48

However, the "fundamental" criticism of intercountry adoption is that "children adopted
from Third World countries will lose access to their own culture and their roots, and will
have a confused identity. In addition they will be exposed to racism, an evil which they
would not meet in their own country" (p. 746). Bagley (1993a) added other criticisms
made against intercountry adoption. Some critics believe intercountry adoptions distort
patterns of child welfare in the countries from which the children are adopted. Other
critics fear parents may place children for adoption to receive financial rewards or
because they do not understand adoption. Lastly, critics suggest that wealthy but possibly
"unsuitable" parents can adopt due to their wealth.

Despite these criticisms, intercountry adoption continues to be practiced. Tizard
(1991) reviewed studies on intercountry adoptees and found that the patterns of results
resembled findings in intracountry adoptions and that "as a group, adopted children have
no more problems than other children, whilst others found slightly higher levels of
disturbance at specific ages, especially in boys . . . However, it should be stressed that in
both intracountry and intercountry adoption the majority of children have no more
behavioral and emotional problems than non-adopted children" (p. 750). Tizard also
reported findings indicating that when parents and children were more satisfied with the
adoption, the children had a greater tendency to have a positive self-image and fewer
behavioral problems.

In the 1960's, Britain faced several of the same concerns regarding transracial

adoption that America faced. To better formulate policy, to understand the effects of

49

transracial adoption, and to answer the question 0 whether families be found for “colored
children," the British Adoption Project (BAP) was enacted (as cited in Gill & Jackson,
1983). Fears regarding the availability of families willing to adopt transracially did not
come to fruition. After placing non-White children with White families, the families were
assessed. Interviews were conducted with families regarding health, development,
personality, social and family relationships and problems possibly due to the child having
been adopted and his/her race. The interviewer and independent rater rated the adjustment
and progress of the children. Findings indicated that 94 percent of the transracial adoptees
made "very good" or "satisfactory" adjustment. Greater than 75 percent of the parents
were assessed as making "very good" or "satisfactory" adjustment as adoptive parents. As
with previously reported studies, no comparison group was included, thus limiting the
applicability of the findings.

Harper (1986) published findings on a study of the transracial adoption of older
children in Australia. All adoptees for the study were at least four years old at the time of
adoption. Twelve girls and 15 boy from Sri Lanka, India, Korea, Indonesia, South
America, and Thailand comprised the sample. The mean age of the adoptees was 10 years
eight months. Questionnaires were mailed to families. Adoptive parents reported multiple
transition problems faced by the children, particularly problems with deprivation, culture,
past experiences and trauma, and communication. Harper cited the importance of the
child's past as having a powerful influence on adjustment. Harper stated, “important in

this respect is the parents' attitude to the child's racial past and their commitment to

50

_.—‘

keeping alive the cultural heritage through a continuing process of acculturation" (p. 30).
Harper found the overall "success" rating for the transracial adoption was "good up to the
time of the follow-up and suggests that older-aged inter-country adoptions are able to
catch up physically and emotionally and integrate into a new family and culture" (p. 30).
Verhulst, a Dutch psychiatrist and professor, and his colleagues published a series
of three papers reporting on the problem behavior in international adoptees. In the initial
paper, Verhulst, Althaus, and Versluis-den Bieman (1990a) compared 2,148 international
adoptees who were between the ages of 10 and 15 with 933 children matched on age from
the general, nonadopted population. In the group of international adoptees, 32% were
Korean, 14.6% were Colombian, 9.5% were Indian, 7.9% were Indonesian, 6.7% were
from Bangladesh, 4.9% were Lebanese, 5% were Austrian, 4.2% were from other
European countries, and the remaining 15.2% were from other non-European countries.
The children's parents were administered the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL). Although they reported findings indicating that the adopted children engaged in
more externalizing problem behavior, such behavior accounted for less than 1% of the
variance in problem behavior. Problem scores increased with age for the adopted children
and decreased for the nonadopted children. An interaction between sex and adoption
status was also found with adopted boys having higher problem scores than adopted girls.
However, Verhulst et al. (1990a) found that when those scoring above the 90th percentile
were excluded from analyses, the effect of adoption status was no longer significant. This

indicated that the differences found between adopted and nonadopted children "could be

51

attributed to a minority of boys' extremely high scores" (p. 97). When the highest scoring
children from both samples were excluded in the analyses, Verhulst et al. found the
majority of adopted children had scores in the same range as nonadopted children.
Among adopted boys between 12 and 15 years of age, more than twice as many
scored above the clinical criteria for problem behavior than did nonadopted boys in the
same age range. Boys in this age range had higher scores than nonadopted boys in this age
range on the hyperactive, delinquent, and externalizing scales. Adopted girls in the same
age range were given significantly higher scores on the schizoid scale. According to
parents' ratings, the internationally adopted children were seen as less competent in social
and academic functioning than nonadopted children but were viewed as more active and
better functioning in sports and nonsports activities. Furthermore, internationally adopted
children having lower socioeconomic statuses were found to be perceived as having
higher academic performances and fewer school problems than those from higher
socioeconomic statuses. This finding may be due to differences in parental expectations
in the different income levels. The authors also advised caution in generalizing their
findings because, as they noted, "the extent to which many important factors, possibly
associated with causative mechanisms, such as ethnic background, age at placement, and
negative experiences, may differ markedly across samples in different studies" (p. 102).
In their second paper in the series, Verhulst, Althaus, and Versluis-den Bieman
(1990b) reported on the effects of international adoptees' age at placement on the scores

given by parents on the CBCL. Verhulst et al. (1990b) recognized the "elevated risk of

52

maladjustment" that international adoptees have due to such factors as genetic
vulnerability, personal and social stress of birth parents, potentially poor prenatal and
perinatal care, birth hazards, malnourishrnent, and negative environmental influences.
The authors also cited the possibility of poor social relationships and interactional styles
due to institutionalized living. For those international adoptees who also are transracial
adoptees (approximately 80-95% of the sample according to their report of racial ethnic
backgrounds), Verhulst et al. cited transracial adoptees' increased vulnerability due to
their "different appearance" (p. 104) causing them to feel "excluded from other family
members or peers" (p. 104). Although no consensus has been reached regarding the
optimal age for adoption placement and because evidence has been found demonstrating
selective attachments to adoptive parents in adoptees placed at three and four years of
age, the authors did a commendable job attempting to determine the risk for behavioral
and emotional problems and the patterns of maladjustment that age at placement presents
in international adoptees.

Using the same sample of children as reported by Verhulst et al. (1990a), Verhulst
et al. (1990b) assessed the effects that the international adoptees' ages at the time of
adoption had on their problem behavior scores. They found that the older the children
were at the time of their adoption, the greater the probability that they would develop
behavioral/emotional problems. In addition, older age at placement was also associated
with a greater risk for lower performance in school. Among international adoptees 12 to

15 years of age, those older when adopted tended to have a higher risk for receiving high

53

scores on the delinquent and uncommunicative syndromes if they were boys and on the
cruel, depressed, and schizoid syndromes if they were girls.

In the final paper of the series, Verhulst, Versluis-den Bieman, Van der Ende,
Berden, and Sanders-Woudstra (1990c) addressed the prevalence of international
adoptees being diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. Based on parental ratings on the
CBCL in the first paper in the series (V erhulst et al., 1990a) and using that same sample,
66 international adoptees who were 14 years old and had scores above the 85th percentile
were chosen and matched according to age and country of origin with 67 international
adoptees from the original sample but who did not score above the 85th percentile. The
adoptees were interviewed using the Child Assessment Schedule, were administered the
WISC-R short form, completed the Youth Self Report (a self-report form of the CBCL),
and were given a DSM-III diagnosis and a severity rating. The adoptive parents were
interviewed using a questionnaire and the adoptees' teachers completed a Teacher Report
Form (a teacher version of the CBCL). Based on the ratings, a "disordered" and a
"nondisordered" group were determined. Verhulst et al. (1990c) found that boys tended to
exhibit more disruptive behavior whereas girls reported poor peer relations and
depression. For all problem areas, the "disordered" group had higher mean scores with
antisocial behavior accounting for 34% of the variance. Twenty-five percent of the
variance was accounted for by school problems and poor relations with parents. Higher
scores were also found for the "disordered" boys over girls than for the children in the

"nondisordered" group. A 28% prevalence rate for psychiatric disorders was found in this

54

sample with a 22% rate among girls and a 36% rate among boys. Conduct disorders were
more frequently found among these adolescents than in general population samples. The
authors also reported that "disordered" international adoptees tended to exhibit behavior
characterized by antisocial behaviors, poor relationships, and problems of affect.
Verhulst, Althaus, and Versluis-den Bieman (1992) conducted a study examining
the effects of international adoptees' backgrounds on their adjustment. They cited
increased risk for maladjustment due to prenatal and perinatal factors (e.g., maternal
stress during pregnancy, poor/inadequate prenatal and perinatal care, malnutrition and
infectious diseases of birth mother during pregnancy) and due to factors after the birth
(e. g., malnutrition and medical conditions, poor adult-child relationships and inconsistent
caretaking, deprivation, abuse, acquisition of survival behaviors not adaptive in adoptive
family, and influences in the adoptive environment including family, school, and social
interactions). Using the same sample as described in Verhulst et al. (1990a), the authors
sought to gain an explanation for the finding regarding age at placement (V erhulst et al.,
1990b). They suggested that one explanation may be that when a child is older at the time
of adoption, the child may have been exposed to negative environmental influences.
Other explanations could be that older children have formed strong attachments to
caretakers and adoption requires coping with the trauma of the loss, that adoptive parents
may have difficulty adjusting to older children already having unfamiliar habits and
behaviors, and that older children have more adjustments to make (e. g., language

acquisition). Findings indicated that "the majority of children who had backgrounds

55

known to be damaging seemed to function quite well. . . apparently, the negative effects
of early adverse influences can fade away under the positive influences by the adoptive
family" (p. 522). However, they also found that when children were subjected to early,
negative environmental influences, they had a greater probability of exhibiting
maladaptive behaviors at a later age.

In a study of transracial adoptions in Britain, Bagley (1993b) reported on a follow-
up of a study conducted by Bagley in 1979. In the 1979 study, 30 Black or mixed-race
transracially adopted children were compared with 30 Caucasian intraracially adopted
children, with 30 Black and mixed-race children in foster or group care, and with 24
children in a "nonseparated comparison group" (p. 289). All children were between six
and eight years old. Bagley reported that the transracially adopted children had "generally
good psychological outcomes in terms of a number of standardized measures of
adjustment, although some Caucasian parents had few black fi'iends and were unable or
unwilling to transmit to their children any consciousness or pride in the heritage of being
black" (p. 289). Bagley also reported findings regarding background characteristics
thought to impact racial awareness in adoptive parents. He found that adoptive parents of
higher social status, who were older, and who already had existing children in the family
were more racially aware. These parents tended to make a conscious decision to adopt a
mixed-race child rather than adopting due to infertility.

In a follow-up of that study, Bagley (1993b) studied transracial adoptees in Britain

and found that the adjustment and identity of transracial adoptees as measured by the

56

Middlesex Hospital Questionnaire and measures of self-esteem, identity, ego identity, and
self-image were "generally excellen " (p. 285). He also found that the percentage of
adoptees described as being poorly adjusted or having identity problems among
transracial adoptees was approximately the same among intraracial adoptees. Bagley
concurred with the findings of previous studies of transracial adoptees and noted,
"transracial adoption may be qualitatively different from inracial [intraracial] adoption in
terms of identity outcomes, but it is by no means inferior in terms of identity and
adjustment" (p. 293).

Chinese transracial adoptees who were raised in Britain were also the subject of a
study conducted by Bagley (1993a). Bagley described the dilemma in the People's
Republic of China where female children are frequently hidden, placed in orphanages,
adopted by friends or relatives, or, in the worst cases, killed at birth. Because of Chinese
social structure (male children care for aging parents and girls are "given" to their
husbands' families) and because China has policies on the number of children permitted
per household, female children have frequently been adopted internationally. He reported
on the initial investigation involving these adoptees. In that study, 67 of the transracially
adopted Chinese girls were interviewed and completed reports. At the time of the study,
the girls were between 12 and 18 years old. This study was based on the work of Erikson
(1968) and the degree to which the transracial adoptees' identity formation had allowed
for adequate adjustment. Bagley concluded that there were "few problems of identity"

(Bagley, 1993a, p. 149) and that "the only negative feature was some degree of anxiety

57

a 1

and over-protection in about 10 percent of parents" (p. 149). These girls' self-esteem was
compared to 100 control subjects matched for age and sex but not for social class and the
findings indicated that the adoptees had significantly better self-esteem than the control
group. The identity development of the adoptees was also assessed and Bagley (1993b)
found that the level of self-esteem and the level of identity development (ego strength)
did not vary significantly according to the degree to which adoptive parents "emphasized
the difference between cultural origins of the child and themselves" (p. 150).

Bagley (1993b) conducted a follow-up of this study when the Chinese
transracially adopted "girls" were between 22 and 28 years old. The follow-up was with
44 of the original sample and interviews were again conducted. The women also
completed the Middlesex Hospital Questionnaire, the revised Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Scale for adults, a measure of personal orientation and self-actualization, and a measure
of self-sentiment. Comparisons were made with control subjects (2 for each adoptee) and
no significant differences were found between the transracial adoptees and the control
subjects. Moreover, the women had high levels of educational and occupational
attainment with only three women having "manifest problems of mental health or
adjustment" (p. 153). With regard to the women's ethnic identity as determined by self-
identification and items about the women's satisfaction with their adopted families, all of
the women identified themselves as English and approximately half "maintained a strong

emotional or intellectual interest in Chinese culture and institutions" (p. 152).

58

Counseling Transracial Adoptees

After the NABSW (1972) first issued their statement predicting the problems and
psychological maladjustment expected to accompany transracial adoption, the vast
majority of the literature addressing the adjustment of transracial adoptees focused on
either proving or disproving the predictions of the NABSW. Relatively little work
actually addressed the counseling and psychotherapy needs of transracial adoptees. Most
studies have attempted to determine the conditions under which transracial adoption
should take place; that is, families adopting transracially should consider how they feel
about having a child of a different race than they are, what levels of integration to seek in
schools, neighborhoods, and communities, at which age ranges they should adopt, etc.
(e.g., Gill & Jackson, 1983; Grow & Shapiro, 1974; Silverman & Feigelman, 1981). By
focusing on these considerations, transracial adoption researchers have frequently failed
to address transracial adoptees' psychological adjustment after the adoption has taken
place. In the adoption researcher's preoccupation with demonstrating the effects of
transracial adoption, they have yet to study transracial adoptees as they actually are. As
Hill and Peltzer suggested, "our philosophy was that where adoption of black children by
white parents was already a fact, something needed to be done to help those existing
families with the problems of raising a minority child in our society" (p. 5.61). Hayes
(1993) suggested that the determination of the "best interests of the child" has often been
overlooked due to greater attention to the political agendas of many involved in the

transracial adoption debate. The few papers on counseling transracial adoptees reinforces

59

 

A

the position taken by Hayes.

Transracial adoption has and will continue to take place, thus complicating the
issue. What about the transracial adoptees who have already been placed? If they need
psychological services, what do we do for them? The question, then, becomes what, how,
when, by whom, and for whom should psychologists and social workers address
psychological interventions? Should we assume that all racial ethnic minorities have
homogenous experiences that all indicate similar treatment? Or should we take the
approach that according to each individual's racial group membership, particular cross-
cultural counseling techniques can be utilized? Or perhaps we could take a universal
approach to counseling and assume all counseling is cross-cultural? Regardless of the
question that we choose to make primary, the vast amount of multicultural counseling
literature available demonstrates the need to at least consider transracial adoptees as a
unique group and with potentially unique counseling needs.

Unfortunately, a review of the literature revealed few studies addressing the
counseling needs of transracial adoptees. The literature that does exist is brief and
prescriptive. No empirical literature addressing the counseling process or counseling
preferences or counseling needs of transracial adoptees was located in the literature
review. The few published papers on counseling transracial adoptees were written by
social workers, a rehabilitation counselor, school counselors, and family and children
researchers. The single study conducted by a psychologist was conducted in a joint social

work and psychology department (Richard Liow, 1994). This demonstrates that

60

psychologists as a whole and counseling psychologists in particular have yet to contribute
to the professional literature on transracial adoptees. Although the population of
transracial adoptees is relatively small as compared to the population of the United States,
this unique group of individuals has a set of unique experience which may require
sensitivity to the cultural and racial differences between the adoptees and their parents.
First, however, the existing literature addressing the counseling needs of transracial
adoptees must be reviewed.

The first paper to address counseling and transracial adoption focused on
groupwork done with adoptive parents (Rathbun & Kolodny, 1967). The group took place
in Massachusetts at an adoption agency. The group consisted of the adoptive parents of
five pre-adolescent Chinese girls adopted from Hong Kong. All adoptive parents in the
group had biological children as well. The group met 10 times and was described as
evolving fiom a group intended to assist the adoption agency to a group that served as a
support source for parents experiencing similar changes. The paper addressed transracial
adoptees’ cultural adjustments as they were related to age at adoption, language
acquisition, comfort and adjustment to their new family, the potential marginality the
children would encounter, and the conflict between aiding the children in acculturating to
America versus maintaining ties to and schooling within the children's Chinese culture.
The group served primarily as a support group in which the group leader gave no advice.
The lack of advice given was clearly demonstrated by the authors' account of the

"disguised racial hostility" of some of the parents. The authors' quoted some of the

61

parents as saying racially derogatory remarks in an attempt to "prepare" their daughter for
racist remarks when she grew older. However, rather than refiaming the remarks to the
daughter and explaining both how to cope with the remarks and how to understand them,
the parents used remarks such as "crazy as a Chinaman" and "chink" "so that their
daughter would know first that they could be made by people who love you [her] and
were not meant to be derogatory" (p. 120). The report of this groupwork clearly
demonstrated the tremendous amount of work still needing to be done in this area.
Groupwork was again the chosen modality in a report by Hill and Peltzer (1982).
The authors served as facilitators of 13 educational and therapeutic groups for White
parents of Black children (i.e., they included single parents of biracial children and
transracially adoptive parents and parents in interracial marriages with biracial children).
The authors clearly stated a position in which they expressed concern over White parents'
ability to properly parent Black children in a racist, inconsistent, and socially unjust

society due to White parents endemic racism." They also considered children having a
White and a Black birth parent as Black although they occasionally acknowledged the
children's biracial status. The goals of the groups were initially to enable White parents to
"examine their own self-esteem and self-concept issues; to identify their own racism, the
racism of others, and institutional racism; and, to understand how racism impacts upon
their lives" (p. 565) so the parents could raise their children with "positive black
identities." The composition of each group differed slightly fi'om the others depending on

the number/presence of transracially adoptive parents, single White parents, married or

62

divorced White birth parents of black/biracial children, and even a single Black parent of
a black/biracial child. The groups examined black history and culture, current experiences
as black individuals in society, the Black community's perceptions of Black children
raised by White parents, the development of a "positive self-concept as a black" (p. 558),
parental feelings about having a Black child, the establishment of relationships within the
Black community, ways to handle prejudice toward family and child, and difficulties in
determining belongingness as well as rejection by both Black and White communities.
Hill and Peltzer did a brief and incomplete depiction of the study characteristics and did
not provide adequate information on the samples and the methodology to replicate their
results. Thus, their conclusions must be considered with caution and their biases must be
acknowledged.

Some of their findings were: (a) the groups were more valuable to parents if the
children were at least three years old (i.e., has been in socialization process to allow
discussion of possible racial incidents); (b) a Black/White co-leader approach is essential
to bridge racism and to allow identification models for participants, the mixture of
participants "works" (p. 565); (c) children's groups enable children to share common
experiences; (d) a therapeutic focus allows strong bonds to be formed for more effective
parenting and for personal growth; (e) White parents of Black children need interaction
and support from Black community members to enable the children to develop a "positive
black identity;" (1) White siblings of Black children need support and help to deal with

racism they experience (as related to having a Black sibling) and with their feelings

63

toward their Black sibling; and (g) "white single parents with black children are at risk
without strong support systems" (p. 565). The findings of this study are interesting due to
the assumptions and political viewpoints of the authors. They acknowledged their shared
belief that all White people have endemic racism to overcome and that Black children
raised by either adoptive or birth White parents would have difficulty with their identity.
This latter belief indicates a narrowing of focus; rather than both the adoptive experience
and the within family racial differences being problematic to identity, Hill and Peltzer
seem to be suggesting that the within-family racial differences alone are sufficient to
cause identity confusion.

Although the paper by Myer and James (1989) represented one of the few
attempts to address counseling needs of transracial adoptees themselves, it was flawed in
several areas (Ramos, 1990). Myer and James considered the counseling needs of
transracial adoptees from school counselors' perspectives. That, in itself, was not
problematic. However, their assumptions regarding some descriptors of transracial
adopted children were. For instance, in reference to an Asian or a Latin American
intercountry/transracial adoptee, the authors cited a need for flexibility in counseling style
to accommodate cultural differences such as that presented by "such reserved and reticent
children" (p. 325). This descriptor and suggestion for counseling transracial adoptees not
only tends to stereotype the adoptees according to the racial ethnic group to which they
belong, but it also fails to account for differences in such things as social and

interpersonal skills and cultural practices likely to be found in transracial adoptees.

64

Because transracial adoptees (depending on their ages at placement) tend to become
socialized while residing with their adoptive parents, the same characteristics found
among Colombians, for example, will frequently not hold true for Colombian children
transracially adopted by White American parents. However, Myer and J arnes (1989) did
acknowledge the potential effects of adoptees’ pre—placement histories as well as the need
to consider those histories when counseling transracial adoptees. Overall, the attempt by
Myer and James to address school counseling for transracial adoptees was greatly needed,
but some of their problematic suggestions are due to their over-reliance on “cookbook”
strategies for cross-cultural counseling and an assumption of older and more maladjusted
children rather than on quantitative and qualitative assessments of transracial adoptees as
they actually presented for counseling.

Ramos (1990) criticized the suggestions made by Myer and James (1989). Ramos
disagreed with the labeling of intercountry/transracial adoptees as “IACs” (internationally
adopted children) due to the disrespect for individuality it engenders. Moreover, Ramos
objected to Myer and James’ assumption that transracial adoptees who are having trouble
in their adoptive homes are caught in a double bind. Ramos expressed concern with “their
casting the adoptive parents into the role of adversaries without any justification”
(Ramos, 1990, p. 149). Ramos also criticized the suggestion of a program to focus on
differences of “IACS” because counselors have not consistently validated the different
forms all families take (e. g., traditional, single-parent, divorced or separated, remarried,

interracial, foster, adoptive, or any combination of these). Ramos concluded by pointing

65

out that “IACs” need to be perceived as “part of the fabric of our multicultural US.
society” (p. 150) rather than as “problems.”

The psychological effects of counseling and suggestions for counseling were
offered by Helwig and Ruthven (1990). They identified several issues as important for
adoptive families to address. Some of these issues are directed at the adoptive parents.
Adoptive parents who are infertile need to work through issues of infertility and to grieve
the infertility otherwise they may “be inappropriate adoptive parents, and they may
inadvertently harm their adoptive children” (p. 26). The authors also acknowledged that
couples may adopt due to the loss or death or miscarriage of an infant, family member,
etc. as a way to ease the pain of loss. Still other couples may adopt when the adoptions
are subsidized (e.g., given governmental allowances for adopting some children).
Regardless of the reason, Helwig and Ruthven addressed the importance of both
acknowledging the reasons for the adoption and for working through those issues. When
adoptions take place transracially, the authors cautioned that these families may
experience more stress and the adoptee may encounter more difficult circumstances in
their development. Parental guilt, problem behavior, and the discovery of physical,
emotional, or mental disabilities in the adoptees are some issues possibly faced in
transracially adopting families. The adoption of older children was also described as
potentially presenting additional issues such as acting out, unknown backgrounds,
communication problems, and testing of attachments to the new family. Adoptive parents

may also be prone to feel they must be perfect or they will lose their child. Fears that the

66

[it

hr

children will leave or seek biological/birth parents may also be experienced by adoptive
parents given that adoptees frequently choose to seek information about or contact with
birth parents.

Counseling interventions to cope with these problems were offered by Helwig and
Ruthven (1990). They suggested pre-placement counseling to cope with ambivalent
feelings or with the impact of the adoption on the spousal relationship. For older
adoptees, strategic interventions for five stages of development were delineated: (a)
adjusting to new living situation through identifying elements of the new life; (b)
allowing self to experience separation from and loss of birth parents and others and
coping with the pain of that loss; (c) learning expression of emotions such as frustration
and anger and communicating fear and sadness to adoptive parents; (d) coping with the
individuation of the child including identity and self-image struggles; and (e) forming
new bonds with the adoptive family and struggling with the fear of rejection by the new
family. Other interventions for counseling described in the article included family
therapy, conjoint and structural approaches, psychodrama, role-playing, and group
therapy. The “Life Books” technique was also suggested in which a scrapbook was
assembled using memorabilia, pictures, letters, etc. to give adoptees “a chance to value
their unique past histories and to help them achieve a clearer sense of self and
individuation” (p. 35). These suggestions by Helwig and Ruthven represent one of the
more complete attempts to document the issues and counseling techniques available, but

it does not offer any evidence that these techniques and interventions are effective.

67

.5?-

Lil;

6X1

5m

Although counseling interventions were not Specifically addressed, Bagley (1992)
also identified the theoretical assumptions in adoption as they affect adjustment and as
they may direct counseling. Bagley acknowledged the importance and crucial nature of
the identity task in adolescence. Transracial adoptees, however, have the added task of
“incorporate[ing] into identity structure the knowledge that his or her present parents are
not the biological parents, and the knowledge that the original family felt unable to care
for their child” (p. 100). Moreover, the “acknowledgment of difference” was found by
Kirk (as cited in Bagley, 1992) as being foundational for the development of stability, ego
strength, and good mental health. Openness, honesty, and enthusiasm about the adoptees’
biological origins were touted as important as was a “frank and cheerful acceptance” (p.
100) of the special and different nature of being adopted. When phenotypic differences
exist between adoptive parents and children, Bagley advocated the acceptance or
accentuation of difference model. This involves giving knowledge and a “positive
emotional orientation to both personal ethnicity, and country of origin” (pp. 100-101).

Rickard Liow (1994) suggested counseling guidelines to facilitate adjustment for
families adopting transracially. These guidelines were based on issues arising in the
Adoptive Families Group in Singapore. Rickard Liow generated a list of questions,
concerns, and issues regarding the adoptees' pre-adoptive history that should be
addressed. For example, birthright, ancestry, lineage, culture, and religion were areas that
were addressed to facilitate the process of adjustment. This paper. represents another
attempt to acknowledge issues that transracial adoptees may face. However, its

68

application is somewhat limited due to its focus on transracial adoptees living in
Singapore, because the suggestions seem to be based on intuitive and logical issues in
transracial adoption, and because the authors do not provide empirical support for the
suggestions. Given the limited amount of work done on the counseling needs of
transracial adoptees, the findings from the current study can serve as an additional step
toward understanding the effects of race and culture on transracial adoptees adjustment.
Using these findings as a base, empirical support for counseling interventions may be
garnered.
Background Factors Affecting Adoptees

The study of adoptees tends to take place after the adoptive placement; however,
many factors that contributed to the adoption affect the psychological adjustment of the
adoptees. These factors occur prior to the adoption and are often believed to have a
significant effect on the psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees when
investigated later in life (e.g., Alstein et al., 1994; Bagley, 1992, 1993a, 1993b; Harper,
1986; Loenen & Hoksbergen, 1986; McRoy et al., 1982; Singer et al., 1985; Verhulst et
al., 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1992). Bagley (1992) noted that internationally adopted
children have frequently experienced early trauma such as abandonment and malnutrition,
early neglect, physical illness, low birth weight, and poor prenatal care. Birth mothers
often were found to have worked long into pregnancy, often smoked during pregnancy,
and had more abnormal conditions during pregnancy. Silverman and Feigelman. (1981)

also cited age at adoption as a factor likely to impact psychological adjustment.

69

Findings from the studies reviewed indicate that transracial adoptees' racial group
preferences often depend on the areas in which they live (integrated vs. predominantly
White), the schools that they attend (integrated vs. predominantly White), and the
attitudes of their parents toward the adoptees' racial group membership (Bagley, 1993b;
McRoy et al., 1982; Silverman & Feigelman, 1981). Singer et al. (1985) and Verhulst
(1992) also suggested the importance of the number of pre-adoptive placements that
children experienced. Family opposition (Silverman & Feigelman, 1981; Singer et al.,
1985) and socioeconomic class of the families both transracially and intraracially
adopting (Andujo, 1988) were also considered relevant factors for consideration in
adjustment. The literature also suggests that regardless of their racial group
preferences/objective racial self-identification, transracial adoptees' self-esteem and
adjustment tended to be on par with that of intraracial adoptees.

Pre-adoptive histog.

Transracial adoptees' personal histories as well as the trauma and negative
experiences that they have faced have frequently been cited as potentially affecting the
adjustment of transracial adoptees. As noted above, Verhulst et al. (1990b) cautioned that
international adoptees tended to be at an "elevated risk of maladjustment" due to genetic
vulnerability, personal and social stresses faced by birth parents, poor prenatal and
perinatal care, birth hazards, malnourishrnent, and negative environmental influences.
Although they do not specifically detail the "negative influences," other authors describe

physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as potential factors affecting adjustment (V erhulst

7O

‘4?

“I

115

at

I:

et al., 1992). Moreover, in the study regarding the "damaging backgrounds" of
international adoptees, Verhulst found that in their sample of international adoptees 45%
of the adoptees had been neglected, 13% had been abused, 54% had changes in
caretakers, and 43% were in poor physical condition when placed in the adoptive family.
Six percent of the children had three or more pre-adoptive placements. The findings of
the study indicated that these background factors increased the likelihood that children
would show more problem behavior at later ages. In those children who had been severely
neglected, 24% exhibited problem behavior and in those who had been severely abused,
31% exhibited problem behavior.

Trolley (1994-1995) also suggested that the pre-adoptive history and adjustment
to losses of transracial adoptees be considered. She noted the losses faced by transracial,
and particularly international, adoptees include not only losses of biological parents, of
culture of origin, and of separation fiom pre-placement caretakers, but also involves
losses of familiar foods, language, objects, faces, environment, and frequently even losses
of one's name. These losses are also likely to impact adjustment. These findings suggest
that transracial adoptees’ pre-adoptive histories must be considered as they affect the
psychological adjustment and identity issues of the adoptees.

Age at adoption.

Many researchers have cited the age at adoption of transracial adoptees as
accounting for differences in the psychological adjustment of the adoptees (Silverman &
Feigelman, 1981; Harper, 1986; Kim, 1995; Tizard, 1991; Trolley, 1994-1995).

71

Silverman and F eigelman's (1981) findings regarding differential adjustment levels in
African American transracial adoptees were attributed to their older ages at adoption. In a
study conducted by Verhulst et al. (1990b), the authors attempted to determine the effects
of age at placement on their adjustment. They found a greater probability of emotional
and behavioral problems when children were adopted at older ages. Tizard (1991) noted
that children adopted at older ages tended to have learned techniques for survival (e.g.,
lying and stealing) which must then be "unlearned.” In a review of the empirical studies
of intercountry adoption, Tizard (1991) found that

family and educational difficulties are most likely to occur when children are

adopted at a relatively late age. There is reason to believe that when these

difficulties arise, they do so as a consequence of their early experiences, or the
situation as adopted children, rather than from the experience of intercountry

adoption" (p. 755).

Other researchers in addition to Tizard (1991) have conducted research
demonstrating the effects of age at placement. Verhulst et al. (1990b) examined the
effects of age at placement on the problem behavior of international adoptees and found
that older ages at the time of adoption were associated with a greater probability of
developing emotional and/or behavioral problems and with lower school performance.

Contrary to these findings, Bagley (1992, 1993a, 1993b) found that the age of the
children at placement was not related to the adoptees' current adjustment. In one study,
Bagley (1993b) reported that age at placement, age at separation from birth mother, and
factors such as a history of abuse or neglect "bore no relationship to the children's current

adjustrnen " (p. 290). Bagley (1993a) reported similar findings in a second study with

72

Chinese girls adopted transracially. In that study, age at placement, a history of early
illness, minor congenital difficulties, and early fears or tantrums were all found not to be
related to later adjustment. Bagley explained these findings by suggesting that "the
excellent care provided by the adoptive parents had counteracted the negative effects of
early environmental and physical handicaps" (Bagley, 1993b, p. 290).
SW of the Empirical Literature

Transracial adoption has been demonstrated to effect racial identity in some
studies, but that effect has been inconsistently reported across studies. Although Verhulst
et al. (1990a) found differences in exhibited problem behavior between transracial
adoptees and the general population, none of the studies reviewed empirically
demonstrated differences in psychological adjustment or self-esteem when transracial
adoptees were compared to intraracial adoptees. However, several studies also
demonstrated the effects of transracial adoptees' backgrounds and their age at adoption on
their psychological adjustment. These factors must be considered in studies of transracial
adoptees as they may impact and/or aid in explaining the findings of such studies. In
addition, with few exceptions (Alstein et al., 1994; Bagley, 1993a), most of the work
addressing transracial adoptees has focused on children and adolescents. However,
several researchers have cited the need to address adjustment and issues of identity in
older adoptees (Alstein et al., 1994; Bagley, 1993b; Hollingsworth, 1997; Kim, 1995).
The current study attempted to address the identity of transracial adoptees as

conceptualized by a new model, the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden & Steward,

73

1995). It also accounted for those background factors considered likely to affect
adjustment, determined the adjustment and self-esteem of transracial adoptees, and
focused on older age adoptees (i.e., adults 18 to 35 years of age).
“comma; Conceptualizations: Identitv F onfltion

As the literature review demonstrated, the vast majority of work on identity in
transracial adoptees has been limited to the construct of racial identity which is based on
the concept of personal identity as described by Erikson (as cited in Helms, 1990).
However, one study did address identity formation in transracial adoptees (Brenner,
1993), but it did not elucidate racial identity per se. Drawing upon this work, similar
conceptions as well as alternative conceptions regarding the formation of identity in
transracial adoptees was examined.

The primary theoretical model to have addressed identity formation has been that
of Erik Erikson (1980). Drawing upon the work of Erikson, James Marcia (1980)
developed a model operationalizing Erikson's work on identity. Marcia developed a
model of identity statuses that depicted the conscious identity crisis (as opposed to the
unconscious crisis described by Erikson) through which adolescents traverse.
Furthermore, Penuel and Wertsch (1995) made use of Vygotsky's cultural historical
theory to describe identity formation, and in doing so, they incorporated the role of
culture and the examination of individuals' environment and context into the identity

development process.

74

Erikson's theory of identity formation.

Erikson (1968) drew upon Freudian theory and developed a psychosocial
developmental stage model in which development is charted in a series of eight stages,
each with a particular conflict and developmental task. Contrary to psychoanalysis, this
theory focuses on ego processes (rather than id impulses) and the epigenetic principle.
The first four stages in the theory consist of conflicts between trust versus mistrust,
autonomy versus shame and doubt, initiative versus guilt, and industry versus inferiority.
To form an enduring ego identity depends upon successful completion of these four
stages.

The development of identity has generally been associated with adolescence. In
Erikson's theory, this represents the fifth stage in which individuals must negotiate the
ego identity versus identity diffusion crisis. One's "sense of ego identity" was described
by Erikson (1980) as an individual's "accrued confidence that one's ability to maintain
inner sameness and continuity (one's ego in the psychological sense) is matched by the
sameness and continuity of one's meaning for others" (p. 94). Identity diffusion is
described as a "split of self-images, . . . , a loss of center and a dispersion" (Erikson, 1968,
p. 212) such that an individual may be unable to choose an occupational identity and,
therefore, begin to overidentify with crowds or cliques (Erikson, 1980). The failure of an
individual to adaptively progress through this stage is the maintenance of role diffusion.
Thus, the adolescent does not have an established identity or sense of self and purpose or

station in life. If the individual is successful in their progression through this stage, the

75

formation of ego identity results.

Erikson (1968) stated that,

identity formation, finally, begins where the usefulness of identification ends. It

arises from the selective repudiation and mutual assimilation of childhood

identifications and their absorption in a new configuration, which, in turn, is
dependent on the process by which a society (often through subsocieties)
identifies the young individual, recognizing him as somebody who had to become

the way he is and who, being the way he is, is taken for granted. (p. 159)

Thus, identity formation, according to Erikson, includes as an influence on identity the
context and environment in which an individual matures. Erikson stated that traditional
psychoanalytic theory has not incorporated identity into psychoanalytic theory as
evidenced by the theory's failure to conceptualize terms for the environment. Erikson also
stated that identity must be integrated into culture so a "unity of personal and cultural
identity" results (Erikson, 1968, p. 20). This inclusion of environment and culture into the
theory set the stage for conceptualizing culture and race into identity formation,
particularly for transracial adoptees.

Mm model of identity statuses.

Extending Erikson's work, James Marcia (1980) developed an identity status
approach to study identity formation. In Marcia's model, four identity statuses were
described based upon two dimensions: (1) commitment and (2) exploration. Identity
diffusion is the least developmentally advanced due to the absence of a commitment to an
internally consistent set of values and goals and low or shallow exploration (Patterson,

Sochting, & Marcia, 1992). Identity foreclosure is a status defined by a high level of

commitment but this commitment is based upon little or no exploration (Patterson et al.,
76

1992). Those in this stage tend to have adopted the values and goals of their parents, thus
explaining the lack of exploration. The identity moratorium status is considered a stage in
which individuals may be in the process of forming an identity. They are crurently in the
crisis of identity formation so they have not yet committed to an identity but have
engaged in significant exploration (Patterson et al., 1992). Finally, those in the identity
achieved status have committed to values and goals after having autonomously explored
the possibilities (Patterson et al., 1992).

Marcia's extension of Erikson's work included a focus on more of the conscious
processes of identity formation as opposed to the unconscious processed delineated by
Erikson (Brenner, 1993). The identity statuses are also intended to be outcomes of the
process of identity formation and to be structural properties of the personality (Patterson
et al., 1992). In addition, Marcia's work represents a shift in the analytic primacy (i.e., the
starting point in research that requires attention toward particular phenomena and away
from other phenomena) of sociocultural and individual processes, as with Erikson, to the
analytic primacy of individual processes alone (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995). This shift has
been criticized because it neglects Erikson's valuable integration of "sociocultural,
historical, and psychological factors within a social psychological perspective" (p. 83).
However, other researchers disagree and view Erikson as giving analytic primacy to
individual mental functioning (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995). Shifts in analytic primacy can
also be seen when alternative theories such as Vygotsky's cultural historical theory are

used to conceptualize identity formation.

77

Vvtzotslsv's cultural historical theory and identity fomLfion.

Penuel and Wertsch (1995) extended Vygotsky's cultural historical theory to
address identity formation. They described Vygotsky's work as premised on the belief that
social activity is the basis for development and individual mental phenomena. "Vygotsky
examined development as a process of transformation of individual functioning as
various forms of social practice become internalized by individuals" (Penuel & Wertsch,
1995, p. 84). This fact about Vygotsky lead to their observation that in cultural historical
theory, sociocultural processes have analytic primacy over individual functioning.
Although Vygotsky never wrote about identity or identity formation, Penuel and Wertsch
have began the process of extending Vygotsky's theory to address identity formation. This
extension was intended to be integrated into Eriksonian conceptions of identity formation.
Their sociocultural approach to identity formation, then, involves a bridge between the
poles of sociocultural processes and individual functioning such that they interact in
human action.

Penuel and Wertsch suggested a "mediated-action approach" to identity formation.
In this approach, human action takes analytic primacy. To apply Vygotsky's work to
identity formation, the three themes that "characterize his work must be discussed.
Vygotsky used " genetic or developmental analysis to study human functioning; the claim
that individual mental functioning has sociocultural origins; and the claim that human
action is mediated by tools and signs" (Penuel & Wertsch, 1995, p. 85). These themes

used in conjunction with Erikson's work result in the "mediated-action approach." Use of

78

this approach results in four points of departure for identity research:
(a) The use of a genetic method calls attention to the importance of studying
identity in settings where forming identities are at stake in the course of the
activity; (b) cultural and historical resources for identity formation are integral as
empowering and constraining tools for identity formation; (c) mediated action,
rather than an inner sense of identity, provides a basic unit of analysis; and (d)

variation in the use of cultural resources for identity formation must be viewed in
terms of commitments in Erikson's domains of identity-~fidelity, ideology, and

work. (p. 90)

Penuel and Wertsch (1995) suggested that an understanding of the interplay
between individual functioning as depicted in Erikson's work and sociocultural processes
as depicted in Vygotsky's work results in a more accurate conceptualization of identity
formation. They encouraged researchers to recognize and examine cultural and historical
resources for identity formation as both empowering and constraining tools for identity
formation. The extension of Vygotsky's work to identity formation can further inform the
identity development process of transracial adoptees. Because transracial adoptees, by
virtue of their adoption across races and often cultures, tend to have experienced multiple
cultures, the, inclusion of cultural tools and signs in identity formation can help account
for differences in the process of identity formation for these individuals.

Identitv formation in adoptees.

Although the theorists described above did not directly address the effects of
adoption on identity, their theories have been extended and interpreted to account for the
experiences of adoptees. Much of the work addressing identity in adoptees has focused on
FJ’iksonian theory and on psychodynamic theories. The process of identity formation in

adoptees was addressed by LeVine and Sallee (1990) in their paper describing "critical
79

phases among adoptees." They noted the additional emotional and behavioral stress
imposed by adoption on adoptees' psychological adjustment, but they also recognized the
need to determine the degree to which the origins of problems experienced by adoptees
are due to family dynamics versus due to the adoption itself. Their review of the literature
indicated a greater likelihood of adjustment difficulties if the adoptive parents are older at
the time of adoption, if the adoptee is an only child in the adoptive family, if the parents
or extended family do not support the adoption, and if conflicts generally exist within the
family (p. 219).

LeVine and Sallee addressed adoption from a psychosocial and psychodynamic
perspective. They described the basis of adoptees' adjustment to center around the
adoptees' process of "fully understand[ing] the implications of being adopted" (p. 221).
The phases they describe are as follows: (a) Phase I«preawareness; (b) Phase II--dim
awareness of a special state; (c) Phase III--cognitive integration of biological and social
differences; (d) Phase IV « identity crisis of the adopted adolescent; and (e) Phase V--
concomitant acceptance of the biological and adoptive family. After the adoptees traverse
through the first three phases, they become aware of their adoptive status and reach a
cognitive awareness of their unique biological and social status as adoptees. However, in
Phase IV, the adoptees are often adolescents and must attempt to develop, according to
Erikson (1968) "1) a conscious sense of their individual uniqueness; 2) an unconscious
striving for continuity of experience; and 3) a solidarity with group ideals" (LeVine &
Sallee, 1990, p. 223). For adoptees, their attempts at achieving continuity with their past

80

and solidarity with the group is more difficult and their questions about their biological
roots are most salient. These difficulties coupled with such early childhood traumas as
abuse, neglect, and poor parental bonding may make adoptees more vulnerable to
maladjustment, particularly in the form of narcissistic personality disorders. LeVine and
Sallee also provided a set of signs of maladjustment according to the phase of adjustment
of the adoptees. Some examples are being unresponsive to adults, language deficits, rage,
inappropriate affect, splitting, active rejecting of adoptive family, search behavior, and
emerging personality disorders.
Identity Formation in Racial Ethnic Minorities

As noted above, racial identity has previously been conceptualized as individual's
objective racial self-identification and racial group preferences. Occasionally levels of
acculturation and ethnic group pride have also been included. Since Cross developed one
of the first models of racial identity development in 1971, several other theorists have
extended his model or developed similar models for different populations. However, all
of these more recent models share the premise that individuals' psychological adjustment
and self-concept may, to a degree, depend upon the racial identity of the individual. Those
in particular stages of development are believed to have poorer adjustment and poorer
self-concepts. The parallel between this belief and that found in Erikson's theory (1968) is
evident.

Relationship between rem identityand Eriksonian theory.

One of the most well-known theorists of racial identity development has been

81

Janet Helms. Helms (1990) extended the work of Cross (1971) to understand the "quality
or manner of one's identification with the respective racial groups." She conceptualized

racial identity as being comprised of a combination of "personal identity, reference
group orientation," and "ascribed identity." Helms described personal identity as "one's
feelings and attitudes about oneself, " reference group orientation as "the extent to which
one uses particular racial groups," and ascribed identity as "the individual's deliberate
affiliation or commitment to a particular racial group" (Helms, 1990, p. 5). Helms cited
Erikson's work in her identification of these components and noted the role that
sociocultural influences are given in Erikson's theory of adolescent identity development
(1968). She suggested that at different stages or times in individuals' lives, different
individuals and institutions are influential in the development of racial identity. In
individuals' early childhood and infancy, parents and adult authority figures are most
influential on racial identity whereas peers or cohort and nonfamilial social institutions
(e.g., school, media) are more influential during late childhood and adolescence.

With the acknowledgment that culture and race affect individuals' experiences
and, therefore, development in many domains, the formation of identity in adolescents
represents yet another affected area. Phinney and Rosenthal (1992) noted that for
"adolescents from ethnic minority groups, the process of identity formation has an added
dimension due to their exposure to alternative sources of identification, their own ethnic

group and the mainstream or dominant culture" (p. 145). This process is likely to be even

more complicated for transracial adoptees. Phinney and Rosenthal identified differences

82

between the dominant culture and adolescents' cultures of origin as primary factors in
adolescents' abilities to integrate ethnic identity into self-identity. They also posited that a
positively valued ethnic identity is necessary for the construction of a positive and stable
self-identity (as described by Erikson, 1968). However, as noted in the review of the
study by Andujo (1988), the concept of a "positive ethnic identity" should be considered
in greater depth due to the values and judgment inherent in the construct.

To better conceptualize the role of race and culture in identity formation, a
distinction must also be made between ego or self-identity and ethnic identity. Phinney
and Rosenthal described ethnic identity as a social identity with its meaning coming from
the culture with which one is affiliated. They noted that despite the attention given
context in Erikson's theory, little research has actually examined the role of family in
identity formation. Ethnic identity also involves the heritage that individuals are given
rather than that which is chosen. The aspect of choice contrasts with Erikson's work in
which occupations or goals are chosen. A third distinction is the importance of ethnic
identity among various ethnic groups. The salience of ethnic identity differs among ethnic
groups and individuals whereas ego identity is considered to be more stable and similar
for all adolescents. These distinctions demonstrate the importance of culture and race in
identity formation as well as the differences that are inherent in the identity formation of
racial ethnic minority adolescents.

Phinney and Rosenthal further noted that ethnic identity should be compared with

self-esteem because prior evidence has demonstrated that achieved ego identity is

83

associated with high self-esteem. Their review of the literature suggested that "the
consequences of minority group membership for an individual's sense of self-worth are
not due to minority status per se but are mediated by other factors such as gender role
prescriptions in society" (p. 163). In particular, an achieved ethnic identity, which consists
of the exploration of issues related to one's ethnicity as well as the resolution of the issues
and a commitment to an ethnic identity, contributed positively to self-esteem.

Also contributing to the understanding of identity formation in racial ethnic
minorities is the work of Whaley (1993). He examined a construct termed cultural
identity in relation to African American children and their identity formation. He defined
cultural identity as similar to ethnic identity but including similarities in values, beliefs,
and attitudes. Whaley reviewed the literature on cultural identity formation and found that
for African American children, interactions among cultural factors, cognitive-
developmental processes, and social experiences determine identity formation. African
American children's identity formation appears to be highly impacted by their cognitive-
developmental processes. Young children (between ages two and six) have not reached
cognitive developmental stages at which they can accurately racially self-identify. Whaley
noted that "they do not have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the concept of
membership in an ethnic/racial group" (p. 413). Racial awareness and cultural identity
increase with each successive stage in Piagetian cognitive-developmental theory.
Ultimately, the importance of cultural identity in racial ethnic minority adolescents varies

according to " the degree of identification with their ethnic/racial group, level of self-

84

exploration and self-awareness, and cross-cultural social experiences" (p. 414). The
findings of this study may serve to explain some of the findings identified in the literature
review, particularly those studies attempting to measure racial identity in young children
(e.g., Johnson et al., 1987; Zastrow, 1977).

Because Phinney and Rosenthal (1992) in addition to numerous other researchers
have attempted to demonstrate the link between "positive ethnic identity" and self-esteem,
additional results of Whaley's (1993) literature review are relevant. Whaley noted that the
degree to which children are competent in areas they value and the level of regard or
support they perceive from significant others impacts their self-esteem. Thus, personal
efficacy, or competence, is also considered to be relevant to the identity formation of
adolescents.

Identity F ormation in Transracial Adoptees

One of the early attempts at understanding the identity experiences of transracial
adoptees was offered by Falk (as cited in Zastrow, 1977). He noted that no theoretical
work in this area had yet been done, but despite the lack of formal theory, he anticipated
the work of Baden and Steward (1995) as well as that of some other researchers in the
field.

Falk (as cited in Zastrow, 1977) stated that Black children learn the special
meanings and values of being Black in America through their birth parents and their
community. When Black children are reared in White families, they also learn the values

and meanings of their White middle-class families. F alk poignantly described two

85

potential outcomes for transracial adoptees' identity experiences. First, he noted that,

at some point the TRA [transracially adopted] child will cast off the

protectiveness of the family of orientation and establish his more-or-less

independent identity in the community of his choosing. If in this new
circumstance he finds himself forced into situations where he is identified
stereotypically and he is without prior experience in coping with them, he may
face an identity crisis. . .His identity will be with the white world while others
assume that his identity is with the black world. His rearing establishes the white
world as his referent, and his new peers demand that his referent be the minority

world. (as quoted in Zastrow, 1977, p. 57)

Alternatively, he drew upon Erikson's work and suggested that, given the necessary
guidance and affection by adoptive parents, transracial adoptees should develop a positive
self-concept and the social and interpersonal skills need to successfully cope with the
environment. Through exposure to the history and culture of the transracial adoptees'
race, they should be able to obtain more information regarding the meanings and values
associated with their race.

In a recent book chapter, Barry Richards (1994) addressed identity formation in
transracial adoptees. He cited the popularity of Erikson's concept of identity in examining
issues of adjustment. However, Richards (1994) stated the importance of recognizing that
although identity involves the appreciation and awareness of one's difference from others,
it also involves a sense of sameness, commonality with others, and identifying with larger
groups or systems. He also advocated that distinctions be made between one's personal
identity and one's social identity. The difference between these two aspects of identity are

particularly important in examining the experiences of transracial adoptees. A social

identity is that which a person has as a result of their membership in certain social groups

86

(e. g., an Asian working-class man or a homosexual Jewish doctor). In forming social
identities, individuals tend to classify themselves according those group memberships
they consider to be important. Personal identity, on the other hand, involves "the way in
which we are formed through our relationships with other individuals rather than through
our relationships of belonging or not belonging to social groups" (p. 81). Within a single
family, all members will have differing personal identities but their social identities may
be similar.

Richards (1994) related this distinction between personal identity and social
identity to the transracial adoption controversy. He noted

personal identity cannot be reduced to, nor subsumed under, social identity, and it

is a major confusion in much of the debate about transracial adoption that the term

'identity' is used as if it included personal identity, when the phenomena under

discussion are aspects of social identity. (p. 82)
Furthermore, he described the controversy about transracial adoption as being focused on
the problems transracial adoptees are likely to have in their social identity. However,
because personal identity is the basis of a sense of emotional security, because the
empirical literature demonstrates "transracially adopted children. . . are basically as
healthy psychologically as control groups" (p. 83), and because the formation of personal
identity is essentially unrelated to the ethnicity of one's family, transracial adoptees are
not suffering from identity problems. Richards predicts that they will usually be able to
cope with problems of social identity given an already established and secure personal
identity.

Other conceptualizations about the racial identity of transracial adoptees have also
87

been proposed. Loenen and Hoksbergen (1986) addressed attachment relations and
identity issues in intercountry adoptees in the Netherlands. Although they perceived
similarities between transracial adoptees in the Netherlands and those in the UK, they
noted that they share the belief of some researchers who question the notion of a "single
identity." Rather, they advocate for terms such as a "situational identity" and "identity
options." Loenen and Hoksbergen stated,

a black youngster living in a white family and in a predominantly white society

needs to be appreciated and accepted for having a range of identities which are

more or less salient in different contexts at different times in his or her life-cycle.

He or she needs to be encouraged and assisted to develop his or her black identity

in a situation which may deny or discourage it. (pp. 25-26)

However, they cited the lack of "relevant" Black communities in the Netherlands and
noted that the transracial adoptees in their clinical work demonstrates a greater concern
with personal life histories among transracial adoptees than with racial identity.

In a book chapter by Tizard and Phoenix (1994), the authors critiqued the
evidence regarding the relationship between self—esteem and racial identity. They noted
criticisms suggesting the dependence of self-esteem on racial identity and found that few
studies have assessed both constructs in the same children. From their critique, they
determined that assumptions regarding the "inextricable link" between self-esteem and
racial identity may be incorrect. Tizard and Phoenix suggested an alternative theory in
which self-esteem and other aspects of mental health are developed primarily in the
context of individuals' most salient and important relationships (i.e., as children, these

relationships are within the family). Racial identity in Black children, in turn, although

88

influenced by the family, develops through relationships with the dominant/White
culture. In this conceptualization of racial identity, Black children, regardless of their
adoption status, may hold some negative feelings about their racial identity but still
maintain healthy self-esteem and adjustment. On the other hand, those with poor family
relationships but with high or positive racial identities may still have low self-esteem and
poor psychological adjustment.

Tizard and Phoenix (1994) shared the view of Baden and Steward (1995)
regarding assumptions of homogeneity within cultures and racial groups. This view holds
that advocating a "positive" Black identity as if it were a commonly shared state
disregards the vast differences among people of African descent. The authors
acknowledged the problematic nature of children misidentifying themselves (i.e.,
believing they look White or are White when the are not), but they made distinctions
between a self-identification problem and an identity problem. Choosing alternative self-
labels such as those preferred by some British children-~for example, "colored," "brown,"
and "half—caste"--does not necessarily indicate a problem with racial identity. Tizard and
Phoenix also suggested racial identity be considered in much the same way gender
identity has recently been conceptualized. The following three dimensions of gender
identity may be relevant to racial identity: (1) the degree to which individuals' identity is
based on perceived similarities between themselves and others in the group; (2) the extent
Of awareness of a common fate; and (3) the degree to which membership of the group is
central to the ways individuals think of themselves.

89

As the findings of Whaley's (1993) study demonstrated, the ages at which identity
formation takes place can vary according to the population and the type of identity being
formed. Adolescence has traditionally been considered the stage or time period during
which identity crises occur and identity is formed (Erikson, 1968). However, when
considering racial/ethnic identity, that developmental stage may differ. Helms (1990)
considered racial identity development to be a life-long process. However, despite Helms'
view and Whaley's findings, transracial adoption researchers have frequently attempted to
measure racial identity in adoptees before they are developmentally prepared to struggle
with issues of race and identity. Hollingsworth's (1997) findings demonstrating that
"racial/ethnic identity may decrease as transracial/transethnic adoptees become older" (p.
22) also called for a better understanding of the effects of age on transracial adoptees'
identity. Perhaps transracial adoptees begin the process of racial identity formation at a
later age or perhaps Hollingsworth's findings depict transracial adoptees' racial identity at
the height of their struggle (i.e., adoptees in the studies Hollingsworth (1997) analyzed all
had average ages under 18). Bagley (1992) described identity formation as a long-term
process and cautioned that “uncertainty and unhappiness at one point in a child or
adolescent’s development may simply be a transient phenomenon as the individual copes
with certain problems in the formation of personal identity, at different points in the life
Cycle” (p. 101). Based on this reasoning, Bagley advised against studies capturing
adoptees before the crucial phase of adolescence due to their tendency to be misleading
and he suggested final assessments of adoptions when adoptees are young adults.

90

In addition, Norvell and Guy (1977) noted a great deal of the research on adoptees'
self-concepts have tended to focus on pre-adolescents, but "because the formation and
crystallization of identity occurs in the adolescent years, this period appears particularly
acute for the development of self-image" (p. 444). With that reasoning in mind, Norvell
and Guy used a sample of adoptees between the ages of 18 and 25. Similarly, Brown
(1995) used a sample of biracial/interracial young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 to
examine issues of racial identity in these individuals. These studies demonstrated
researcher's (including the present author) judgment that the identity of transracial
adoptees may best be represented by those having already traversed many of the identity
conflicts inherent in adolescence.

An empirical study of identity formation in transracial adoptees.

With the exception of a single study, no literature exists addressing the identity
formation of transracially adopted adolescents. Brenner (1993) conducted a study for her
dissertation that examined the identity formation of transracial adoptees in comparison to
that of intraracial adoptees (adoptees in same-race families). Brenner used psychoanalytic
theory and the theories of Blos, Erikson, Douvan and Adelson, and Marcia to
conceptualize identity formation for her study. Brenner posited that the unique

developmental context for transracial adoptees is likely to affect the identity formation of
the adoptees in a manner qualitatively different than the identity formation process for
adolescents raised either with their biological parents or with adoptive parents of the

Same race as the adoptees. Brenner delineated those factors having the potential to impact

91

transracial adoptees' identity formation.

In the application of identity formation theory to transracial adoptees, Brenner
noted the work done by Sorosky, Baran, and Pannor in 1975 (as cited in Brenner, 1993).
Sorosky et al. identified four categories likely to challenge transracial adoptees’
completion of development tasks. These categories were disturbances in early object
relations, complications in resolving the oedipal complex, pro-longation of the "family
romance fantasy, and "genealogical bewilderment" (Brenner, 1993, p. 54). Within these
categories, several more specific issues to transracial adoptees were identified.

Identity conflicts as the result of "having both unknown parental figures and an
unknown culture or country of origin" were considered more likely for transracial
adoptees. Environmental factors such as the adoptive parent who feels defective due to
infertility or adoptive parents' ambivalence toward the race of the adopted children may
affect the adoptees' identity and self-worth. The increased probability for identity
confusion was also noted by Brenner as being manifested as confusion about racial
identity and/or as insecurity about self-image. The phenotypical differences or differences
in physical appearances between transracial adoptees and their parents were also
considered likely to affect adoptees' ability to identify with their adoptive parents and

their ability to feel a secure sense of belonging. For example, this reasoning suggests that
identity foreclosure (Marcia, 1980) may be less likely to occur as a result of these
differences. Also likely to affect identity formation for transracial adoptees were adoptive
Parents' attitudes and willingness to acknowledge the accurate racial group membership

92

of their adoptive child rather than assuming the "color blin " or "humanistic" orientation.
The humanistic orientation may tend to impede adoptees' racial identity and may result in
denial of racial group membership.

In the study that Brenner conducted, measures of ego identity and psychosocial
adjustment were obtained in addition to other variables specific to the study's hypotheses.
The findings are difficult to interpret and their validity is somewhat questionable due to
the small sample size of the transracial adoptees (i.e., African American transracial
adoptees, a=5; Asian American transracial adoptees, a=l 1). Despite these small sample
sizes, Brenner's findings may serve as a starting point for understanding factors that differ
in the ego identities and adjustment of transracial adoptees. In general, Asian transracial
adoptees had higher scores than intraracially adopted Caucasian adoptees and African
American transracial adoptees on measures of adjustment. The single area in which Asian
transracial adoptees scored below intraracial adoptees was in their feelings about their
sexuality. Thus, Asian transracial adoptees demonstrated a higher degree of identity
consolidation and were more adept in their functioning in family relatedness, peer
relationships, school performance, and self-esteem in comparison to intraracial adoptees.
African American transracial adoptees appeared to "experience a lower level of identity
consolidation and were, generally, more poorly adjusted than their Caucasian
Counterparts" (p. 179). They had lower scores for impulse control and affective stability
and they were less clear and comfortable regarding bodily boundaries and bodily changes.

The results of the study by Brenner and her extension of the literature on identity

93

formation in transracial adoptees represented an initial theoretical basis for examining
identity formation in transracial adoptees. However, although Brenner (1993) found
differences in identity formation among transracial adoptees according to their racial
group memberships, her findings primarily suggested the need to account for racial and
cultural differences. The current study will address factors that may provide theoretical
and contextual explanations for transracial adoptees' differing identities. Specifically, the
current study will examine the differences within the population of transracial adoptees as
delineated by the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995).

The Cultural-Racial Identity Model

The Cultural-Racial Identity Model was developed by Baden and Steward (1995)
to explain and conceptualize the identity statuses of transracial adoptees. Although the
model has not yet received wide recognition and has not yet been published in a
professional journal, the accuracy and validity of the model and its premises must be
determined. However, before the model is presented, the rationale for the development of
the model must be reviewed.

Ration‘ale for the development of the model.

Racial/ethnic identity has been the focus of much of the attention and criticisms of
transracial adoption and the empirical literature addressing transracial adoption has
primarily examined the effects of transracial adoption on the adoptees' racial identity,
self-esteem, and psychological adjustment. However, despite all the evidence showing

sirrrilar levels of adjustment and self-esteem between transracial adoptees and intraracial

94

adoptees (e.g., Andujo, 1988; Grow & Shapiro, 1974; McRoy et al., 1982, 1984;
Silverman & Feigelman, 1981; Simon & Alstein, 1977, 1981), the practice of transracial
adoption continues to be debated and controversial. Baden and Steward (1995) viewed
this controversy as a result of a lack of theory conceptualizing the unique experiences of
transracial adoptees. Due to the racial differences between adoptive parents and the
adoptees in transracial adoption, existing theories of racial/ethnic identity are not
applicable to the experiences of transracial adoptees.

Because the experiences of transracial adoptees may differ from that of intraracial
adoptees and of nonadopted individuals, several researchers and professionals in the field
have also acknowledged a need to conceptualize the racial/ethnic identity of transracial
adoptees. Tizard (1991) stated, "most studies do not explore the extent to which the
young people assign themselves a mixed cultural identity, but ask them to choose
between their adopted or original identity" (p. 754). Researchers may fail to recognize
this difficulty because, as Tizard further stated, immigrant children living with their birth
parents in the United States have never been compared to transracial adoptees. Without
such comparisons, a clear understanding regarding the degree to which "the identity
conflicts of the intercountry adoptees stem from living in a white culture, rather than with
white parents per se" (p. 754) cannot be accurately understood. Trolley (1994-1995)
shared Tizard's recommendation regarding the need for research assessing how
international adoptees feel about their mixed heritage and how they choose to define their

cultural identification. Trolley advocated the identification of variables "which promote

95

pride in one's native culture and how the benefits of both cultures can be integrated" (p.
261). Trolley also acknowledged that visible racial differences between transracial
adoptees and their adoptive parents are likely to have an impact on their identity.
Similarities between biracial/interracial/multiracial individuals and transracial
adoptees have occasionally been assumed by professionals in the field (Hill & Peltzer,
1982). The similarities in these individuals' experiences may be assumed because both are
reared with racial differences within the family. However, although parallels can be
discerned between these groups, the present author believes that the adoptive experience
of transracial adoptees can both complicate and qualitatively alter the experiences of
transracial adoptees, thus, making the two groups disparate enough to warrant studying
the groups individually. Despite these differences, however, the research conducted on
biracial/interracial/multiracial individuals can substantially inform the current study and it
provided an additional rationale for the reasoning to be seen in the Cultural-Racial
Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995). Furthermore, transracial adoptees have the
unique experience of growing up in America, a country which has had racial and cultural
tensions associated with it since its founding, as a racial ethnic minority but having been
raised by White parents who can provide access to privilege. This unusual perspective
that transracial adoptees have as a result of their experience can provide not only
information important to serving their counseling needs adequately, but also the impact of
racial and cultural differences on individuals’ development and identity.

Several studies (e.g., McRoy et al., 1982, 1984; Zastrow, 1977) used samples of

96

transracial adoptees who were biracial (i.e., had one Black birth parent and one White
birth parent) but the researchers classified them as "Black." However, Brown (1995)
acknowledged that although biracial children have been categorized as Black within the
official system of racial classification, conflicts can occur for these children due to
"society’s insistence that interracial children are simply black, when in reality they
incorporate a dual racial heritage" (p. 125). This societal perspective "undermines the
formation of a healthy racial identity and creates conflicts" (p. 125). Moreover, an
assumption in "popular opinion" is that those biracial or interracial individuals who have
disassociated themselves from their White heritage and have accepted the socially
endorsed Black identity have resolved their conflicts about racial identity and racial group
membership (p. 126). Also popular is the belief that an interracial/mixed/dual identity is
"evidence of defensive denial" because a White identity is regarded as "detrimental to the
emotional health of interracial people since . . . it is an illegal identity for them" (p. 126).
Brown (1995) conducted a study of 119 biracial young adults between 18 and 35 years of
age. Their racial identity was examined through a semi-structured interview and consisted
of racial self-identification, how they viewed themselves racially in the absence of
societal pressures, and racial self-perceptions during various developmental phases. They
Were also asked if they had ever tried or considered trying to "pass" as White. Conflict
was also measured with respect to their racial identity. Findings indicated a qualitatively
different journey toward racial identity that differed from non-biracial young adults.
Findings also suggested that racial identity differed—some participants identified

97

as Black and some as White, but most preferred an interracial identity if given the Option.
Of particular interest for the current study and the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden
& Steward, 1995) is the finding that biracial individuals have differing public and private
identities. This compartrnentalization frequently evolves as a result of a desire to preserve
their interracial self-perception while still conforming to societal pressures to disregard
their White heritage (p 127). This conforming behavior was described by some as a
coping mechanism "developed in response to a gradual conditioning process within the
family as well as the requirements of the larger social milieu" (p. 127), whereas others
described it as a conscious and often sudden decision when their interracial or White self-
perceptions were criticized. With respect to the Cultural-Racial Identity Model, the
compartrnentalization of identities may be explained by distinguishing between Cultural
Identity and Racial Identity as the model allows, where the “public identity” is similar to
the Racial Identity component of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model and the “private
identity” is similar to the Cultural Identity.

Brown (1995) also found "fluctuations" in racial identity through different
developmental phases with more Similar proportions of biracial individuals recalling
identifying as Black, White, and "human." Predictors of racial identity were cited as: (a)
messages from family or fiiends regarding racial group membership; (b) acceptance by
Blacks within their social networks; (c) racial status laws; (d) contact with various racial
groups; (e) exposure to both Black and White cultures; and (1) physical appearance or

Phenotype. Brown stated, "these results failed to verify the common assumption that the

98

most successful racial identity for people of interracial heredity is the black one, but it
confirmed the high emotional cost associated with white identity" (p. 129). Instead, she
found dirrrinished conflict in identity was associated with the interracial identity.
According to Brown, contributing to conflicts in racial identity are societal pressure to
identify as Black, the lack of institutional recognition of the interracial identity, and the
reality that biracial individuals cannot legally identify as White.

In another study of interracial or "nrixed parentage" individuals, Tizard and
Phoenix (1995) interviewed 58 biracial (one Black and one White parent) adolescents
between 15 and 16 years of age. They assessed the adolescents' racial self-identification,
attitudes toward their status as mixed parentage individuals, and their friendships and
allegiances. Findings indicated 39% self-identified as Black, 10% identified as Black in
certain situations, and 49% did not identify as Black. Instead, they self-described as
"brown," "half and half," "mixed," or "colored" and 10% stated they "sometimes felt
white" (p. 1404). Positive attitudes about their mixed parentage were associated with
attending a multiracial school but not with thinking of oneself as Black, living with a
Black parent, being in certain social classes, or holding certain political views.

"Problematic identities" were associated with a strong affiliation to White people and,
interestingly, with reports that their parents had told them to be proud of being Black or
0f mixed heritage.

With respect to the allegiances (i.e., those they felt comfortable with) and

ffiendships that the adolescents reported, two-thirds of the adolescents reported feeling

99

equally comfortable with White and Black people "with rather more of the rest feeling
uncomfortable with black people than white" (p. 1405). More of the adolescents had a
close White friend (85%) than a close Black friend (42%) with 27% having no Black
friends. Finally, another interesting finding was that those attending multiracial and state
schools and those living with a White parent only were most strongly affiliated to Black
people, whereas those attending predominantly White and independent schools and those
living with a Black parent were most strongly affiliated to White people. Tizard and
Phoenix (1995) critiqued the assumptions that mixed parentage individuals "need" to
have a Black identity and that the race/color of foster or adoptive parents is "of paramount
importance in the development of a positive racial identity" (p. 1409). These assumptions
do not allow the individual construction of identity and denigrates these individuals'
mixed backgrounds. Furthermore, Tizard and Phoenix (1995) stated, "our findings
suggest that during adolescence, school, social class, and peer groups exert more
influence on racial identities than the color of their parents" (p. 1409).

The findings of these two studies on biracial individuals serve as introductions to
the theoretical underpinnings for the current study. Several of the same factors found to
affect racial identity in the Brown (1995) and Tizard and Phoenix (1995) studies can be
found in the description of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995).

Before describing the current study, however, the Cultural-Racial Identity Model must

first be presented.

100

A description of the Cultural-Racial Identitv Model.
The Cultural-Racial Identity Model was developed in response to a need for

 

greater distinctions between culture and race. As evidenced by the literature review, one
of the concerns voiced by those opposing transracial adoption has been that transracial
adoptees may share the culture of their parents rather than the culture of their racial group
(Chimezie, 1975; Hayes, 1993). Thus, African American children adopted by White
families may identify their culture as White American. Another concern expressed has
been that transracially adopted children may mistakenly identify or reject their racial
group. As noted above, studies on "racial identity" (i.e., racial group

preferences/obj ective racial self-identification) have responded to criticisms of transracial
adoption by showing how transracial adoptees identify their racial group membership.
However, although current conceptualizations of racial identity address individuals’
racial, psychosocial identity formation in a more comprehensive manner, they also were
found not to be applicable to the unique experiences of transracial adoptees because of
the racial integration within transracial adoptees’ families.

The model proposed herein was designed to clarify the distinctions between
culture and race, to identify the contributors to individuals' cultural and racial identities,
and to aid in understanding the manifestation of the potential combinations of culture and
race. Moreover, as noted above, transracial adoptees are frequently viewed as a
homogeneous group with all having similar levels of ethnic/racial pride and identity.

However, as in any identifiable group, within group differences are likely to be as great as

101

between-group differences. The model to be described below demonstrates some of the
possible differences among transracial adoptees according to the degrees to which they

identify with the culture and racial groups of themselves, their adoptive parents, and

others.

Because the distinctions between race and culture were so crucial to the study,
Baden and Steward (1998) defined race and culture. From a biosocial perspective, Baden
and Steward recognized “racial groups to be determined by groups who are distinguished
or consider themselves to be distinguished from other people by their physical
characteristics and by their social relations with other people” (p. 20). In terms of culture,
they defined culture as “consisting of the ideals, beliefs, tools, skills, customs, languages,
and institutions into which individuals are born” (p. 19). When conceptualizing and
describing the Cultural-Racial Identity Model, these distinctions between race and culture
were used to carefully separate the sources of and criteria for the various Cultural-Racial
Identities.
The Cultural-Racial Identity Model consists of two axes: the Cultural Identity
Axis and the Racial Identity Axis. The final model combines these two axes into a single
model and a single graphic representation and consists of 16 potential Cultural-Racial
Identities. Before describing the final model, the two axes must first be presented.
Baden and Steward separated culture from race (i.e., unlike previous models of
racial/ethnic identity) by creating two dimensions of racial/ethnic identity. They defined

Culture as consisting of the ideals, beliefs, tools, skills, customs, languages, and

102

institutions into which individuals are born. Relying on the vast amounts of literature
describing various cultures in the United States and abroad, Baden and Steward
acknowledged that the racial groups and ethnic groups living in the US. have differing
sets of customs, beliefs, languages, etc. (i.e., cultures) that are associated with those racial
and ethnic groups. For example, Chinese Americans tend to endorse particular values,
beliefs, etc. that comprise the Chinese American culture. Similarly, Afiican Americans
tend to possess a culture unique to their racial group. Although Baden and Steward
acknowledged that individuals belonging to these racial groups do not necessarily endorse
all of the cultural values, practices, beliefs, etc. associated with the racial groups, cultural
behaviors and practices common to African Americans and Chinese Americans and other
racial ethnic groups do exist in the US. Moreover, at the risk of assuming some degree of
homogeneity within each racial group’s culture, the Cultural-Racial Identity Model
required that some baseline for cultural behaviors and practices be set for each racial
group. However, in the case of transracial adoptees, the adoptees are from a different
racial group than their adoptive parents. Thus, at least two different racial groups as well
as two different cultures can be represented within transracially adopting families. For
this reason, Baden and Steward developed the Cultural Identity Axis to represent four
possible combinations of cultural endorsement.

The Cultural-Identity Axis has two dimensions: (a) Adoptee Culture Dimension--
the degree to which transracial adoptees identify with their own racial group's culture

(i.e., if the adoptee is Korean, to what degree does the adoptee identify with Korean

103

culture); and (b) Parental Culture Dimension«the degree to which transracial adoptees
identify with their adoptive parents' racial group's culture (i.e., because most transracially
adopting parents are White, to what degree does the adoptee identify with White culture).
The transracial adoptees' levels of identification with a culture or cultures is determined
by their levels of knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort with either or both the
culture of their own racial group, their parents' racial group, or multiple racial groups.
Four types of cultural identities (e.g., Bicultural Identity, Culturally Specific Type I
Identity, Culturally Specific Type H Identity, and Culturally Undifferentiated Identity)
exist each differing according to level of the transracial adoptee on each of the two
dimensions. For example, a transracial adoptee identifying more highly with their
adoptive parents' racial groups' culture (i.e., the White culture) would be high on Parental
Culture Dimension and low on Adoptee Culture Dimension; thus, the adoptee would have
a Culturally-Specific Type H Identity. A graphical representation of the Cultural Identity
Axis is depicted in Figure 1.

In transracially adopting families, racial differences also exist among family
members. Baden and Steward (1995) viewed these differences as affecting both
racial/ethnic self-identification and the allegiances and friendships of transracial adoptees.
Using a bio-social definition of race similar to that of Helms (1990), Baden and Steward
( 1995) considered racial groups to be determined by groups who are distinguished or
consider themselves to be distinguished from other people by their physical

Characteristics and by their social relations with other people. As Brown (1995) and

104

high

 

 

Culturally Specific Bicultural Identity
Type I Identity
Culture
low high of
Parents
Culturally Culturally Specific
Undifferentiated Type II Identity
Identity
low
Culture of
Transracial Adoptees’
Racial Group

Figge l. The Cultural Identity Axis.

105

Phinney and Rosenthal (1992) described when discussing nonadopted or biracial
individuals, transracial adoptees may make decisions about their racial group
membership, based on societal pressures (Brown, 1995), and based on the degree to
which they have achieved an ethnic identity (Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992). Moreover,
decisions about personal identity and situational identities (Richards, 1994) may be made
as a result of the transracial adoption. Phinney (1992) and Tizard and Phoenix (1994)
noted that the ethnic self-identification of individuals can result in "misidentifying" one's
racial ethnic group membership. To account for varying racial ethnic self-identifications
of transracial adoptees and for the role of allegiances and friendships in transracial
adoptees experiences, Baden and Steward developed the Racial Identity Axis in the
Cultural-Racial Identity Model.

The Racial Identity Axis has two dimensions: (a) Adoptee Race Dimension«the
degree to which transracial adoptees identify with their own racial group (i.e., if the
adoptee is Black, to what degree does the adoptee identify with Blacks); and (b) Parental
Race Dimension--the degree to which transracial adoptees identify with their adoptive
parents' racial group (i.e., because most transracially adopting parents are White, to what
degree does the adoptee identify with Whites). The transracial adoptees' levels of
identification with a racial group is determined by assessing the degree to which the
adoptees self-identify as belonging to their own racial group or their parents' racial group.
It also consists of the adoptees' comfort level with people belonging to their own racial

group and their adoptive parents' racial group. The transracial adoptees' comfort level

106

high

 

 

Racially Specific Biracial Identity
Type I Identity
Race of
low high Parents
Racially Racially Specific
Undifferentiated Type 11 Identity
Identity
low

Race of Transracial Adoptee

Figge 2. The Racial Identity Axis.

107

with different racial groups involves their allegiances to those racial groups and the
friendships they have with members belonging to different racial groups. In other words,
these racial identities are determined according the degree to which transracial adoptees
accurately identify and are comfortable with their racial group membership and the degree
to which they are comfortable with either or both those belonging to their racial group,
their parents' racial group, or multiple racial groups. Four possible racial identities are
possible. These racial identities are Biracial Identity, Racially Specific Type I Identity,
Racially Specific Type 11 Identity, and Racially Undifferentiated Type H Identity (see
Figure 2).

The final model combines the Cultural Identity Axis and the Racial Identity Axis
into a single model. The Cultural-Racial Identity Model represents the pairing of each of
the four types of possible Cultural Identities, as in Figure 1, with each of the four types of
possible Racial Identities, as in Figure 2. The resulting model has 16 identity statuses to
describe the identities of transracial adoptees. These identity statuses can be seen in the
Figure 3.

To date, no measure exists to determine the Cultural-Racial Identity of a
transracial adoptee; therefore, to subject the Cultural-Racial Identity model to empirical
validation, an instrument had to be developed. The present author developed the Cultural-
Racial Identity Questionnaire (CRIQ) (see Appendix A) to remedy this situation. The
CRIQ is a self-report instrument intended to obtain demographic information and

adoptive histories. This instrument in conjunction with an altered version of the

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Racially Specific Biracial Racially Specific Biracial
Type I Identity Identity Type I Identity Identity
Culturally Specific Bicultural Identity
- - - . ------ - - - - ----- Parental
Type I IdentIty Race
Racially Racially Specific Racially Racially Specific
Undifferentiated Type 11 Identity Undifferentiated Type II Identity
Identity Identity Culture of
_ Parental
Race
Racially Specific Biracial Racially Specific Biracial
Type I Identity Identity Type I Identity Identity
Culturally Undifferentiated Culturally Specific
-- . --.-- ° ---Parental
Identrty Type II Identrty Race
Racially Racially Specific Racially Racially Specific
Undifferentiated Type II Identity Undifferentiated Type 11 Identity
Identity Identity
Race of Culture of Race of
Transracial Transracial Transracial
Adoptee Adoptees’ Adoptee

Racial Group

51% The Cultural-Racial Identity Model

109

Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992) will be used to assess transracial

adoptees' identities according to the criteria for each of the four dimensions identified above.

These criteria, the dimensions to which they correspond, and the corresponding scales on the

MEIM can be seen in Figure 4.
In a recent paper, Baden and Steward (1997) included descriptions of each of the

16 identities. They also described environmental or contextual factors likely to affect the
identities of transracial adoptees. In particular, they sought to incorporate the role of
transracial adoptees' adoptive families and parents as well as the environments in which
they were reared into the transracial adoptees' resulting Cultural-Racial Identities. In other
words, Baden and Steward (1997) attempted to demonstrate through a theoretical and
graphical representation the contextual and familial situations, attitudes, and
Characteristics that would produce transracial adoptees from each of the 16 potential
Cthural-Racial Identities in the Cultural-Racial Identity Model. They posited that
"Parental attitudes and beliefs that either aflirm or discount the transracial adoptees'
culture and racial group membership" (p. 10) would influence the development of the
various Cultural-Racial Identities. This supplemental model (i.e., the role of parental
atti“Ides and contextual factors in impacting Cultural-Racial Identities) for the Cultural-
Racial Identity Model suggests that the degree to which parents, extended family, and the
environment affirm (i.e., acknowledge, accept, approve of) the transracial adoptees' racial
gr Oup membership and/or their racial group's culture impacts their identity and

psychological adjustment. Similarly, discounting (i.e., decreased emphasis, lack of

110

 

Cultural-Racial
Identity Dimensions

Criteria for Inclusion
in the Dimension

Subscale(s) of the
MEIM-R for the
Dimension

 

Transracial adoptee's

0 Ethnic Behaviors and

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoptee Culture level 0f knowledge, Practices for
Dimension awareness, competence, Transracial Adoptees'
and comfort with the Ethnic Group
culture associated with
his/her own racial group
Transracial adoptee's 0 Ethnic Behaviors and
level of knowledge, Practices for
Parental Culture awareness, competence, Adoptive Parents'
Dimension and comfort with the Ethnic Group
culture associated with
his/her adoptive parents'
racial group
Transracial adoptee's e Self-Identification for
level of comfort with Transracial Adoptees'
his/her own racial group Ethnic Group
membership and with 9 Ethnic Identity
A (1 Opt e 6 Race those belslnging to his/her Achievement for
. . own rac1 group Transracial Adoptees'
Dimensron Ethnic Group
0 Affimration and
Belonging for
Transracial Adoptees'
Ethnic Group
Transracial adoptee's O Self-Identification for
level of comfort with Adoptive Parents'
his/her racial group Ethnic Group
membership and with 9 Ethnic Identity
Parental Race those belonging to his/her Achievement for
Dimension adoptrve parents' racral Adoptive Parents'
group Ethnic Group
0 Affirmation and
Belonging for
Adoptive Parents'
Ethnic Group

 

Figu_re 4. The Four Dimensions in the Cultural-Racial Identity Model

111

 

interest in, lack of acceptance of) the transracial adoptees' racial group membership
and/or their racial group's culture will be likely to affect their identity and adjustment.

Baden and Steward (1997) created a graphic representation or model to aid in
understanding the factors at work (see Figure 5). In the model, transracial adoptees may
be reared in environments that: (a) either affirm or discount the adoptive parents' culture
and/or racial group membership; (b) either affirm or discount the transracial adoptees'
racial group's culture and/or their racial group membership; or (e) have some combination
of affirmation and discounting of adoptive parents' and transracial adoptees' cultures and
racial groups. Baden and Steward (1997) noted that the attitudes and characteristics they
described are not theorized to be explicit/ intentional efforts, behaviors, beliefs, etc., nor
do they necessarily result from inadvertent or unintentional efforts, behaviors, beliefs, etc.
Rather than attempting to predict how active or passive adoptive parents may be in the
transmission of these attitudes to transracial adoptees, the authors instead cautioned that
the child-rearing context (including extended family, schools, teachers, community
leaders, and peers) may also be sources aiding in creating the contexts seen in Figure 5.
The Current Study

The current investigation assessed the Cultural-Racial Identity Model according to
its applicability to the experience of transracial adoptees. To investigate this question,
key variables were defined. The adoption status of the study's participants (i.e.,
transracially adopted versus intraracially adopted) served as an independent variable in

the study. As previously implied, transracial adoptees are adoptees who are of a different

112

PARENT

Affirming Discounting

 

Parent Affirming- Parent Discounting-
Affirming Child Affirming Child Affirming

 

CHILD

Parent Affirming- Parent Discounting—
Child Discounting Child Discounting
Discounting

 

 

 

 

Figge 5. Parental Attitudes and Characteristics Model for Affirming/Discounting
Environments

113

racial group than their adoptive parents. It must be noted that racial group differences
may not be indicated by visible phenotypic differences (e.g., adoptees can be racially
different from their parents as in the case of Hispanic or Native American children
adopted by White parents, but they can still resemble their adoptive parents). For the
purposes of this study, visible racial group differences will not be required to identify
transracial adoptees. Also, because the vast majority of transracial adoptions are done by
White parents and because the controversy surrounding the practice of transracial
adoption tends to focus on White parents as the adoptive parents, all the transracial
adoptees in the study were adopted by White parents. All participants in the current study
will be young adult transracial adoptees.

The four dimensions in the model represented the independent variables. The four
dimensions were called the Adoptee Culture Dimension, the Parental Culture Dimension,
the Adoptee Race Dimension, and the Parental Race Dimension. The dimensions were
identified above and the criteria and meaning of each can be seen in Figure 4. According
to the measures/criteria of knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort with culture
and with those of various racial groups, transracial adoptees' identities were assessed.
This assessment was conducted using an instrument developed for the current study, the
Cultural-Racial Identity Questionnaire (see Appendix A) and a modified version of
Phinney's (1992) MEIM (see Appendix B).

Because Phinney has already established a means for assessing identity including

aspects of culture and race, the MEIM, which is intended to measure ethnic identity, was

114

altered to fit the purposes of the current study. Ethnic identity was defined as an aspect of
a person's social identity. Phinney (1992) described it as "that part of an individual's self-
concept that derives from his or her knowledge of membership in a social group (or
groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership"
(p. 156). Some of the components of ethnic identity include self-identification, language,
social networks, religious affiliation, and cultural traditions and practices. Because many
researchers have attempted to study and measure racial/ethnic identity, several measures
of identity have been developed for use with different ethnic groups. However, no single
measure had been developed for use with all ethnic groups. Phinney (1992) remedied this
problem by the development of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney,
1992). This measure examines the components of ethnic identity and contains subscales
assessing these components. The components are: Self-Identification and Ethnicity,
Ethnic Behaviors and Practices, Affirmation and Belonging, Ethnic Identity
Achievement, and Attitudes Toward Other Groups. Although this instrument as well as
Phinney's work in this area contributed significantly to the understanding of racial/ethnic
identity, use of Phinney's model for transracial adoptees is problematic, as demonstrated
through critique of the self-identification construct in the model.

Self-identification is the "ethnic label that one uses for oneself" (Phinney, 1992, p.
158). This label can be different from one's etlmicity because ethnicity is one's objective
group membership and is determined by the ethnic heritage of one's biological parents.

However, to have an ethnic identity, one must self-identify as a member of an ethnic

115

group. By definition, for transracial adoptees, ethnicity differs between the transracial
adoptee and his/her adoptive parents. Thus, the ethnic identity of transracial adoptees may
be affected by these differences. Moreover, although Phinney's MEIM was developed
both for use with individuals who may or may not differ in their self-identification and
their ethnicity as well as for those of mixed backgrounds who identify with a single group
from that background, its use with transracial adoptees may problematic. The MEIM only
provides information about the transracial adoptees' own ethnic group rather than
including information specifically about their identification with their adoptive parents'
ethnic group. Thus, without alteration, its use with transracial adoptees in this study
would not adequately address the experiences of transracial adoptees.

However, with alterations, the MEIM can be used with the transracial adoptee
population for the current study (see Appendix B). Three of the subscales of the MEIM
correspond well with the two axes of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden &
Steward, 1996). As described above, the Cultural Identity Axis involves knowledge,
awareness, competence, and comfort with the culture of the transracial adoptees' own
racial group's culture and with their adoptive parents' racial group's culture. To assess the
degree to which transracial adoptees have knowledge of, awareness of, competence
within, and comfort with their own or their parents' culture required an evaluation of the
adoptees' participation in cultural practices, traditions, values, beliefs. These cultural
practices include, for example, cultural holidays, customs, foods, dress, and music. The

MEIM contains a subscale called Ethnic Behaviors and Practices which addressed the

116

same components but does so only for the respondent's racial ethnic group. Altering this
subscale to include the culture of adoptive parents and adding additional items regarding
culture allowed the Ethnic Behaviors and Practices subscale to be used to assess the
Adoptee Culture Dimension and the Parental Culture Dimension on the Cultural Identity
Axis.

Similarly, the Racial Identity Axis is based on transracial adoptees' comfort with
their own racial group membership (including their self-identification which could
include identification with racial groups other than their own) and their comfort with
people from their own and their adoptive parents' racial groups (including allegiances to,
affiliations with, and friendships with people from various racial groups). To assess
transracial adoptees' based on these criteria, their self-identification and feelings about
their racial group membership, as well as their affiliations, friendships, and allegiances
served as indicators of racial identity according the Cultural-Racial Identity Model. The
MEIM includes subscales assessing Ethnic Identity Achievement, Self-Identification, and
Affiliation and Belonging. Because Ethnic Identity Achievement refers to "an exploration
of the meaning of one's ethnicity (e. g., its history and traditions) that leads to a secure
sense of self as a member of a minority group" (p. 160), the Ethnic Identity Achievement
subscale appropriately addressed the criteria of comfort with racial group membership as
delineated in the Cultural-Racial Identity Model. Furthermore, one's self-identification
provides information regarding ethnicity and the Affirmation and Belonging subscale

provided a means for assessing transracial adoptees' comfort with members of various

117

racial groups. Therefore, the Ethnic Identity Achievement, Self-Identification, and
Affiliation and Belonging subscales of the MEIM were altered to include items related to
the adoptive parents' racial group. With this alteration, these subscales were used to
measure Adoptee Race Dimension and Parental Race Dimension of the Racial Identity
Axis within the Cultural-Racial Identity Model.

The dependent variables in this study were the psychological adjustment and self-
esteem of the transracial adoptees. The construct of psychological adjustment gives
general indices of well-being, normal functioning, and the ability to cope effectively with
the daily demands of living. Self-esteem is considered the evaluative part of one's self-
concept. High levels of self-esteem are considered healthy and adaptive. Andujo (1988)
and McRoy et a1. (1982) operationalized psychological adjustment using measures of
self-concept and self-esteem.

To control for pre-existing differences in the transracial adoptees and the inability
to randomly assign individuals to transracial adoption and pre-adoptive experiences,
several background factors were accounted for in the study. The background variables
expected to have an impact were identified in the literature (Andujo, 1988; Bagley, 1993;
McRoy et al., 1982; Silverman & Feigelman, 1981) as accounting for much of the
variance in the transracial adoptees' psychological adjustment, particularly when they
were compared to intraracial adoptees or nonadopted individuals. Five background
variables of the adoptees and their families were controlled for in the study: age at

adoption, number of pre-adoptive placements, pre-adoptive history/trauma (physical,

118

political, etc.), sex of the adoptees, and socioeconomic status of the adoptive family. The
age at adoption (as measured in months), number of pre-adoptive placements, and pre-
adoptive history/trauma were measured as continuous variables. Pre-adoptive
history/trauma were considered to include abuse, physical health from birth to adoptive
placement, medical history (e.g., pre-disposition to mental health problems, substance
abuse histories), political conditions surrounding the adoption (e.g., war, government
sanctions on number of children such as in China), and remembered loss of family
members. Pre-adoptive history/trauma was measured by the number of items chosen to
describe the “history” of each participant’s adoption, but when “healthy” was chosen, it
was not included in the total. Socioeconomic status was measured as a continuous
variable with 7 levels of socioeconomic status. An additional variable that may have an
impact on adjustment is the cmrent age of the adoptees, especially given that adolescence
has traditionally been the period during which identity issues are most salient. Because
the current study addressed identity as it developed after adolescence, the changes that
occur during young adulthood could also potentially have impacted adjustment and self-
esteem.

The research questions that were addressed in this study are as follows: (a) Are
there differences among transracial adoptees on their level of knowledge, awareness,
competence, and comfort with their racial group's own culture (Adoptee Culture
Dimension)? (b) Are there differences among transracial adoptees on their level of

knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort with their parents' racial groups' culture

119

(Parental Culture Dimension)? (c) Are there differences among transracial adoptees on
their level of comfort with their own racial self-identification and with those belonging to
their own racial group (Adoptee Race Dimension)? (d) Are there differences among
transracial adoptees on their level of comfort with their own racial self-identification and
with those belonging to their parents' racial group (Parental Race Dimension)? (e)
Controlling for age at adoption, number of pre-adoptive placements, pre-adoptive
history/trauma, sex of the transracial adoptees, current age of the transracial adoptees, and
socioeconomic status of the transracial adoptees, are there differences in the
psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees having different levels of the four
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions? (1) Controlling for age at adoption, number of pre-
adoptive placements, pre-adoptive history/trauma, sex of the transracial adoptees, current
age of the transracial adoptees, and socioeconomic status of the transracial adoptees, are
there differences in the self-esteem of transracial adoptees having different levels of the

four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions?

120

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy, applicability, and
comprehensiveness of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995) by
determining the degree to which the model is valid in describing the Cultural-Racial
Identities of transracial adoptees and by determining if there are differences in the
psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees having different Cultural-Racial
Identities. Support for the Cultural-Racial Identity Model has not yet been empirically
demonstrated. In the current investigation, the four dimensions (i.e., Adoptee Culture
Dimension, the Parental Culture Dimension, the Adoptee Race Dimension, and the
Parental Race Dimension) believed to determine the Cultural-Racial Identities of
transracial adoptees were measured. Based on that level at which transracial adoptees are
measured on each factor, the transracial adoptees will represent the various Cultural-
Racial Identities delineated by Baden and Steward (1995). Each of the four dimensions
will also be analyzed according to the degree to which they affect the psychological
adjustment of the transracial adoptees in the study. To increase the current knowledge
base regarding transracial adoptees, we must answer several research questions.
First, is there significant variation among transracial adoptees on the Multigroup
Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R; Phinney, 1992)? In other words, does the
Cultural-Racial Identity Model accurately depict the range of identities of transracial

adoptees? The model would be considered as having been confirmed if a large amount of

121

variation among transracial adoptees was found in comparison to the variation among
items on the MEIM-R as is the case with a high measure of reliability. The findings
related to this question can answer several other research questions that center around the
four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions that were delineated within the Cultural-Racial
Identity Model. These questions follow. Are there differences among transracial adoptees
on the degree to which they identify with the culture of those of their own racial group?
Are there differences among transracial adoptees on the degree to which they identify
with the culture of those of their adoptive parents' racial group? Are there differences
among transracial adoptees on the degree to which they identify racially with their own
racial group? Are there differences among transracial adoptees on the degree to which
they identify racially with their adoptive parents' racial group? Given the limitations
imposed by self-report instruments and the method through which the four Cultural-
Racial Identity Dimensions must be measured (i.e., the MEIM-R), the current study
allowed the examination of the variation produced by the instrument and the validation of
that instrument as a measure that distinguishes among transracial adoptees. However,
acceptance of the rationale for using the MEIM-R to measure the Cultural-Racial
Identities of transracial adoptees did provide validation of the Cultural-Racial Identity
Model

A second research question for the current study was, are there significant
differences in psychological adjustment as measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory

(BS1; Derogatis & Cleary, 1977) of transracial adoptees having different levels of the four

122

Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions (Adoptee Culture Dimension, the Parental Culture
Dimension, the Adoptee Race Dimension, and the Parental Race Dimension) as measured
by the MEIM-R? This question essentially examines whether differences in these
dimensions affect the psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees. This question was
investigated using each of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions and various
combinations of them to predict psychological adjustment as measured by the BSI.
Differences among transracial adoptees’ psychological adjustment were viewed as
existent if a model significantly predicting psychological adjustment was estimated in the
data.

Finally, are there significant differences in self-esteem as measured by the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) of transracial adoptees having different
levels of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions (Adoptee Culture Dimension, the
Parental Culture Dimension, the Adoptee Race Dimension, and the Parental Race
Dimension) as measured by the MEIM-R? As with psychological adjustment, a statistical
model demonstrating that some combination of the Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions
significantly predicted self-esteem among transracial adoptees was considered to be
necessary to confirm the relationship between self-esteem and Cultural-Racial Identity .

.S._ub.ig=1§
Description of the Sample
The subjects who participated in this study were young adult transracial adoptees

ranging in age from 19 to 36 years of age with a mean age of 24.35. Thirty-eight of the

123

subjects were females with a mean age of24.18 and 13 were males with a mean age of
24.85. Subjects were identified as transracial adoptees if they were the biological
offspring of at least one non-White individual and if they were adopted by two White
parents. Based on this identification, all the transracial adoptees were racially different
from their adoptive parents (i.e., phenotypical differences were not required for inclusion
in the sample). These criteria for transracial adoptees were used to ensure a sample that
reflects the composition of the American population of transracial adoptees. This
population includes African Americans and Latino Americans adopted by White
American families as well as intercountry adoptees from Asian and South American
countries.

Although comparisons using the Cultural-Racial Identity Model will eventually be
useful between intercountry and domestic transracial adoptions, the exploratory nature of
the current study makes this comparison a subject for future research. Furthermore,
adequate numbers of intercountry and domestically transracially adopted subjects could
not be found for this comparison. Also, although some cases of transracial adoption have
occurred in which the adoptive parents were non-White and the adoptees were White or
from some other different racial group than the adoptive parents, these cases are few in
number, difficult to identify, and have not been the subject of substantial controversy.
Given the infiequency of these cases of transracial adoption, the current study only
included transracial adoption where White parents adopted non-White children.

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the sample of transracial adoptees. The

124

statistics were broken down by the racial ethnic group with which the adoptees identify
and by their sex. Among the 38 females in the sample, one identified as White American
(2.6%), six identified as Black or African American (15.8%), 26 identified as Asian
American (68.4%), four identified as “multicultural” or “mixed race” (10.5%), and one
identified as “other” (2.6%). Among the 13 males in the sample, four identified as Asian
American (30.8%), one identified as Latino (7.7%), six identified as “multicultural” or
“mixed race” (46.2%), and two identified as “other” (15.4%).

The sample obtained was one of convenience. An initial sample size of 180 was
chosen to ensure adequate power and to account for potential Type II errors. Using 0.80 as
the acceptable level of power and an alpha level of 0.05, sample size was computed (Cohen,
1977). The subjects were recruited through advertisements (e.g., Internet adoption bulletin
boards, adoption newsletters, regional newspapers), social service agencies, and special
interest adoption groups (e. g., support groups for transracial adoptees). All participation was
voluntary and a lottery with a prize of $200 was used as an incentive for participation.
Following the closing date for the lottery (February 1, 1998), each subject to complete a
survey received $15.

Procedure

Transracial adoptees were recruited by advertisements, social service agencies,
and special interest adoption groups. Flyers and postcards were distributed via personal
contacts and social workers in the field (see Appendix B). All respondents to flyers,

contacts, and ads were mailed survey packets consisting of the following materials: an

125

.988 8 08de n N. mcoodwm 8 ooodom n c “gamma 2 80de u m $3.3m 3 ooofimm

u v mamaxumm 8 ooofi S n m 53.3% 8 8me u N ”Bo—op 8 3va u _ 818m wfiBo=£ 2: mean 8888 we? 98 38¢
03828 85 .8 £59m Baocooofloom 9 808.. ammm: .wfifimb $8883-83 8 8&6me 38888 n 5 ”mafia: M8883
smog 8 088me 088 n c ”$8on @8883 ewev cwozoo 88388 H m Knapp 88888 38% 28 smdv owozoo 088

n v ”938888 48888 .035 rmdv 828m 52 “men Am £me 8v cameo 82% ~35 u m ”828 :mE .85 m8— " _ ”28m
we§o=£ 05 mean 8883 3888b c5 .3 @2638 8:8sz .8 88— HERE 85 8 3&8 288A E88269. .262

@588 5 83m 8:925. 8 emf

 

 

 

 

8.» 28 SH SG - - 0885 2E5 8:83

8.8 :4 8s 8.4 - - .33 38885

com 2. 2:. m2 - - 38885 0888.85 .6 58:2

8% 8.... cod 8.? - - $283.. a a8

8.2 88 8. a m 8.3 - - cm... 3050
850 8mm 8me 828: 838:3 gotog «Bureaus
338232 Sufi 523 508... 323

832

@588 5 82m 8383.4 8 09)

 

 

 

coo omé - $8 008 o 0:82: £89m 63303..

oo.v flaw - vmé 2.0 v :83 assesses—cm

cod om. .. mmd ow. _ 388085 3:83-05 .8 H3:82

cod cod - 3.8 2.2 m 12:83.. He ow<

oodm flumm - woém omdm 3 03.. 8680
850 comm 382 588:3 808:3. glucose 588924
3558252 253 Sega 58.8.2 83>?

8mg»

 

 

.88 oe< 888mg; me 298% 05 8a moumwflm o>um8mom ._ oEmIH

126

informed consent form, a letter of introduction to the study, instructions for the
completion of the measures, the measures to be administered (i.e., these are self-report
measures only), and a pre-addressed and stamped return envelope for their convenience.
All survey packets were assigned identification numbers. Subjects who participated
signed the informed consent and, if interested in the $200 lottery and/or in receiving a
summary of the results, completed a detachable postcard on which they indicated their
interest and put their names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses (if
applicable). Upon receipt of the completed surveys, the informed consent forms and
postcards were separated from the measures and demographic data. The completed
surveys were kept confidential and no identifying data were included on the surveys
themselves.

Due to the attrition rate associated with the use of a mail survey for data
collection, an increased sample size was desired to maintain power (Heppner, Kivlighan,
& Wampold, 1992). To adjust for this procedure, all transracial adoptees identified for the
study responded to flyers, advertisements, web pages, or recruiters prior to mailings to
confirm their participation. This initial response consisted of e-mail messages, phone
calls, face-to-face contact, or the return of stamped, pre-addressed postcards indicating
the interested participant's address and phone number (see Appendix G). An increased
sample size of 180 (i.e., double the size identified by the power analysis) was desired to
account for the approximately 50% return rate (Heppner et al., 1992). However, despite a

nine month data collection period, a research team of a doctoral student and four masters

127

 

 

3d

din

students, the use of professional and personal contacts, a web site designed specifically
for the study (http://www.msu.edu/user/badenama), and numerous other outreach
attempts, the sample size obtained only reached 51 completed surveys. Given that the
sample size was smaller than desired, interpretation of statistical analyses accounted for
this limitation.

The self-report measures were presented in the survey packets in the following
order: demographics questionnaire (the Cultural-Racial Identity Questionnaire), measures
of cultural and racial identity (the MEIM-R), and measures of psychological adjustment
(the B81) and self-esteem (the SES).

Measures

Research measures required for this study assessed the Cultural-Racial Identity
status and psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees. Due to the exploratory nature
of this study and the model examined in the study, measures of Cultural-Racial Identity
status did not exist. However, a means for identifying the Cultural-Racial Identity status
of transracial adoptees was necessary to address the questions in this study. Thus, using a
rational method of identifying relevant factors distinguishing among identity statuses, an
instrument was developed to obtain demographic and adoptive history information. This
measure provided information for the potentially confounding variables (e.g., age at
adoption, number of pre-adoptive placements, pre-adoptive history/trauma, sex of the
transracial adoptees, and socioeconomic status of transracial adoptees). The four

dimensions of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model were assessed using a modified version

128

of the MEIM (Phinney, 1992). Other measures to be used in this study addressed the
psychological adjustment and the self-esteem of transracial adoptees.
Cultural-Racial Identitv Measures

The measures to be used for this portion of the study were intended to directly
address the Cultural-Racial Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995). The first measure
was designed to allow the categorization of transracial adoptees into each of the identity
statuses depicted in the model (see Figure 3). To determine the identity status descriptive
of each transracial adoptee, four dimensions consistent with the Cultural-Racial Identity
Model were used. The model is comprised of two parts, the Cultural Identity Axis and the
Racial Identity Axis. According to the model, transracial adoptees have a cultural identity
that is determined by the degree to which they have knowledge, awareness, competence,
and comfort with the culture of their own racial group (Adoptee Culture Dimension) and
with the culture of their adoptive parents' racial group (Parental Culture Dimension).
These dimensions were represented by the graphical axes in Figure 1. The model also
posited that transracial adoptees have a racial identity determined by their racial self-
identification and the degree to which they are comfortable with individuals belonging to
their own racial group (Adoptee Race Dimension) and with individuals belonging to their
adoptive parents' racial group (Parental Race Dimension). These dimensions were
represented by the axes in Figure 2. The measure includes items regarding the transracial
adoptees' racial group membership, the racial composition of their social support

network, schools, and community, their cultural knowledge and practices, and their

129

exposure to other cultures, and role models. These items were developed to assess not
only the transracial adoptees accumulated experiences, but also the family and
environment in which they were raised.

The Cultural-Racial Identity Questionnaire (CRIQ) (see Appendix A) was
developed for the current study, for the purpose of operationalizing the independent
variable, and for collecting background information on transracial adoptees. The criteria
for cultural identity (i.e., knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort with the
culture) were addressed within the questionnaire as were the criteria for racial identity
(i.e., comfort with racial groups). The questionnaire consists of 41 items that are open-
ended, multiple-choice, or forced-choice 4-point Likert scale items ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. All items were chosen using a rational method of
development which used the face validity of the items for inclusion. The scores on these
items determine the Cultural-Racial Identity of the transracial adoptees. Demographic
information such as age at adoption, trauma/history of the adoption, integration level of
the community and schools in which the transracial adoptees were raised, and numbers
and adoption status of siblings can be collected on the CRIQ.

No validity or reliability information is currently available on the CRIQ. However,
because the CRIQ served primarily as a demographics measure and was designed to
provide a validity check for the revised MEIM, the measure was deemed appropriate for

use in the current study.

130

The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R) was administered.
This measure was a revised or modified version of the original Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure (MEIM) developed by Phinney (1992). The original MEIM measure consisted of
20 items that measured seven subscales of ethnic identity as described by Phinney (1992):
Ethnic Identity (14 items), Affirmation and Belonging (5 items), Ethnic Identity
Achievement (7 items), Ethnic Behaviors and Practices (2 items), Ethnicity, Other-Group
Orientation (6 items), and Self-Identification (open-ended). When modified for use in the
current study, 14 items that assessed four aspects of ethnic identity were chosen for use in
analyses: Affirmation and Belonging, Ethnic Identity Achievement, and Ethnic Behaviors
and Practices, and Self-Identification. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. High scores indicate high ethnic identity as
demonstrated by both exploration and commitment to obtaining information and
awareness about one's ethnicity. Low scores indicate low ethnic identity which is
evidenced by the absence of exploration and commitment to obtaining awareness and
understanding of one's ethnicity. Reported reliability estimates demonstrate adequate
internal consistency. Phinney (1992) reports a Cronbach's alpha overall .81 for a high
school sample and .90 for a college sample for the whole measure. Individual scales
demonstrated alphas of .75 and .86 for Affirmation/Belonging; .69 and .80 for Ethnic
Identity Achievement; and .71 and .74 for the other-group-orientation.

However, as addressed in Chapter 2, the MEIM has not been used in describing

the ethnic identity of transracial adoptees. Due to the racial and other potential differences

131

between adoptive parents and the transracial adoptees themselves, the MEIM was adapted
for use with transracial adoptees (see Appendix F). Items one to 20 were repeated exactly
as they appear on the original MEIM. Because the original MEIM included only two
items to measure Ethnic Behaviors and Practices and, therefore, the Cultural Identity
Axis, additional items were necessary to improve the reliability of the scale. For items 21,
22, and 23 in the MEIM-R, additional items intended to assess Ethnic Behaviors and
Practices were added. For the remaining items, 24 through 46, the wording in items one
to 20 from the original MEIM and the additional items (21 to 23) were altered so that
instead of referring to "my . . ." or "my own ethnic group" or "my cultural or ethnic
background" the new items refer to "my adoptive parents" or "my adoptive parents' ethnic
group" etc. These additional items served as measures of the transracial adoptees' ethnic
identification with their adoptive parents' culture and racial group. The subscales of the
altered MEIM were used to operationalize the four dimensions of the Cultural Racial
Identity Model (Baden & Steward, 1995).

Cultural-Racial Identity Dimens_iogs_

Each of the four Cultural-Racial Identity dimensions (i.e., Adoptee Culture
Dimension, Adoptee Race Dimension, Parental Culture Dimension, Parental Race
Dimension) were determined by extracting the items from the MEIM-R comprising each
of the subscales used to measure each of the dimensions as seen in Figure 4. A reliability
analysis was then conducted to determine what combination of the items resulted in the

most reliable set of items for each of the four Cultural-Racial Identity dimensions. When

132

the final set of items for each dimension was determined, the scores for each dimension
were standardized. Higher scores on each dimension indicated a strong endorsement of
that dimension as being descriptive of the transracial adoptees’ identity experience.

The Adoptee Culture Dimension was comprised of items 2, 16, 21 , and 22 from
the Ethnic Behaviors and Practices for transracial adoptees’ racial group of the MEIM-R.
The Adoptee Race Dimension was comprised of items 1, 2, 10R, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, and
20 from the Self-Identification, Ethnic Identity Achievement, and Affirmation and
Belonging for transracial adoptees’ racial group of the MEIM-R. The Parental Culture
Dimension was comprised of items 39, 44, 45, and 46 from the Ethnic Behaviors and
Practices for adoptive parents’ racial group of the MEIM-R. Finally, the Parental Race
Dimension was comprised of items 24, 26, 29, 33R, 34, 36, 37, 41, and 43 from the Self-
Identification, Ethnic Identity Achievement, and Affirmation and Belonging for adoptive
parents’ racial group of the MEIM-R
Psychological Adiu_stment Measures

Psychological adjustment has frequently been the focus of research on transracial
adoption (e.g., Alstein & Simon, 1977; Andujo, 1988; McRoy et al., 1982; McRoy etal.,
1984; Shireman & Johnson, 1986; Simon & Alstein, 1981). Because critics of transracial
adoption fi'equently cite psychological maladjustment as the result of transracial adoption
(Gill & Jackson, 1983; Hayes, 1993; Silverman & Feigelman, 1981; Tizard, 1991) and
because the identities of transracial adoptees as described in the Cultural-Racial Identity

Model have yet to be compared according to the degree to which they are associated with

133

adaptive behavior, psychological adjustment was measured in the current study.
Moreover, because self-concept and/or self-esteem (e. g., Andujo, 1988; McRoy et al.,
1984) were frequently used as indicators of psychological adjustment, self-esteem was
also measured in the current study. The measures chosen to assess psychological
adjustment were chosen based on their comprehensive measurement of aspects of
psychological adjustment, their reported validity and reliability, their appropriateness for
the population, and their completion time. The Brief Symptom Inventory and Rosenberg's
Self-Esteem Scale were chosen for use. Their combined completion time is estimated to
be 10 minutes.

Psychological adjustment.

The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Cleary, 1977) (see Appendix C)
was used as one of the dependent measures of the dependent variable, the psychological
adjustment of transracial adoptees. It has been used in previous studies (e. g., Frazier &
Schauben, 1994; Waggener & Galassi, 1993) to measure psychological adjustment. This
instrument is a brief form of the SCL-90-R, both of which are self-report symptom check
lists (Derogatis, 1993). The BSI is appropriate for individuals age 13 and above who are
psychiatric patients, medical patients, and non-patient individuals in the community. It
has 45 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "not at all" to "extremely." These
items measure three global indices (Global Severity Index [GSI], Positive Symptom Total
[PST], and Positive Symptom Distress Index [PSDI]) and nine factors (Somatization,

Obsessive-Compulsive, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic

134

SCI

plc

C01

ret

PS)

C4

ft

Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation, and Psychoticism). Respondents rate items according to "how
much that problem has distressed or bothered you during the past 7 days including today."
Scores on the BSI factors and global indices are converted into standardized T scores and
plotted on profiles appropriate for the norm group to which the respondents are to be
compared. Reliability estimates for B81 demonstrate good internal consistency and test-
retest reliabilities. For the nine factors, Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from .71 on
Psychoticism to .85 on Depression. Test-retest reliability estimates for a two-week
interval were reported to range fi'om .68 for Somatization to .91 for Phobic Anxiety
whereas the GSI was found to have a stability coefficient of .90. Derogatis (1993)
reported validity estimates demonstrating good convergent, discriminant, construct, and
predictive validity. The BSI demonstrated convergent validity (Derogatis, 1993) with the
clinical scales of the MMPI with coefficient greater than .30 and high correlations with
the longer SCL-90-R.

Self-esteem.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (SES; Rosenberg, 1965) (see Appendix D) was
used to assess transracial adoptees' self-esteem. Because many of the studies identified in
the literature review assessed self-esteem distinct from psychological adjustment, this
construct served as a separate outcome. In the current study, this 10-item measured
assesses general feelings of self-worth. The items are arranged in a 4-point Likert scale
format with a score range from 10 to 40 with higher scores designating higher self-

esteem. Reliability estimates for the SES have ranged from a Cronbach's alpha .77 to .88.

135

Test-retest reliabilities have been reported between .85 (after a two- week interval) to .82
(after a one-week interval). Thus, the SES has demonstrated adequate internal consistency
and test-retest reliability. Correlations between the SES and confidence were reported as
.65 and between the SES and popularity as .39. The SES correlated well with the Lerner
Self-Esteem Scale (.72) and with the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (.55). Scores on
the SES also had a negative relationship with anxiety (-.64), depression (-.54), and
anomie (-.43). Therefore, the SES has demonstrated adequate convergent validity.
Reports of the discriminant validity of the SES also showed no significant correlations
with achievement scores or with gender, age, work experience, or marital status. Thus,
the SES demonstrates adequate discriminant validity.
29;ng
This study was conducted using a correlational field design. No experimental
control over or manipulation of independent variables was used. This design was chosen
due to the exploratory nature of the study, the inability to make use of randomization in
sampling or assignment to groups, and the inability to make the observations of the
transracial adoptees in their natural settings. This design does not allow for causal
inferences, but it has high external validity. It also enabled the determination of within
and between group differences.
Analyses
Due to the exploratory nature of this study and its design, descriptive statistics

such as correlations, means, and standard deviations were calculated for the data. Due to

136

the alterations made on the MEIM, reliability estimates for the subscales used to
operationalize the dimensions of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model were obtained to
ensure that the items comprising each subscale are measuring the intended constructs.
Scores for each of the four dimensions were standardized into z-scores as were the items
from the CRIQ comprising the potential confounds. Support for the first research
question regarding whether transracial adoptees differ on Adoptee Culture Dimension
was determined by plotting the standardized scores of the participants on each of the two
axes (the Cultural Identity Axis and the Racial Identity Axis), by determining correlation
coefficients for the dimensions comprising each of the two Axes, and by calculating
reliability estimates. Similarly, the other three dimensions were assessed by plotting the
scores of the participants and calculating reliability estimates. If the data were distributed
across the potential Cultural-Racial Identities and the reliability estimates were high, then

these hypotheses were considered to have been supported.

137

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which the Cultural-
Racial Identity Model actually depicts the identity experiences of transracial adoptees as
these experiences were measured by the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised
(MEIM-R). A second purpose for this study was to assess the degree to which the
psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees differed based on their Cultural-Racial
Identities. The research questions that were addressed in this study are as follows: (a)
When used on transracial adoptees, does the MEIM-R reliably distinguish among
adoptees’ levels of knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort with their racial
group ’s own culture (Adoptee Culture Dimension)? Are there differences among
transracial adoptees on their level of knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort
with their racial group's own culture (Adoptee Culture Dimension)? (b) When used on
transracial adoptees, does the MEIM-R reliably distinguish among adoptees ’ levels of
knowledge, awareness, competence and comfort with their parents ’ racial group’s
culture (Parental Culture Dimension)? Are there differences among transracial adoptees
on their level of knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort with their parents'
racial group’s culture (Parental Culture Dimension)? (c) When used on transracial
adoptees, does the MEIM-R reliably distinguish among adoptees ’ levels of comfort with
their own racial self-identification and with those belonging to their own racial group

(Adoptee Race Dimension)? Are there differences among transracial adoptees on their

138

level of comfort with their own racial self-identification and with those belonging to their
own racial group (Adoptee Race Dimension)? ((1) When used on transracial adoptees,
does the MEIM-R reliably distinguish among adoptees’ levels of comfort with their own
racial self-identification and with those belonging to their parents ’ racial group
(Parental Race Dimension)? Are there differences among transracial adoptees on their
level of comfort with their own racial self-identification and with those belonging to their
parents' racial group (Parental Race Dimension)? (e) Controlling for age at the time of
adoption, number of pre-adoptive placement, pre-adoptive history/trauma, sex of the
transracial adoptees, current age of the transracial adoptees, and socioeconomic status of
the transracial adoptees, are there differences in the psychological adjustment of
transracial adoptees having different levels of the four Cultural-Racial Identity
Dimensions? (0 Controlling for age at the time of adoption, number of pre-adoptive
placement, pre-adoptive history/trauma, sex of the transracial adoptees, current age of the
transracial adoptees, and socioeconomic status of the transracial adoptees, are there
differences in the self-esteem of transracial adoptees having different levels of the four
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions?
Analyses

Due to the exploratory nature of this study and its design, descriptive statistics
such as correlations, means, and standard deviations were calculated for the data. Due to
the alterations made on the MEIM, reliability estimates for the subscales used to

operationalize the dimensions of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model were obtained to

139

ensure that the items comprising each subscale are measuring the intended constructs.
Scores for each of the four dimensions were standardized into z-scores as were the items
from the CRIQ comprising the potential confounds. Support for the first research
question concerning whether transracial adoptees differ on the four Cultural-Racial
Identities was determined by plotting the standardized scores of the participants on each
of the two axes (the Cultural Identity Axis and the Racial Identity Axis). Correlation
coefficients for the two dimensions comprising each of the two Axes were also calculated
and used to indicate the variability of respondents scores on the measure of Cultural-
Racial Identity. Reliability estimates were also used as indicators of the distribution of
transracial adoptees on the various Cultural-Racial Identities available.

The data were analyzed to determine if differences exist in the psychological
adjustment of transracial adoptees having different levels of the four dimensions while
controlling for potential confounds. That is, regressions were performed using
psychological adjustment as the outcome variable, the four dimensions as predictors. The
degree to which the six potentially confounding variables (age at placement, pre-adoptive
history, sex, current age, socioeconomic status of the adoptive family, and number of pre-
adoptive placements) impacted the relationships among the dependent and independent
variables was determined. Similarly, additional regressions were performed to determine
if differences exist in the self-esteem of transracial adoptees having different levels of the

four dimensions.

140

 

Descriptive statistics.
Table 2 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for the major

subscales from the BSI, SES, and the MEIM-R. The exploratory nature of this study

fible 2. Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities.

 

Standard 0t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Actual Ranges Means Deviations
Demographics -
Age at Adoption (in months) 0 to 144 22.29 31.04 -
Number of Pre-Adoptive Traumatic O to 2 .53 .54 -
Incidents Reported
Number of Pre-Adoptive 0 to 18 1.64 2.67 -
Placements
Socioeconomic Status of Adoptive 2 to 9 6.56 1.57 -
Family
Brief Symptom Inventory
Global Severity Index (GSI) 36 to 80 60.65 9.70 .95
Positive Symptom Total (PST) 36 to 76 59.61 8.89 -
Positive Symptom Distress Index 43 to 78 57.09 8.46 -
(PSDI)

Rosenbeg Self-Esteem Scale
Self-Esteem 21 to 40 33.43 5.42 .89

 

Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure-Revised

 

 

F1 Adoptee Culture Dimension -4.03 to 6.88 3.61E-16 3.33 .85
(MEIM-R items: 2, 16, 21, 22)
F2 Adoptee Race Dimension -13.86 to 10.21 2.11E—16 7.00 .73

(MEIM-R items: 1, 3, 10R, 11,
12,13,14,18, 2(D

 

 

F3 Parental Culture Dimension -6.52 to 2.98 -6.49E-16 2.98 .92
@EIM-R items: 39, 44, 45, 46)

F4 Parental Race Dimension -16.29 to 10.33 -6.50E-16 6.02 .84
(MEIM-R items: 24, 26, 29, 33R,

34, 36, 37, 41, 43)

 

141

necessitated the calculation of descriptive statistics. The means and standard deviations
for the BSI were standardized using Derogatis and Cleary’s (1977) reported factor
structure for a sample of non-patient adults. The means and standard deviations of other
relevant variables were also included in Table 2.

Table 2 also enumerates the items used to make up each of the four dimensions of
the Cultural-Racial Identity Model and reports standardized item alphas for each subscale
as well as their means and standard deviations. As described in Chapter 2, the four
dimensions of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model were constructed by determining those
scales in the MEIM-R that were theoretically consistent with the Cultural-Racial Identity
Model according to Phinney’s (1992) descriptions of the subscales and their theoretical
premises (See Figure 4). The specific items comprising each of the four Cultural-Racial
Identity Dimensions were then determined by combining Phinney’s factor structure and
the additional items generated for the ethnic behaviors and practices subscale. For
example, a sample item that comprises the Adoptee Culture Dimension was “I am active
in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my own ethnic group.”
A sample item in the Parental Culture Dimension was “I participate in cultural practices
of my parents' group, such as special food, music, or customs. In the Adoptee Race
Dimension, some sample items were “I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic
group” and “I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me, in
terms of how to relate to my own group and other groups.” Finally, some items

comprising the Parental Race Dimension were “I am happy that my parents are members

142

of the group they belong to,” “I feel a strong attachment towards my parents' ethnic
group,” and “I have a strong sense of belonging to my parents' ethnic group.”

When the items believed to be theoretically relate to each of the four Cultural-
Racial Identity Dimensions were obtained, a reliability analysis of the MEIM-R was
conducted to determine those items that, when included in the score for each of the
dimensions, resulted in adequate reliability for the dimension. For each of the four
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions, the combination of items that yielded the highest
reliability was retained and became the items comprising that dimension. Table 2 lists
those items that were included in each dimension for the analyses to follow. Due to the
small number of items making up the Ethnic Behaviors and Practices subscale of the
original MEIM, additional items were constructed using a rational methodology. Three
items were added to supplement the Ethnic Behaviors and Practices for Transracial
Adoptees’ Ethnic Group subscale; the same three items were then altered slightly (i.e.,
changing “my own ethnic group” to “my parents’ ethnic group”) and added to the Ethnic
Behaviors and Practices for Adoptive Parents’ Ethnic Group subscale. The additional
items were: “I know the language/dialect/slang of people from my own [parents’] ethnic
group,” “I celebrate the holidays of people from my own [parents’] ethnic group,” “I have
values and beliefs similar to those of people from my own [parents’] ethnic group.”

As Table 2 depicts, the reliability estimates for the Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure-Revised (MEIM-R), the Brief Symptom Inventory (B81), and Rosenberg’s Self-
Esteem Scale (SES) were calculated.

143

The Cultural-Racial Identitv Model

The first four research questions posed in the current study address the degree to
which Cultural-Racial Identity Model is a viable means for representing the unique
identity statuses of transracial adoptees. An examination of the data allowed an
assessment of the degree to which the measures used and, therefore, the theory behind the
chosen measures, substantively differentiated between transracial adoptees’ Cultural-
Racial Identities. As a result, the specific research questions were addressed using three
different analyses.

Figure 6 shows two scatterplots of the data points in the Cultural Identity Axis and
Racial Identity Axis, respectively. These plots depict the transracial adoptee participants’
scores on each of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions. For example, in the
Cultural Identity Axis plot, transracial adoptees were plotted on the graph according to
the degree to which they reported being knowledgeable of, aware of, competent within,
and comfortable with the culture of their own racial group (Adoptee Culture Dimension)
by the degree to which they reported being knowledgeable of, aware of, competent
within, and comfortable with the culture of their parents’ racial group (Parental Culture
Dimension). As the two plots illustrate, the transracial adoptee participants reported
cultural identities and Racial Identities that were substantially scattered on the four
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions of interest. In other words, the transracial adoptees
reported a wide range of cultural Identities or racial identities rather than remaining

clustered in a few of the potential Cultural-Racial Identities. This graph served as one of

144

the means for supporting the measure of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model, and,
therefore, the theory behind the model.

Table 4 reports correlations between each of the four Cultural-Racial Identity
Dimensions, psychological adjustment, and self-esteem. Because Pearson’s correlation
coefficient is a measure of linear association, this statistic gives an indication of the
degree to which a linear relationship exists between two variables. In the case of the
Cultural Identity Axis, the Adoptee Culture Dimension was plotted by the Parental
Culture Dimension. The correlation between these two dimensions was —0. 12 and failed
to attain significance (p = .40). This statistic indicated that reported Cultural Identities
were scattered throughout the scatterplot. Thus, a linear relationship was not found
between the Adoptee Culture Dimension and the Parental Culture Dimension such that
participants reported various Cultural Identities as measured by the MEIM-R. Similarly,
the Adoptee Race Dimension and the Parental Race Dimension were plotted against each
other for the Racial Identity Axis. The correlation between these two variables was 0.95
(p = .51). This statistic indicated that transracial adoptees’ reported Racial Identities as
measured by the MEIM-R were scattered throughout the Racial Identity Axis.

Table 2 also contains the reliability estimates for the four dimensions of the
Cultural-Racial Identity Model. Reliability analyses which yielded reliability estimates
were performed on the data and provided additional support for the viability of the
Cultural-Racial Identity Model was found.

Reliability estimates give an indication of the relationship between the variation

145

between subjects and the error in the variation within subjects. The Kuder-Richardson
formula 20 is calculated in the following formula:

KR20= n (sol—219g)
n-l SD2
where n = the number of items on the test
SD2 = the variance of scores (the standard deviation squared
p = the difficulty level of each item or the proportion of the group that responded

correctly

q = the proportion that missed the item, or l-p (Sax, 1980, p. 265).
Sax (1980) noted that the larger the true variance of the scores, the higher the reliability.
Thus, because reliability “refers to the consistency of measuring true individual
differences,” (p. 268) measures are more reliable when greater differences among
individuals’ performance on a measure exist. A high reliability estimate (e.g., above .70),
indicates that a set of items in a measure is successful in detecting variation among
people on that measure. A high reliability estimate also is indicative of a high degree of
variability among people on a particular measure. In this case, if the four dimensions of
the Cultural-Racial Identity Model as measured by the MEIM-R have high reliabilities,
then variation in the Cultural-Racial Identities of transracial adoptees in the current study
exists.

As seen in Table 2, the Adoptee Culture Dimension had four items and a
reliability of .85, the Parental Culture Dimension had four items and a reliability of .92,
the Adoptee Race Dimension had nine items and a reliability of .73, and the Parental
Race Dimension had nine items and a reliability of .84. The reliability estimate for each

of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions was within the “high” range as previously

146

Figm 6. Scatterplots of the Cultural Identity Axis and the Racial Identity Axis.

 

 

 

 

8
q»
6‘ * *-
ai- * it»
41 t *
* e *
t * a»
r: i
O 2 a
.6 q» 4‘ «I-
c r
E 01
D f
2 * ** * * e *
i3 -2i * * * *
3
C) * * * *
a; -4j * * * <* *
'5.
8
< 6 U I I U I
-a .5 4 -2 o 2 4

Parental Culture Dimension

 

 

 

 

20
10 ** *
+ f x
* t * * * * «f
x * *
* * 'f
*-
5 Or *
m * *
5 *1 * *’F* **
r *
E; -40¢ * * * * *
a “ * .
'5.
3
-20 -10 0 10 20

Parental Race Dimension

147

defined. Thus, the viability of the Cultural-Racial Identity for differentiating among
transracial adoptees’ Cultural-Racial Identities was empirically demonstrated.
Confounding Variables
The remaining research questions for this study addressed the psychological adjustment
and self-esteem of those having a broad range of Cultural-Racial Identities. To account
for potential confounds, six variables were assessed for their impact on psychological
adjustment and self-esteem. The six variables were: age at adoption, number of pre-
adoptive placement, pre-adoptive history/trauma, sex of the transracial between
psychological adjustment and self-esteem has been both theoretically and empirically
well-documented in the literature. The relationship between these variables serves as an
additional source of construct validity. Although these findings did not have implications
for the degree to which the variables were confounds, they do substantiate relationships
among variables that make intuitive sense.
Model Predicting Psvcholcrgi_cal Agustment

Table 4 displays a correlation matrix of the variables of interest for this study.
These correlations served as guides for examining additional relationships among
variables. The correlation between the Adoptee Race Dimension and the Adoptee Culture
Dimension (r = .801) supports the concern regarding the degree to which race and culture
and their respective impacts can be separated. This finding demonstrates that these two

variables are strongly related. Similarly, the correlation between the Parental Race

148

.0_dom E00~mm$0m wu0n=0mom 0fi 3 0050008 83 280059.20? 50802:
Eofiém firm 05 mo x005 bt0>0m Boo—O 05 3 0050008 me 3250:? 33%—29$.“ 8 $0.5. :..€< £239. .088 8 ooodmm u
N. mooodwm 9 ooodom u 0 $3.03 8 25de u m 53.9% 8 ooofimm n v ”amoJVNm 8 08% S n m $8.3m 2 8me n m ”323 .5
3‘5 n ~ “0E8 350:8 05 m5? 0050008 003 can 358% 03:83 05 m0 9605 288000305 9 ENE“ ammm: 3.8me 033200
-05 :05 wEthEoo me 00:38 88960 300393 05 0:25:80 0:08:05 mo .8955 2: 3 mafia amfisfirr. 60:82 008903
308053 0.: 05080003 03335205 CO “09:52 05 8 $0.00 2358083.. .3608 5 05308 .04 acoumog. “a 09? .082
$028-8 _0>0_ 3d 05 8 232.:qu fl sous—2.80 .12..

.30:S-mv _0>0_ mod 05 8 “SB—mama mm 5:32.80 1.

.95—«8-8 _0>0_ Ed 05 E “50¢?me mm 5:03:00 ...

 

 

:8 dwfi :3 83 :3 83 :9 :3 E

- :02. - 35.. NS. - 02.- E. mg. as; a eooamuam
:3 :3 83 :3 so :3 :3 E

- - owe. - ”8. mm _. m8. N8. - x _. 34% a3. 55
:3 80 :3 an :3 :3 E

- - - tram. - oz. 3o; 3:. EC. Helm 030850
83 83 :3 83 88 E

- - - - 3. 3o. N2. So. - file. ma
:3 83 :0 :3 E

- - - - - go. - r. 5. So. a «8:3
83 as 83 E

- - - - - - we. - 2:. - .34 $580an
:3 :3 E

- - - - - - - go. 8.2 $03. 3 00¢.
:3 E

- - i - - - - - - fl am

803mm “Gogmafiafl ou< £53m «598,—: mucoEooflm GOSQOU< xom awe: moi—NEE?

.hom Eomwfionozmm 80.56 282809205 3 0w<

 

 

.m030tm> 0:00:0Q0D can 85093 mam—0:58:00 3808A metamouafitoo .m 033.

149

Dimension and the Parental Culture Dimension (r = .510) also shows a relationship of
high to moderate strength between these two variables. Other correlations between
variables were between the Parental Culture Dimension and psychological adjustment,
between the Adoptee Race Dimension and self-esteem, and between the Parental Race
Dimension and self-esteem. Also, as has been traditionally found, the correlation between
psychological adjustment and self-esteem was high and statistically significant at alpha =
.01. These relationships were further explored in subsequent analyses.

For the remaining research questions, scores on the four Cultural-Racial Identity

Dimensions were correlated with the dependent variables.

Iable 4. Correlations of Variables of Interest.

 

Adoptee Parental Adoptee Parental

 

 

Culture Culture Race Race Psych. Self-

Variables Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Adjustment Esteem

Adoptee Culture - - - - - -
Dimension

Parental Culture -. 120 - - - - -
Dimension

Adoptee Race .801*** -.178 - - - -
Dimension

Parental Race .024 .510*** .095 - - -
Dimension .

Psychological .043 -.243* -.027 .058 - -
Adjustment

Self-Esteem .172 .184 243* 266* .556 *** -

 

"' Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
*"'* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Note. N = 51 for all correlations. “Psychological Adjustment” was measured by the
Global Severity Index of the Brief Symptom Inventory. “Self-Esteem” was measured by
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

150

Table 5 contains the results of multiple regression analyses used to address the
fifth research question for the current study. This question concerns the degree to which
differences exist in the psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees having different
levels of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions. As the results from the prior
analyses reported above demonstrate, different levels of the four Cultural-Racial Identity
Dimensions exist. Therefore, the task was to assess which, if any, of the four Cultural-
Racial Identity Dimensions or what combination of the dimensions predicted the
psychological adjustment of the transracial adoptees in the current study. As seen in
Tables 5 and 6, even when all four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions were entered into
the regression, statistically significant relationships were found only with particular
combinations of variables.

When examining the results of the analyses, the traditional alpha level used in
significance testing is .05 (Beale, 1972; Magidson, 1978), however, several statisticians
and researchers have questioned this practice. Beale (1972), Magidson (1978), and
Olejnik (1984) critiqued the use of a significance level of .05, but Olejnik noted the
potential Type I and Type H errors that accompany decisions to change significance
levels. As the following results demonstrate, few of the analyses yielded statistically
significant results when the alpha was .05. However, the small sample size obtained for
this study (n=51) and the resultant lower power made effects more difficult to discern and
made significant results less likely to emerge from the data. However, very few published

studies used a significance testing level of .10. Thus, in the current study, the results were

151

reported with notations regarding those findings that were significant at alpha = .05 (as
denoted by a double asterisk) and those that were significant at alpha = .10 (as denoted by
a single asterisk). For interpretation of the results, those findings significant at alpha = .05
were utilized (see Chapter V for further details), but those findings significant at alpha =
.10 were utilized as guidelines for future research and practice issues.
Table 5 shows the regressions performed to predict psychological adjustment.

When all four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions were entered into the regression, the
overall model did not reach statistical significance (F (4, 46) = 1.141 , p = .349), but the
Parental Culture Dimension was a significant predictor of psychological adjustment (t =
-1.956, p = .057) only when alpha = .10. Thus, having already established that the MEIM-
R effectively measures differences in the Cultural—Racial Identities of transracial
adoptees, the null hypothesis that no differences among transracial adoptees having
varying levels of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions existed was retained. This
indicates that psychological adjustment does not differ based on transracial adoptees’
Cultural-Racial Identities.

In the second regression predicting psychological adjustment seen in Table 5, the
Parental Culture Dimension and the Parental Race Dimension were predictors. This
analysis was conducted with respect for determining the most parsimonious model for
predicting psychological adjustment. Although the Parental Culture Dimension continued
to be a significant predictor of psychological adjustment, the overall model was still not

significant (F (2, 48) = 1.670, p = .199). However, in the third regression seen in Table 5,

152

Iable 5. Predicting Psvchologic_al Adjustment.

 

Partial Regression Weight

 

Predictors Raw Standardized
Regression 1

F1 Adoptee Culture Dimension1 .640 .220
F3 Parental Culture Dimension - l.084* - 333*
F2 Adoptee Race Dimension - .380 - .275
F4 Parental Race Dimension .213 .133
Intercept 60.647

Summary Statistics: R = .300, R2 = .090

Regression 2

F3 Parental Culture Dimension2 - 940* - 289*
F4 Parental Race Dimension .144 .089
Intercept 60.647

Summary Statistics: R = .255, R2 = .065

Regression 3

F3 Parental Culture Dimension3 - .791* - 243*
Intercept 60.647

Summary Statistics: R = .243, R2 = .059

Regression 4

Fl Adoptee Culture Dimension4 .126 .043
Intercept 60.647

Summary Statistics: R = .043, R2 = .002

Regression 5

F2 Adoptee Race Dimensions - .037 - .027
Intercept 60.647

Summary Statistics: R = .027, R2 = .001

Regression 6

F3 Parental Race Dimension6 - .093 - .058
Intercept 60.647

Summary Statistics: R = .058,R2 = .003

Note. Psychological Adjustment is measured by the Global Symptom Severity Index of

the Brief Symptom Inventory.
"p < .05, *p < .10

'F (4, 46) = 1.14, power = .329
2F (2, 48) = 1.67, power = .334
3F (1,49) = 3080*, power = .405
4F (1, 49) = .092, power = .049
5F (1, 49) = .035, power = .042
6F (1, 49) = .165, power = .053

153

the overall model was significant (F (l, 49) = 3.080, p = .086) at an alpha = .10 but
included only a single predictor, the Parental Culture Dimension. In this analysis, the data
indicates that more psychological maladjustment (i.e., a higher Global Severity Index on
the Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]) results from less identification with the culture of
transracial adoptees’ parents. In other words, when transracial adoptees are less
knowledgeable of, aware of, competent within, or comfortable with their adoptive
parents’ culture (i.e., in this case the White culture), they report more severe
psychological symptoms on the BSI. These data suggest that the psychological adjustment
of transracial adoptees was only able to be significantly predicted when the alpha level for
significance testing was made more lenient and when a single variable was included in
the regression, the Parental Culture Dimension. Furthermore, Table 5 shows that the zero
order correlation for each of the other Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions (i.e.,
regressions with only a single predictor) demonstrate that none of the other predictors
were significantly related to psychological adjustment when analyzed alone. The models
with only the Adoptee Culture Dimension (F (l , 49) = .092, p = .763), the Adoptee Race
Dimension (F (1, 49) = .035, p = .852), and the Parental Race Dimension (F (1, 49) =
.165, p = .687) alone all failed to reach significance.
Model Predicting Self-Esteem

Table 6 shows regressions predicting self-esteem using the Cultural-Racial
Identity Dimensions. As with psychological adjustment, the full model for predicting self-

esteem included all four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions. The research question to be

154

tested here was the degree to which differences exist in the self-esteem of transracial
adoptees having different levels of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions. In this
case, neither the overall model (F (4, 46) = 1.772, p = .151) nor any of the individual
predictors significantly predicted self-esteem. Thus, different levels of self-esteem among
transracial adoptees with varying levels of the Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions were
not detected in the data, so the null hypothesis could not be rejected.

Once again striving for the most parsimonious prediction model, several analyses
were conducted on the data. The second regression in Table 5 included only two
variables, the Adoptee Race Dimension and the Parental Race Dimension. The overall
model was significant, (F (2, 48) = 3.233, p = .048), the Parental Race Dimension was a
significant predictor (t = 1.802, p = .078) at alpha = .10, but the Adoptee Race Dimension
was not a significant predictor (t = 1.616, p = .113). This finding indicated that, when a
more lenient alpha level of significance was used, transracial adoptees’ feelings about
both their own and their parents’ racial group memberships as well as their comfort with
those belonging to both their own and their parents’ racial groups maybe related to
transracial adoptees’ self-esteem in a positive direction.

The third regression in Table 6 predicted self-esteem with the Parental Culture
Dimension and the Parental Race Dimension. In this case, the Parental Culture
Dimension (t = .406, p = .687), the Parental Race Dimension (t = 1.441, p = .156), and
the overall model did not meet the alpha level requirements for statistical significance in

predicting self-esteem (F = 1.918, p = .158). Although the Parental Race Dimension was

155

significant in the second regression in Table 6, it did not attain significance in this
regression. The fourth regression analysis in Table 6 included only the Parental Race
Dimension. In this analysis, the overall model was significant (F (1, 49) = 3.734, p =
.059) at alpha = .10. This suggests that the degree to which transracial adoptees were
comfortable with those belonging to their parents’ racial group (i.e., the White racial
group) may be positively related to their reported levels of self-esteem such that more
comfort with White people could indicate a somewhat higher level of self-esteem.

As with the fourth regression in Table 6, the fifth regression in Table 6 included a
single predictor, the Adoptee Race Dimension, to predict self-esteem. The overall model
was significant (F (1, 49) = 3.077, p = .086) at alpha = .10. This suggests that the degree
to which transracial adoptees were comfortable with those belonging to their own racial
group may be positively related to their reported levels of self-esteem. This finding in
conjunction with the finding reported in the fourth regression in Table 6 (the Parental
Race Dimension predicting self-esteem) replicates the finding from the second regression
in Table 6 where both the Parental Race Dimension and the Adoptee Race Dimension
were used to predict self-esteem. The additional regressions reported in Table 6 were zero
order correlation models where neither the Adoptee Culture Dimension (F (1, 49) =
1.499, p = .227) nor the Parental Culture Dimension (F (1, 49) = 1.720, p = .196) was
significant at alpha = .10.

These findings suggested that the second regression in Table 6 in which the

Parental Race Dimension and Adoptee Race Dimension predicted level of self-esteem

156

Table 6. PredictingSelf-Egeem.

 

Partial Regression Weight

 

Predictors Raw Standardized
Regression 1

F1 Adoptee Culture Dimensionl - .078 — .048
F2 Adoptee Race Dimension .226 .292
F3 Parental Culture Dimension .266 .146

F4 Parental Race Dimension .149 .165
Intercept 33.429

Summary Statistics: R = .365, R2 = .134

Regression 2

F2 Adoptee Race Dimension2 .170 .220

F4 Parental Race Dimension .221* .245*
Intercept 33.429

Summary Statistics: R = .345, R2 = .119

Regression 3

F3 Parental Culture Dimension3 .209 .233
F4 Parental Race Dimension .119 .066
Intercept 33.429

Summary Statistics: R = .272, R2 = .074

Regression 4

F4 Parental Race Dimension4 239* .266“
Intercept 33.429

Summary Statistics: R = .266, R2 = .071

Regression 5

F2 Adoptee Race Dimension5 .188* .107*
Intercept 33.429

Summary Statistics: R = .243, R2 = .059

Regression 6

F1 Adoptee Culture Dimension6 .280 .229
Intercept 33.429

Summary Statistics: R = .172, R2 = .030

Regression 7

F3 Parental Culture Dimension7 .335 .255
Intercept 33.429

Summary Statistics: R = .184. R2 = .034

Note. Self-esteem is measured by Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale.
l""p < .05, *p < .10

'F (4, 46) = 1.772, power = .499
2F (2, 48) = 3.233**, power = .589
3F (2, 48) = 1.918, power = .378
4F (1. 49) = 3734*, power = .473

5F (l, 49) = 3077*, power = .405
6F (1, 49) = 1.499, power = .232
717(1, 49) = 1.720, power = .249

157

was the most parsimonious model with the best predictive ability for predicting self-
esteem among transracial adoptees. No other combination of variables or single predictor
models provided better indices for predicting self-esteem than did the Parental Race
Dimension and the Adoptee Race Dimension. However, the predictive power was still
fairly limited. This indicates that the ways in which transracial adoptees identify
themselves and the comfort level they feel with people of their own and their parents’
racial groups seems to have the most impact on their subsequent self-esteem.
Partial Regssion Coefficients

The data from these analyses can also be interpreted in a different manner.
Although significance testing represents the traditional manner in which to assess the
findings of an empirical study, social scientists also make use of partial regression
coefficients. The beta weights found in each of the regression analyses already reported
represent standardized partial regression coefficients that are of moderate size. Because “a
partial regression coefficient (raw or standard) can be interpreted as the amount of change
that is expected to occur in the criterion per unit change in the predictor when statistical
control has occurred for all other variables in the analysis" (Licht, 1995 in Grimm and
Yarnold, p. 38), the moderate partial regression coefficients found in the data suggest
relationships that deserve further examination.

The first regression in Table 5 predicted psychological adjustment using all four
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions. The sizes of the partial regression coefficients in

this analysis were noteworthy. The standardized partial regression coefficient for the

158

Parental Culture Dimension was of a moderate size (- .333) and the R-square was .090.
This moderate effect was detected despite a small sample size and an analysis with a
power of .329. The import of this finding suggests that the Parental Culture Dimension
may have had a sizable impact, especially when considering the low power of the analysis
and the relatively low chance of detecting any effect at all. Furthermore, this finding
could reinforce the notion that the Parental Culture Dimension has an inverse relationship
with psychological adjustment (i.e., as transracial adoptees are more adept at and
comfortable within their adoptive parents’ culture, or the White culture, they report less
severe psychological distress). The partial regression coefficients of the Adoptee Culture
Dimension (.220) and the Adoptee Race Dimension (-.275) also could suggest that with
greater power in the analysis, significant effects may be found. If these two dimensions
were of moderate size or greater, their impact on these findings would suggest that
adoptees having greater knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort within their
own racial group’s culture report more psychological adjustment. It would also suggest
that those transracial adoptees who feel less comfortable with their own racial self-
identification and with those of their own racial group membership tend to report to
greater psychological distress.

Tables 5’s second regression predicting psychological adjustment utilized the
Parental Culture Dimension and the Parental Race Dimension as predictors. When only
these two Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions were included in the analysis and when

considering partial regression coefficients, the strength of the partial regression

159

coefficient (- .289), decreased slightly with fewer variables in the model, as did the R-
square (.065).

The third regression in Table 5 contained a single predictor, the Parental Culture
Dimension. Again, the partial regression coefficient (- .243) decreased as did the R-
square (.059). The fourth, fifth, and sixth regressions in Table 5 contained single
predictor models where psychological adjustment was predicted by the Adoptee Culture
Dimension (.043), Adoptee Race Dimension (-.027), and Parental Race Dimension (-

.05 8). In each of the models, the partial regression coefficient was of such a small size
that they were considered to have a relationship of negligible, if any, strength with
psychological adjustment.

The results of these analyses suggest that the model with all four dimensions may
be a better predictor of psychological adjustment than the parsimonious models. Also,
when using partial regression coefficients as indicators of relationships, the Parental
Culture Dimension was the only variable to demonstrate a relationship to psychological
adjustment.

Table 6 shows the full model for predicting self-esteem and includes all four
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions. In this regression, the partial regression coefficient
for the Adoptee Race Dimension (.292) was of low-moderate strength. Furthermore, the
R-square (.134) for this analysis was more substantial than the R-square was in predicting
psychological adjustment. The power for this analysis was stronger (.499) than it was in

previous analyses, but continued to present a challenge when seeking stronger effects.

160

The significance of this finding was that those transracial adoptees who were comfortable
with their racial group membership and with those of their own racial group reported
higher levels of self-esteem.

Table 6’s second regression utilized the Adoptee Race Dimension and the
Parental Race Dimension to predict self-esteem. When compared to the full model
containing all four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions, both the strength of the partial
regression coefficient for the Adoptee Race Dimension (.220) and the R-square (.119)
decreased slightly in this model but the partial regression coefficients for the Parental
Race Dimension increased (.245).

Parental Culture Dimension and Parental Race Dimension were used to predict
self-esteem in the third regression in Table 6. In this regression, the strength of the partial
regression coefficients for the Parental Race Dimension decreased (.066) as did the R-
square (.074), but the strength of the partial regression coefficient for the Parental Culture
Dimension increased (fi'om .146 in the first regression in Table 6 to .233 in the third
regression in Table 6). This suggested that when the Parental Culture Dimension was
included in the regression, it accounted for more of the relationship between self-esteem
and the Parental Race Dimension (perhaps due to multicollinearity). In this case, neither
variable nor the overall model met the alpha level requirements for statistical significance
in predicting self-esteem.

The fourth regression analysis in Table 6 included only the Parental Race
Dirnension. The R-square (.071) decreased but the partial regression coefficient (.266)

161

for the Parental Race Dimension increased.

Although the Parental Race Dimension continued to maintain the strength of its
relationship with self-esteem in three of the four regressions, it did not hold the
relationship when paired with the Parental Culture Dimension. The Adoptee Race
Dimension, on the other hand, did maintain the strength of its relationship throughout the
analyses. Thus, the Adoptee Race Dimension was regarded as having the most
substantive relationship with self-esteem among the four Cultural-Racial Identities.
However, as noted above, the poor reliability of the SES indicates the need for caution in
accepting the relationship between the Adoptee Race Dimension and self-esteem as one
of even low-moderate strength.

As with the prediction of psychological adjustment, the overall model containing
all four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions appears to be a better predictor of self-
esteem than those models having smaller combinations of the four dimensions when
examining partial regression coefficients. As a result of this finding, the Adoptee Race
Dimension was the variable that demonstrated the most substantial relationship with self-
esteem when partial regression coefficients serve as the indicator.

Summary

When examining the results of these data analyses, the data demonstrated that the
four dimensions in the study have a modest amount of predictive power in predicting
psychological adjustment and self-esteem. The partial regression coefficients in the

regression models also suggest that greater effects may exist but require a larger sample

162

to emerge in the data. Two other issues in the analysis were also addressed. First, to
ensure that the data followed, as assumed, a linear pattern, the possibility of curvilinear
relationships in the data were investigated. The results of these analyses demonstrated
that curvilinear relationships do not exist in the data.

Second, multicollinearity was suspected as an issue in the significance testing
portion of the study. This was an issue because multicollinearity in the data can make the
beta weights of the variables unstable. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to

determine if the variables were affected by the multicollinearity.

Iable 7. Sensitivity Analysis for Multicollinearity.

 

Standardized Standardized Standardized

 

Variables Beta Weight Beta Weight Beta Weight
Predicting Psychological Adjustment
Adoptee Culture Dimension .220 - .007
Adoptee Race Dimension - 2.750 - .094 -
Parent Culture Dimension - .333 - .318 - .288
Parental Race Dimension .133 .113 .089
Predicting Self-Esteem
Adoptee Culture Dimension - .048 - .179
Adoptee Race Dimension .292 .252 -
Parent Culture Dimension .146 .143 .098
Parental Race Dimension .165 .170 .212

 

Table 7 presents the results of the sensitivity analysis conducted on the data. It
shows the standardized beta weights for the four dimensions when all four variables were
entered into a regression analysis and when the Adoptee Culture Dimension and Adoptee
Race Dimension were alternately excluded from the regression analyses. When predicting

both psychological adjustment and self-esteem, the beta weights for the Adoptee Culture

163

Dimension and the Adoptee Race Dimension were unstable (i.e., their magnitude changed
substantially when different combinations of variables were included in the analyses and
they had large standard errors). Thus, the inclusion of either the Adoptee Culture

Dimension or the Adoptee Race Dimension must be done with caution.

164

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study constitute a substantial contribution to the literature on
transracial adoption and on racially integrated families. The purpose of this study was to
examine the efficacy, applicability, and comprehensiveness of the Cultural-Racial Identity
Model by determining the degree to which the model validly describes the Cultural-
Racial Identities of transracial adoptees and by identifying differences in the
psychological adjustment and self-esteem of transracial adoptees having different
Cultural-Racial Identities. This purpose was accomplished by addressing the following
research questions for the study: Does the Cultural-Racial Identity Model accurately
depict the identities of transracial adoptees? Do different cultural and racial identities
affect the psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees? Do different cultural and
racial identities affect the self-esteem of transracial adoptees?

The exploratory nature of the study requires caution in the interpretation of the
empirical evidence presented in the current study. With these cautions in mind, the
findings of the current study were interpreted and their implications for counseling
psychology and transracial adoption policies follow. However, before discussing the
results, the significance level for interpretable findings must be addressed.
Sigg'ficance Level for Interpretation

Given that the significance level chosen for the current study has a substantial

165

impact on the interpretation of the findings for the study, the literature on significance
levels was consulted. Although the current study is an exploratory one, the traditional
significance level of a = .05 was expected to be utilized when the study was designed.
However, because a smaller sample size (n=51) than had been desired (n=90) was
obtained for the study despite the best efforts of the researcher, a more lenient
significance level (ct = .10) was considered. Shine (1980) warned against replacing an a
priori significance level (in this case, the traditional or = .05) with an a posteriori
significance level (in this case, the more lenient a = .10). He formulated several reasons
to avoid this practice including that “the probability under the null hypothesis that the
observed probability level is less than the a posteriori Significance level is not, as is
thought by many researchers, generally equal to the a posteriori significance level” (p.
331). Furthermore, it also cannot be considered the probability of a Type I error, it cannot
be it “interpreted as an a priori significance level” (p. 331), and it is unethical to perform
such a replacement.

Another argument against making the significance level more lenient includes that
given by Olejnik (1984). He stated that “most hypotheses in the social sciences are tested
at a .05 level of significance . . . While this criterion of significance is arbitrary, it has
gained wide acceptance to the point where any hypothesis tested at a higher probability of
a Type I error is viewed with considerable reservation” (p. 41).

However, Olejnik (1984) also noted that detecting a small effect requires a large

sample size, even if the significance level is set at a = .10 and a power of .5 is considered

166

acceptable. Other researchers (e.g., Beale, 1972; Magidson, 1978) have also felt the need
to express their concern that the significance level of .05 has become too rigid. They
espoused the belief that “the contribution made by any experiment should not be a
filnction of a particular value for alpha or, more generally, should not be a function of any
statistic alone” (Beale, 1972, p. 1080). Despite the support for being less rigid in setting
significance levels found in the literature, published studies having significance levels set
at any level above .10 are rare indeed. A study conducted by Levinson (1971) is one
example of a study where the significance level was set at .10. With respect to that
decision, Levinson stated,

The significance level of .10 was adopted for the experiment, first because of the

small N, dictated by practical considerations, and the high variability of human Ss;

and second because of the high social cost ascribed in the present instance to the

failure to reject a false null hypothesis. (p. 1376)

The two sides of this argument as well as a literature search suggested that few
studies have been published, and therefore accepted by the academic community where
significance levels were greater than .05. Furthermore, the import of research should not
only be based on finding differences, but also on finding similarities. The failure to find
significant results in a study, especially one like the current investigation, has as many, if
not more, implications for policy, practice, and education. Thus, the findings of the
current study must be interpreted with caution and with care.

With these cautions in mind, the current study was interpreted with the

understanding that the significance level chosen for the current study was the traditional

.05. This decision was made for several reasons. Most importantly, the potential for
167

making a Type I error was substantial enough to force errors on the side of making Type
II errors. Given the nature of the study and its exploratory nature, the decision was made
to adhere to the traditional boundaries for testing the Cultural-Racial Identity Model.
Furthermore, the author of the study believes that findings that fail to reach statistical
significance are often as important as those that do reach significance. Furthermore, the
highest power obtained for the current study was .4 for analyses using psychological
adjustment as the outcome variable and .6 for analyses using self-esteem as the outcome
variable. Thus, the probability of failing to reject the null hypothesis when in fact the null
is true is .6 and .4 respectively. Because these are high probabilities, caution must be used
when interpreting failures to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, the findings from the
current study that approached statistical significance at the .05 level will be reported as
interpretable findings and those that were significant at the .10 level will be reported as
noteworthy findings.
Summgy

The findings of this study gave indications for the research questions formulated
as well as for constructs and phenomena related to transracial adoptees’ identity
experiences that were not included in research questions. These findings were examined
and reviewed in light of their impact on understanding identity experiences of transracial
adoptees.
The Cultural-Racial Identitv Model

The validity of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model was assessed in four research

168

questions in this study of young adult transracial adoptees. These questions determined
whether, within the sample of transracial adoptees, the Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure-Revised (MEIM-R) reliably distinguished among levels of: (1) knowledge,
awareness, competence, and comfort with their own racial group’s culture; (2)
knowledge, awareness, competence, and comfort with their adoptive parents’ racial group
culture; (3) comfort with their own racial self-identification and with those belonging to
their own racial group; and (4) comfort with their own racial self-identification and with
those belonging to their adoptive parents’ racial group.

The data obtained for this study consisted of that yielded by 51 young, adult,
transracial adoptees. The transracial adoptees in this study reported a wide range of
Cultural-Racial Identities and did not cluster in just a few identity status areas. Evidence
supporting this conclusion came from three sources. First, this finding was determined by
viewing plots of the transracial adoptees on the two axes of the Cultural-Racial Identity
Model (the Cultural Identity Axis and the Racial Identity Axis). Plots of participants’
scores on the variables made up by MEIM-R subscales revealed data points that were
spread across the two axes. Second, the lack of a relationship between the variables
comprising the two axes verified that a linear relationship was not detected. Correlation
coefficients which were used to measure the degree to which a linear relationship existed
revealed no such relationship, thus indicating a substantial scatter of scores. Third, the
scatter of scores on the two axes of Cultural-Racial Identity Model was shown by

demonstrating the variability among respondents on the MEIM-R via reliability estimates.

169

The sets of items on the MEIM—R that were used to measure the four Cultural-Racial
Identity Dimensions were successful in detecting variation among people.

These findings suggested that the instrument used to measure the Cultural-Racial
Identities of transracial adoptees allowed the variation among respondents to be detected
and the inference to be made that all 16 cells of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model were
represented in the data. However, these findings did not allow the strict validation of the
model. To validate the model, a substantially larger sample was needed so that the
various cells of the model could be tested. With this limitation in mind and based on the
findings of this study, the evidence suggested that the Cultural-Racial Identity Model with
the accompanying MEIM-R instrument can be accepted as having been supported. Thus,
the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions can be used to assess the identity
experiences of transracial adoptees, and subsequently, to determine their Cultural-Racial
Identity status.

Predictingjsychological Adjustment

A series of multiple regression models were built to determine which, if any,
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions predicted levels of psychological adjustment. To
simply the results, the findings for psychological adjustment were summarized in Table 8.
As the table indicates, two different alpha levels were included to give an overview of

both interpretable and noteworthy findings.

170

Table 8. Significant Findings when Psvchologic_al Adjustment is the Outcome.

 

 

on = .05 or = .10
(Interpretable findings) (floteworthy Findings)
Overall Model No overall model Parental Culture Dimension
significant at on = .05 (zero-order correlation)
Individual Predictors No individual predictors Parental Culture Dimension
significant at a = .05 (when the model includes all
four Cultural-Racial Identity
Dimensions)

Parental Culture Dimension
(when model includes the
Parental Race Dimension as
the other predictor)

 

Interpretable findings for psychological ad'Lustment: Usigg the traditional
significance testing level.

The degree to which transracial adoptees with different Cultural-Racial Identities
reported varying levels of psychological adjustment was assessed in this study. As
previously discussed, the findings, and therefore implications, of this study depend on the
significance testing criteria chosen. For the reasons already enumerated, the standard
criterion for significance testing (e.g., significance level of a = .05 where p < .05) was
used. Using this criterion, none of the models predicting the psychological adjustment of
the young adult transracial adoptees in this sample attained statistical significance. That
is, given an alpha = .05, no single Cultural-Racial Identity Dimension nor any

combination of the four Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions was found to significantly

171

predict level of psychological adjustment. This means that, for example, a transracial
adoptee who identifies as Culturally Specific Type II Identity—Racially Specific Type 11
Identity (i.e., an adoptee who is most knowledgeable of, aware of, competent within, and
comfortable with the White culture, who is comfortable with his/her own racial self-
identification, and who is most comfortable with those who are White) was found to be
neither better nor worse psychologically adjusted than a transracial adoptee who identifies
as a Culturally Specific Type I Identity—Racially Specific Type I Identity (i.e., most
knowledgeable of, aware of, competent within, and comfortable with his/her racial
group’s own culture, who is comfortable with his/her own racial self-identification, and
who is most comfortable with those who are from his/her own racial group).

The failure to find any interpretable, significant relationship between the Cultural-
Racial Identity Dimensions and psychological adjustment suggests that transracial
adoptees psychological adjustment may be less dependent upon their identity experiences
than has previously been surmised. However, other facets of transracial adoptees’ lives
and self-concepts may well be affected by their identity experiences. Perhaps the
psychological adjustment of transracial adoptees may be influenced more by their
parental/family relationships, peer relationships, achievement, or a host of other factors
than by the racial and often cultural differences that exist in transracially adopting
families. Although no empirical evidence was gathered to support this supposition, the

findings of the current study suggest that this possibility be explored.

172

Noteworthy findings for psvchologi_cal_ad'ulstment: UMore lenient

significance testinglevel.

An alternate way to examine the findings of the study entails the use of the more
lenient significance level of .10 as a guide for locating potentially important results and
for making suggestions for future research. These results can also be considered in
conceptualizations for future theoretical work in this area. Although, these results are not
considered suitable for making judgments on policy or practice guidelines, they include
findings relevant for future research.

Using this more lenient level of statistical significance (e. g., significance level of
a = .10 where p < .10), the only full model to attain significance was the zero order
correlation model where the Parental Culture Dimension predicted the psychological
adjustment of the young adult transracial adoptees. The finding that the Parental Culture
Dimension predicted psychological adjustment at a significance level of .10 is of interest
to this study as a guideline. As the third regression in Table 5 indicated, an inverse
relationship between the Parental Culture Dimension and psychological adjustment was
found. This finding suggests that a relationship may exist such that when transracial
adoptees were less knowledgeable of, aware of, competent within, or comfortable with
their adoptive parents’ culture (i.e., in this case the White culture), they reported more
severe psychological symptoms on the BSI. That is, discomfort within, a lack of
knowledge or awareness of, or the perceived incompetence in dominant, middle-class

White culture (i.e., the culture of the adoptive parents) may have some relationship to

173

psychological distress or maladjustment. The nature of this relationship suggested that
transracial adoptees who were could function adequately in the White culture and who
did not reject White culture appeared to be in less psychological distress. Given that
transracial adoptees in the current study were all raised by White parents thereby having
had a vast amount of exposure to that culture via their adoptive parents, psychological
adjustment would naturally be poorer for those transracial adoptees who did not accept or
at least function well within the culture of their parents. Thus, a phenomena that
reinforces common sense and psychological principles may exist such that if children feel
disenfranchised from or choose to reject the values, beliefs, traditions, etc. that comprise
their parents’ culture, they are likely to have more difficulty in their adjustment. When an
individual endorses values or beliefs that differ from their parents and particularly when
they are unable or unwilling to accept these differences, they are likely to have a greater
chance of experiencing psychological distress.

Perhaps with a larger sample size and the attendant greater power, this finding
would have been interpretable and significant at on = .05. However, with the limitations
imposed by the current study, the Parental Culture Dimension and its relationship to
psychological adjustment is one that suggests a need for further clarification.
PredictinLSelf-Esteem

As with psychological adjustment, a series of multiple regression models were
analyzed to determine which, if any, Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions predicted levels

of self-esteem. Table 9 shows the findings in a format intended to simplify and guide

174

their discussion. As the table indicates, two different alpha levels were included to give

an overview of both interpretable and noteworthy findings.

Table 9. Sigaificant Findings when Self-Esteem is the Outcome.

 

 

a = .05 on = .10

(Interpretable findings) (Noteworthy Findingg)
Overall Model Adoptee Race Dimension Parental Race Dimension

and Parental Race (zero-order correlation)

Dimension

Adoptee Race Dimension
(zero-order correlation)

Individual Predictors No predictors Parental Race Dimension
significant at or = .05 (when model includes the
Adoptee Race Dimension

as the other predictor)

 

Interpretable findings for self-esteem: Usimgthe traditional sigm'ficance

testing level.

As with psychological adjustment, the traditional significance level of on = .05
affected the interpretable findings for the study. The full model which included all four
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions failed to attain significance. When other
combinations of the Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions were analyzed, only a single
model attained statistical significance at on = .05. This model utilized the Parental Race
Dimension and the Adoptee Race Dimension to predict the self-esteem of transracial
adoptees. In this model, although the overall model was significant, only one of the

175

individual predictors was significant (Parental Race Dimension). This suggested that a
relationship exists between self-esteem and the degree to which transracial adoptees are
comfortable with their own racial self-identification and comfortable with those in their
social networks from their own racial groups and from their adoptive parents’ racial
group (i.e., in the current study, White individuals). That is, when transracial adoptees
were more comfortable with their own racial self-identification and with people from
both their own racial group and from the White racial group (i.e., their parents’ racial
group), they reported higher self-esteem. For example, a Korean, female transracial
adoptee will be more likely to report higher levels of self-esteem if she is comfortable
with her own membership in the Asian race and if she is comfortable with people from
the Asian racial group and the White racial group. Therefore, transracial adoptees’
comfort with their own appearance and with those who resemble them was predictive of
higher levels of self-esteem. This finding makes intuitive sense given the likelihood that
dissatisfaction can occur with oneself when one is visibly different from those with whom
one is most comfortable, particularly when self-esteem is involved.

When transracial adoptees report feeling uncomfortable with their status as a
member of their racial group and with those who share their racial group membership,
they may experience dissonance between themselves and those with whom they prefer to
affiliate (e. g., White people). This dissonance could be related to differences in physical
appearance and could lead to a rejection of either or both those fi'om the transracial

adoptees’ own racial group and from the White racial group. Furthermore, this dissonance

176

 

can result in lower levels of self-esteem. However, when transracial adoptees report
feeling comfortable with their racial group membership and with those from their own
and the White (i.e., their parents’) racial group, they may experience less dissonance, a
greater degree of acceptance of the differences both visible and invisible between
themselves and Whites, and a resultant higher level of self-esteem. This finding suggests
phenotypic and, therefore racial, differences between parents and transracial adoptees
may be impacting self-esteem levels. This phenomena may be occurring through self-
other comparisons made when transracial adoptees are presented with role models and
models of beauty that can differ from their own appearance. These role models and
models of beauty may be the primary factors influencing the dissonance transracial
adoptees experience, but other factors may also be impacting this relationship. For
instance, Brenner (1993) found that body image concerns differed between Asian and
non-Asian transracial adoptees. Because the sample in the current study was
predominantly Asian transracial adoptees, these body image concerns may be reflected in
this finding regarding self-esteem and self-other comparisons. To determine the degree to
which body image, self-other comparisons, role models, and models of beauty affect self-
esteem for transracial adoptees, further exploration of this finding is necessary.
Noteworthv finciiagsfor self-esteem: Using_a more lenient sigaificance testing
l_e_v_eL
As with the noteworthy findings where psychological adjustment was the outcome

variable, the more lenient significance level of .10 served as a guide for suggestions for

177

future research and conceptualization, but it was not considered interpretable for
judgments regarding policy or practice. When the more lenient significance level was
used where a = .10, only two zero order correlation models attained statistical
significance. These models were the zero order correlation model in which the Parental
Race Dimension predicted the level of self-esteem and the zero order correlation model in
which the Adoptee Race Dimension predicted the level of self-esteem. These findings
emphasize the interpretable finding (where on = .05) in which the both the Parental Race
Dimension and the Adoptee Race Dimension predicted self-esteem. In other words, a
relationship may exist such that when transracial adoptees feel higher levels of comfort
with their own racial group membership and with those belonging to the White racial
group (i.e., their parents’ racial group), they report higher levels of self-esteem. Similarly,
a relationship may also exist such that when transracial adoptees feel higher levels of
comfort with their own racial group membership and with those belonging to their own
racial group, they report higher levels of self-esteem. As theorized above, transracial
adoptees’ experiences of dissonance between their own appearances and that of their
parents may be reflected in their comfort levels with people from their own racial group
and people from their parents’ racial group (i.e., Whites). Rejection of the transracial
adoptees’ own racial group, their parents’ racial group, or both racial groups can result
from this dissonance. These noteworthy findings suggest higher levels of comfort with
each racial group may lead to higher levels of self-esteem, but, as seen with the
interpretable finding already presented, comfort with both racial groups may have the

178

strongest link to high levels of self-esteem. The combination of the two Cultural-Racial
Identity Dimensions (the Adoptee Race Dimension and the Parental Race Dimension)
resulted in a stronger relationship with self-esteem than either of the two dimensions
alone. Thus, it may be that transracial adoptees’ affiliations and belongingness
experiences with both their own and their parents’ racial groups are necessary to more
accurately predict self-esteem.

Furthermore, additional information was gleaned from an examination of the
partial regression coefficients associated with these analyses. Based on the strength of the
partial regression coefficients, the model involving self-esteem and the Adoptee Race
Dimension was the more salient relationship in understanding these phenomena. This
finding, although not statistically significant, suggests that some basis for concern
regarding transracial adoptees’ feelings about their racial group membership and their
affiliations may exist. Again, this phenomenon may be related to the phenotypic
differences between transracial adoptees and their parents as these differences impact

self-esteem.

Fit With Existing Research

The exploratory nature of the current study as well as the status of the Cultural-
Racial Identity Model as a newly developed model make fitting this model with existing
research complicated. The Cultural—Racial Identity Model has yet to be empirically
validated and the current study serves this purpose. All prior research conducted on

transracial adoptees and involving racial identity have tended to use racial self-

179

identification, racial aspirations, racial group preferences, or some form of racial group
affiliations to measure racial identity (e.g., McRoy et al., 1984; Johnson et al., 1987). An
additional problem with the existing studies was the age of the subjects used to examine
identity experiences. A review of the theoretical bases for identity suggested that identity
conflicts and formation occur in adolescence. However, the vast majority of studies of
identity and adjustment were with pre-adolescent subjects. Thus, the current study
represents one of the few to examine identity with older transracial adoptees.

Andujo (1988) used an acculturation scale to measure ethnic identity with 60
Mexican American adoptees who had been adopted by either White families (n=3 0) or by
Mexican American families (n=30). The transethnic adOptees had a mean age of 14.1 and
the same-ethnic adoptees had a mean age of 13.9. Adjustment was also assessed using the
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and the Twenty Statements Test. No significant differences
were found between the groups of adoptees on self-esteem, but differences were obtained
between adoptees on the acculturation scale with transethnic adoptees reporting more
acculturation to the dominant Anglo-culture than did the same-ethnic adoptees. This
study was critiqued in Chapter 2, but the findings it presented represented the only studies
reviewed to assess acculturation as a measure of ethnic identity. Like the current study,
Andujo was interested in cultural affiliation as it related to ethnic identity. However, this
study was a comparison study between transethnic and same-ethnic adoptees. Thus, it
assumed homogeneity among the transethnic adoptees and did not assess for differences

among the transethnic adoptees on the measures of ethnic identity. Therefore, the

180

applicability of this study to the current one is extremely limited.

Vroegh (1997) conducted a study of 34 Black, transracial adoptees and 18 Black,
intraracial adoptees. The adoptees had a mean age of 17. The adoptees were assessed in
an interview format to determine “racial issues” and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scalewas
administered. Vroegh measured “racial issues” according to the number of transracial
adoptees who identified themselves as Black, Mixed, or Undecided in comparison to
those who had one White and one Black birth parent and those who had two Black birth
parents. Although few similarities exist between the current study and Vroegh’s study, the
examination of self-esteem using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was a point of
similarity as was the interest in phenotypic or visible racial differences. With respect to
self-esteem, the participants in Vroegh’s study had a mean self-esteem score of 32.8 and
in the current study the mean score was 33.43.

The findings of both of these studies laid the groundwork for the current study and
assisted in demonstrating that differences between transracial and intraracial adoptees did
not exist on measures of self-esteem. These works allowed the focus to be on the
differences between the population of transracial adoptees and intraracial adoptees.
Because homogeneous experiences of transracial adoptees were not addressed or
systematically examined, the current study was able to focus on differences within the
population of transracial adoptees. Furthermore, for the current study, the processes of
identity crisis and formation were expected to occur at ages later than the ages at which

the Andujo (1988) and the Vroegh (1997) studied transracial adoptees. Therefore, the

181

findings from the current study do not replicate previous findings because there have been
no other studies similar in scope. Also, the findings do not examine the same issues in the
same ways as previous studies have because the current study approaches the issue of
transracial adoption from a different perspective.

Limitations

Due to its status as an exploratory study, the limitations that affect the study are
fewer than found in studies in which causal inferences are made. However, because
causal inferences cannot be made due to the design of the study, some of the usual
limitations that would apply to a correlational field design were not of primary concern.
The external validity of the current study was high, but the internal validity was a source
of limitation. Internal validity was limited because of the inability to apply random
selection and random assignment to subjects. Obviously, individuals could not be
randomly assigned to transracial adoption status or to Cultural-Racial Identities.

Another limitation of this study lies in its lack of a comparison group. The ability
to compare transracial adoptees to intraracial adoptees and to nonadopted young adults
would provide additional validation for the Cultural-Racial Identity Model. If the model
grouped individuals who were reared in racially homogeneous families in different
Cultural-Racial Identities, then the validity of the model would be questionable.
Moreover, a comparison group would allow another comparison of the psychological
adjustment of transracial adoptees. This information would add to the growing body of

evidence demonstrating similar levels of adjustment and could aid in making that body of

182

evidence more difficult for policy makers to ignore.

Another limitation was in the instrumentation used to assess the Cultural-Racial
Identities. An existing measure of ethnicity was altered for use in the current study.
However, conceptually, distinctions between race and culture were very important in the
current study and the use of the term ethnicity could have blurred this distinction.
Although this alteration allowed the necessary distinctions to be made between Cultural-
Racial Identities, an instrument that aided in making the distinctions between race and
culture clearer for the transracial adoptees themselves may have yielded results that
would more easily support the theoretical conceptualization of the model.

In addition to the threats due to the sampling procedure, the potential problems
inherent in survey research can also lead to selection bias. Selection biases may threaten
the external validity of the study due to the possibility that those who return the surveys
and participate in the very adoption support groups that facilitated their identification as
transracial adoptees may be quite different from other transracial adoptees not as
amenable to participation in such a study. Transracial adoptees were difficult to identify
in the general population, so word-of-mouth, the assistance of an adoption agency and a
state agency, and an Internet website (http://www.msu.edu/user/badenama) were the
points of contact for participants. Thus, those not readily reached through these resources
were not represented in the sample.

The small representation of transracial adoptees from non-Asian racial ethnic
backgrounds also forced comparisons based on racial groups to be between Asian-

183

identified transracial adoptees and non-Asian transracial adoptees (e.g., Biracial,
Black/African American, Latino, and Native American). Moreover, this study was limited
to White parents adopting transracially. Thus, the results of the study are only applicable

to those kinds of transracial adoptions.

Another limitation of this study was that it had a sample size that was too small to
allow for more sophisticated statistical analyses. Unfortunately, obtaining completed
questionnaires from transracial adoptees between the ages of 18 and 36 was extremely
difficult and would have required several years and substantial funding to attain the
number of participants necessary for these additional analyses. However, in comparison
to many of the studies conducted with transracial adoptees as the participants, the current
study had a more than adequate sample size.

Furthermore, the limited sample size also affected the results of the analyses,
especially considering the low power of the analysis and the relatively low chance of
detecting any effect at all. The partial regression coefficients of the several of the
variables (e.g., Adoptee Culture Dimension and the Adoptee Race Dimension) also
suggested that with greater power in the analysis and therefore a larger sample size,
greater effects may be found.

Another limitation in the study is often presented when self-report measures are
used. The outcome measures have been shown to have adequate reliability and validity
(e.g., Derogatis & Cleary, 1977; Phinney, 1992; Rosenberg, 1965), but the modified
version of the MEIM had yet to be validated. Despite this potential limitation, however,

184

the MEIM-R did yield adequate reliability as seen in Table 2.

A final potential limitation of the current study could be in the transracial
adoptees’ ability to make distinctions between race and culture when reporting their
experience. As difficult as these distinctions are to make conceptually, they may be just as
difficult to make when applying the distinctions to one’s own experience.

Despite the limitations noted above, the findings of the current study represent the
first empirical validation and application of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model. With the
information obtained in this study, future research, practice, and theoretical guidelines can
be formulated.

Implication_s of the Study

As the first empirical study of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model, the findings of
the current study have several important implications. These implications are in the
arenas of future research, clinical practice, and adoption policy.

The Cultural-Racial Identity Model serves as the first attempt to conceptualize the
unique identity experiences of transracial adoptees. In this role, it has been the first to
make purposeful distinctions between race and culture and their separate influences on
identity. The validation of this model by the current study validates the intuitive but yet-
to-be-empirically-demonstrated belief that heterogeneity exists within the population of
transracial adoptees. The demonstration of the scope and nature of that heterogeneity
represents a substantial improvement in the understanding of the factors influencing

transracial adoptees’ identity. As a result, adoption policy and guidelines can be

185

formulated with greater attention to the sources of identity and the impact of identity on
such important factors as psychological adjustment and self-esteem.

For example, because a relationship between psychological adjustment and the
Cultural-Racial Identity Dimensions could not be empirically demonstrated, concerns
among adoption policymakers that particular Cultural-Racial Identities may lead to
healthier or less healthy adjustment could be addressed. As the findings of this study
suggest, no particular Cultural-Racial Identity or Identities was found to lead to better or
worse psychological adjustment. Thus, some of the current training for pre-adoptive
transracially adopting parents that suggests both exposure and competence within the
transracial adoptees’ culture of origin may be unnecessary. In fact, the findings of the
current study suggest that a more important factor in transracial adoptees’ experience may
be the increase in self-esteem that could occur from the exposure to and the incorporation
of role models and models of beauty from the transracial adoptees’ own racial group.

In making these recommendations as informed by the current study, however,
caution must be used especially due to the exploratory nature of the study. Before such
recommendations were formalized, these findings should be replicated and should be
yielded via an instrument that reflects the distinctions between race and culture found in
the conceptual model itself.

The findings of the study can also greatly inform the view of transracial adoption
among opponents and proponents to transracial adoption. First, because heterogeneity

exists among transracial adoptees and because a particular way or ways of identifying was

186

not associated with better or worse psychological adjustment, neither proponents nor
opponents can purport a “best way” to identify as a transracial adoptee. Second, racial
differences between parents and adoptees have been targeted as the primary source of
potential problems in transracial adoption. This expectation can be problematic because
many other factors (e.g., parenting, reasons for adopting, hardiness, ego strength, and
trauma) have been virtually forgotten and their impact has yet to be examined with
respect to transracial adoptees. Although these other factors continue to deserve empirical
and theoretical attention, the findings of the current study provide evidence for both
proponents and opponents to transracial adoption. Opponents have been shown to be
justified in their concerns regarding the impact of racial differences on self-esteem as
evidenced by the finding that phenotypic or racial differences do have an impact on
transracial adoptees’ level of self-esteem. Proponents, on the other hand, have also been
supported in their contention that high levels of self-esteem can result from transracial
adoption, especially if the differences are addressed and accounted for. A third important
implication concerns the finding suggesting that cultural differences may have less of an
impact on transracial adoptees’ adjustment, and particularly their self-esteem.
Expectations have long been held that culture (the values, beliefs, traditions, etc.) were of
great importance in adjustment and identity. The findings of the current study suggest that
racial concerns may actually be of greater importance in self-esteem.

Finally, the results of this study are important to the controversy surrounding

transracial adoption. Hollingsworth (1997) found results indicating lower levels of racial

187

identity in transracial adoptees as compared to that of intraracial adoptees. Based on the
Cultural-Racial Identity Model and the work on identity presented in this study, the
results reported by Hollingsworth may need to be reconsidered especially in light of the
current finding that no form of Cultural-Racial Identity was “better” or “higher” than
others. With this contrast in mind, the premise that there are healthier and less healthy
racial identities must be revisited.

Furthermore, Hollingsworth also found that transracial adoptees did not differ
from intraracial adoptees with respect to levels of self-esteem. Again, the role of self-
esteem in transracial adoptees’ experiences and the degree to which self-esteem can be
considered an indicator of psychological adjustment is called into question. The findings
of the current study suggest that, for transracial adoptees at least, some evidence exists
that differences may exist between self-esteem and psychological adjustment. These
differences appear to indicate that self-esteem may be more sensitive to differences in
Cultural-Racial Identities than is psychological adjustment. Moreover, the degree to
which transracial adoption has resulted in maladj ustment may need to be addressed from
a different level of analysis than has previously been done. This level should incorporate
those factors supporting adjustment among transracial adoptees and those factors
hindering adjustment—that is, the analysis should account for heterogeneity among

transracial adoptees.

188

Implications for Practice

The findings of this study are of substantial importance to the provision of ethical
and competent services to transracial adoptees. This study is one of the few studies to
specifically focus on young adult transracial adoptees and their unique identity
experiences. Currently, no empirical studies of the counseling and psychotherapeutic
needs of transracial adoptees exist. It also addresses transracial adoption from a
perspective that focuses on assisting those who have already been transracially adopted
rather than focusing on whether or not to make transracial adoption placements. As a
result, the findings from the present study, in conjunction with the literature on
multicultural counseling, can be used to aid psychologists and other clinicians in
providing culturally sensitive and culturally competent counseling to existing and future
transracial adoptees. To date, clinicians have been without a guide to the unique
experiences and influences that affect transracial adoptees’ identity statuses. Without this
information, clinicians can be prone to errors and assumptions regarding the cultural and
racial identities of transracial adoptees.

With respect to the specific findings of the current study and their impact on
practice with transracial adoptees, several areas deserve attention. First, the findings of
the study were intended to serve as guidelines for psychotherapeutic explorations,
especially regarding racial and cultural identity. Second, important areas for future
research were expected to emerge from the data, especially as that research can further aid
in promoting ethical, competent, clinical practice.

189

The finding that a positive relationship exists between the Adoptee Race
Dimension, the Parental Race Dimension, and higher levels of self-esteem suggests
transracial adoptees may be making self-other comparisons between themselves, their
parents, and those from both racial groups represented by themselves and their parents.
That is, transracial adoptees’ self-esteem levels seem to be affected by their comfort
levels and affiliation with people from both their own racial group and their parents’
racial group, in this case the White racial group. When transracial adoptees feel
uncomfortable with or have fewer affiliations or feelings of belongingness toward people
from either their own race or their parents’ (Whites), they reported lower levels of self-
esteem. This finding has important implications for the counseling psychologist’s job.
When addressing self-esteem issues in counseling or psychotherapy, the therapist can be
better equipped to address these issues when they are aware of the relationship between
self-esteem and transracial adoptees’ comfort with those from their own and their parents’
racial groups. Without this information, the therapist could mistakenly assume, for
example, that lack of exposure to the transracial adoptees’ culture of origin could be a
cause of lower levels of self-esteem. However, as the findings of the current study can
attest to, therapists should also consider the relationship described above before
foreclosing on their assumptions.

Another way in which the findings could assist in clinical practice draws upon the
finding that there may be a relationship between psychological adjustment and the

Parental Culture Dimension. Although not considered statistically significant for the

190

study, this finding was deemed noteworthy and relevant for the practice arena, with an
even greater meaning for social workers, adoption agencies, and psychologists who work
with transracial adoptees. Also, because this finding failed to attain a level of statistical
significance that would allow its interpretation, interpretations of the relationship between
psychological adj ustment and the Parental Culture Dimension are not appropriate.
However, for clinical practice and particularly for psychotherapy and counseling,
therapists can use this relationship as a guide for exploration. With this caution in mind,
the form that this exploration takes can be guided by this noteworthy finding.

As previously indicated, this potential relationship suggests that when transracial
adoptees endorse values, beliefs, and other cultural practices different from that of their
parents (especially if this endorsement is purposefully different from their parents), then
psychological distress is somewhat likely. In this case, the transracial adoptees and their
parents may have very poor communication or a contentious relationship. Although the
author of the current study supports this initial explanation for the relationship, other,
more controversial explanations exist.

One of these explanations is that biases exist in the evaluation of psychological
adjustment or in society in general that lead to a relationship in which a stronger
identification with the White, middle-class, American culture is predictive of better
psychological adjustment. Another explanation indicates that the debate surrounding
transracial adoption, the value judgments placed on transracial adoptees regarding the

“appropriate” way to identify, and the social pressure exerted by members of transracial

191

adoptees’ racial groups to reject or at least devalue their experience in the White culture
may actually exert pressure on transracial adoptees who choose not to identify with the
White culture. Perhaps this pressure could lead to greater psychological maladjustment.

Determining the validity of these potential explanations for the potential
relationship between psychological adjustment and the Parental Culture Dimension is
beyond the scope of the current study, but it definitely provides a guideline for
exploration in psychotherapy as well as points to important areas for future research. As
this example demonstrates, the knowledge that a relationship may exist between
psychological adjustment and the Parental Culture Dimension can lead to many rich
hypotheses that can be tested and generated throughout clinical practice. The mere
sensitivity to the issues that may affect transracial adoptees can represent a substantial
improvement in the current service provision to transracial adoptees.
Implications for Future Resear_ch

The results of this study provide substantial bases for future research. The current
study represents the first empirical examination of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model.
The data from the study validated that the measure used allowed an appropriate test of the
model and that the model successfully differentiated among the possible Cultural-Racial
Identities. The data also provided an understanding of the relationship among the
potential Cultural-Racial Identities and psychological adjustment and self-esteem. These
findings have several important implications for practice, policy, theory, and research.

However, many limitations existed that necessitate the replication of the data and an

192

improvement upon the measures use, size of sample, composition of sample, etc. to
demonstrate a definitive validation of the model. F urthermore, the current study was
exploratory in nature and resulted in several areas for future research.

First, Baden and Steward (1995) posited that the identity crisis for transracial
adoptees occurs in late adolescence and early adulthood. As a result, an accurate measure
of transracial adoptees’ identity experiences would have to be assessed when they were
young adults. The current study was one of the few empirical studies on transracial
adoption to measure identity at this stage of development. Future research on racial
identity in transracial adoptees should continue to use this life stage to ensure a more
accurate measure of the process and outcome of transracial adoption on identity (Taylor
& Thornton, 1996).

Second, transracial adoptees varied widely in the Cultural-Racial Identities they
reported via the MEIM-R. Thus, they did not report a common Cultural-Racial Identity
as may have been expected based previous studies that have assumed a homogeneity of
experiences among transracial adoption. For example, based on the literature review and
the stances taken by those involved in the controversy surrounding transracial adoption,
transracial adoptees having a greater degree of knowledge, awareness, competence, and
comfort in their adoptive parents’ culture (Culturally Specific Type H Identity) and having
greater comfort with those belonging to their adoptive parents’ racial group (Racially
Specific Type 11 Identity) could be expected to have experienced “poor identity

development.” However, transracial adoptees did not all report these identities alone;

193

rather, the reliability estimates reported demonstrated the variability in Cultural-Racial
Identities among the transracial adoptees who participated in the study. This finding
suggests that future research should address the confirmation of these results with a larger
sample of transracial adoptees. Ideally, substantial samples of transracial adoptees could
be obtained so that comparisons could be made with various racial ethnic groups and with
intraracially adopted young adults. Third, the psychological adjustment of the transracial
adoptees in the current study did not differ based on the Cultural-Racial Identities of
participants. Future research should replicate this finding with a larger sample so that the
16 individual cells of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model can be utilized in the analyses.
More specifically, validation of the model could be advanced through a demonstration
that each of the 16 cells of the model were represented in the data and that comparisons of
adjustment between levels was replicated the findings of the current study.

Additional areas for future research are plentiful. The current study provided a
baseline for understanding the unique experiences of transracial adoptees. The Cultural-
Racial Identity Model can garner additional support by gaining additional information
about the experiences of other individuals raised in racially integrated families (e. g.,
biracial individuals, “displaced” individuals). When the experiences of these individuals
in addition to the experiences of intraracially adopted individuals are compared to the
experiences of transracial adoptees, a greater understanding of the effects of adoption,
racial integration within families, and the impact of familial and contextual factors can be

extrapolated.

194

 

Finally, future research must also address the psychological and counseling needs
of transracial adoptees. As noted in Chapter II, empirical studies addressing the
psychotherapeutic needs of transracial adoptees do not currently exist. Future research
could begin with case studies and progress toward empirically validating techniques and

issues among transracial adoptees.

195

APPENDIX A

196

APPENDIX A
Dear Colleague,

I am a doctoral student in counseling psychology at Michigan State University. lam
seeking your assistance in a research endeavor that is a very exciting part of my
professional development. Through this research, I am attempting to collect information
which will lead to a better understanding of the identity and adjustment of transracial
adoptees. This information will enable helping professionals to better understand the
unique experiences of transracial adoptees. As a transracial adoptee myself, I have been
interested in better understanding the impact of adoption across racial groups and,
sometimes, cultural groups. I believe that this study will contribute to both my personal
and professional understanding of the ways in which transracial adoptees experience the
adoption. I am conducting this study for my dissertation and h0pe to have the opportunity
to publish the findings in a professional journal so that many will benefit, but I will be
unable to do so without your help. I certainly hope you choose to participate.

Participation in this study will not cost you anything but approximately 30-45 minutes of
your time. I have included an instruction sheet in this packet to aid in your completion of
the materials. On the back of this page, you will find an informed consent form for your
records and within the survey packet you will find an informed consent form that must be
completed and returned with the packet in the enclosed pre-addressed, stamped envelope.
Also, please be sure to fill out the card attached to the packet to be entered in the drawing.

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this important research project. Your
participation will aid in the understanding of transracial adoptees' experiences and will
allow the development of improved counseling and career services for transracial
adoptees. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study or the survey packet
itself, please do not hesitate to contact me. Should the questions or items on the
questionnaires to follow cause you any concern or discomfort, please feel free to call 1-
800-372-8460 (if you reside in Michigan, this is the toll-free number for Emergency
Services) or to contact your local adoption agency or mental health agency for a referral
for counseling.

Sincerely,
Amanda Baden

Counseling Psychology Doctoral Candidate
badenama@pilot.msu.edu

197

Consent Form

I agree to participate in the research entitled "The psychological adjustment of
transracial adoptees: An application of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model" which is being
conducted by Amanda Baden from the Counseling Psychology Program at Michigan
State University.

I understand that the completion of the survey packets will take approximately 30-
45 minutes. I understand that this participation is entirely voluntary; I can refuse to
answer certain questions and withdraw my consent at any time without penalty. In
addition, I further understand that these results will be treated with strict confidence and
that the questionnaires that I complete will be kept completely confidential. I also
understand that by returning the completed survey materials, I will automatically be
entered into a lottery for $200. The chance that I could win the lottery will be
approximately 1 in 90.

I also understand that I can contact Amanda Baden at (517)355-8502 or (517)333-
3864 regarding any questions or concerns that may be raised by participating in the study.
Please sign both copies of this form. Keep one and return the other to the investigator.

Should the questions or items on the questionnaires to follow cause you any
concern or discomfort, please feel free to call 1-800-372-8460 (if you reside in Michigan,
this is the toll-free number for Emergency Services, a community mental health crisis
center) or to contact your local adoption agency or mental health agency for a referral for
counseling.

 

Signature of Participant Date

 

Signature of Investigator Date

Please retain this copy for your records.

198

The Survey Packet

Instructions for the completion of this survey packet.

1. Please read and sign both copies of the informed consent form. Retain one copy as
indicated at the bottom of the sheet and sign the second copy which is printed on the back
of this page.

2. Please fill out the card attached to the survey packet as your entry into the $200 lottery.
This card will be detached from the rest of the survey packet upon receipt by the
researchers and will entered into the lottery drawing. The information on this card will
enable us to contact you if you are the winner. Check the appropriate box on the card if
you wish to receive a copy of the results of this study.

3. If you do not wish to enter the lottery, leave the card blank.

4. Please respond as completely and honestly as possible to the questionnaire to follow.
Instructions for each section are included.

5. When the survey packet is complete, place the packet in the pro-addressed, stamped
envelope and send it by US. Mail.

Thanks again for your assistance with this study. To conserve paper, please note
that questionnaires and the informed consent form are PRINTED ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE PAPER.

199

Consent Form

I agree to participate in the research entitled "The psychological adjustment of
transracial adoptees: An application of the Cultural-Racial Identity Model" which is being
conducted by Amanda Baden from the Counseling Psychology Program at Michigan
State University.

I understand that the completion of the survey packets will take approximately 30-
45 minutes. I understand that this participation is entirely voluntary; I can refuse to
answer certain questions and withdraw my consent at any time without penalty. In
addition, I further understand that these results will be treated with strict confidence and
that the questionnaires that I complete will be kept completely confidential. I also
understand that by returning the completed survey materials, I will automatically be
entered into a lottery for $200. The chance that I could win the lottery will be
approximately 1 in 90.

I also understand that I can contact Amanda Baden at (517)355-8502 or (517)333-
3864 regarding any questions or concerns that may be raised by participating in the study.
Please sign both copies of this form. Keep one and return the other to the investigator.

Should the questions or items on the questionnaires to follow cause you any
concern or discomfort, please feel free to call 1-800-372-8460 (if you reside in Michigan,
this is the toll-free number for Emergency Services, a community mental health crisis
center) or to contact your local adoption agency or mental health agency for a referral for
counseling.

 

Signature of Participant Date

 

Signature of Investigator Date

Please return this copy to the investigator.

200

CRIQ

For the following questions, answer as honestly and completely as possible.

 

 

 

 

Your Background

1. Age:

2. Sex (circle one): 1) Female 2) Male

3. At what age were you adopted?

4. If applicable, what is your country of origin?

5. Please circle the number next to your Race/Ethnicity or please describe the specific group

8.

that you identify with the most in the blank next to your ethnicity (for example, Chinese

American, German, Navajo, Alaskan Aleut):
1) Caucasian, White, European American
2) African American, Black
3) Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander
4) Native American or American Indian
5) Latino, Hispanic, Mexican American
6) Multicultural Mixed Race
7) Other, please specify

 

 

 

 

 

Please describe your religious background and, if applicable, your religious group
membership.

 

How many pre-adoptive placements did you have? What were they (for example, were
you in foster care, an orphanage/children's home, with relatives, etc.)?

 

 

To your knowledge, please circle or write in the item(s) that most accurately describe the

reason(s) you were put up for adoption. Circle all that apply.

9.
ado
ado

1) illegitimacy 8) war in country

2) taken from birth family by protective services 9) death of birth parent(s)
3) birth parent(s) unable to care for at the time 10) physical abuse

4) drug use in family 1 1) sexual abuse

5) physical disability 12) do not have information
6) abandoned 13) other (please specify

)

To your knowledge, please circle or write in the item(s) that most accurately depict your pre-

 

ptive history (for example, physical and possible psychological conditions at and prior to

ption). Circle all that apply.

1) healthy 7) physically abused

2) malnourished 8) sexually abused

3) physically disabled 9) drug dependent

4) other physical/medical condition 10) do not have information
(please specify ) 11) other (please specify

5) war in home country )

 

6) death of birth parent(s)

201

10. What is the highest educational level you have reached?
1) less than high school
2) high school degree (or GED)
3) post high school (e. g., trade, technical, secretarial)
4) some college (e. g., one year, associates degree)
5) completed college (e.g., bachelor's degree)
6) some graduate or post-bachelor's training
7) completed graduate or post-bachelor's training

1 1. What is your current annual income?

 

12. What is your current occupation?

 

13. In what city do you currently reside?

 

14. Please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following areas:

a) your current occupation/career. very satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 not satisfied
b) your current peer relationships. very satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 not satisfied
c) your current relationships with significant others. very satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 not satisfied
d) your educational achievement. very satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 not satisfied
e) your physical appearance. very satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 not satisfied

Your Biological Family-4f you are able to answer the following questions about your
birth/biological family, please do so in the spaces provided.

15. Please describe the racial background of your biological family (all family members).
Father: 1) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian/Pacific Islander

4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other

7) Multiracial (please specify )

Mother: 1) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian/Pacific Islander
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

 

 

 

16. Please describe the religious background of your biological/birth family members.
Father
Mother

 

17. Have you had any contact with your biological family?El Yes D No.
If "yes," please respond to the following items.
a) Are you currently in contact with any members of your biological family? El Yes C] No
b) If so, with whom are you in contact?
0) How old were you when you met this/these biological family members?
d) Please rate your level of satisfaction with your relationships with your biological
family member(s).
very satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 not satisfied

 

202

Your Adoptive Family--Please complete the following items based on the family into
which you were adopted.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

Please describe the racial background of your adoptive family (all family members).

Father: 1) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian/Pacific Islander
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

Mother: 1) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian/Pacific Islander
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other

 

 

7) Multiracial (please specify )
Maternal 1)Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian/Pacific Islander
Grandparents: 4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other

7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

Paternal l) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian/Pacific Islander
Grandparents: 4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

Please circle the number next to your adoptive parents' marital status

1) Married and living together 4) Divorced and one or both parents remarried
2) Separated 5) Widowed, or one parent deceased

3) Divorced and neither parent remarried 6) Single-parent (never been married)

Please describe the religious background of your adoptive family members.
Father

Mother

Maternal Grandparents

 

Paternal Grandparents
Siblings (brothers and sisters)

In your adoptive family, how many siblings (brothers and sisters) do you have?

Sisters: Number of sisters?

Age of sister 1: Adopted?El Yes [:1 No

Racial background of sister 1: 1) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

Age of sister 2: Adopted?El Yes El No

Racial background of sister 2: l) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

Age of sister 3: Adopted?El Yes Cl No

Racial background of sister 3: 1) Caucasian/White 2) Afi'ican AmJBlack 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

203

Brothers: Number of brothers?

Age of brother 1: Adopted?El Yes [:1 No

Racial background of brother 1: 1) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify A

Age of brother 2: Adopted?D Yes [:1 No

Racial background of brother 2: l) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

Age of brother 3: Adopted?l:l Yes [:1 No

Racial background of brother 3: l) Caucasian/White 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic 6) Other
7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

* *If you need additional space, please complete this item on an additional sheet of paper.

Additional Comments/Information:

 

 

22. What is your adoptive family's annual income?

 

23. What is your adoptive father's occupation?

 

24. What is your adoptive mother's occupation?

 

25. Have you maintained contact with your adoptive family?Cl Yes C] No.
If "yes," please respond to the following items.

a) With whom are you in contact? mlease circle all that apply)

(1) all members of adoptive family including extended family (e.g., grandparents,
aunts, cousins, etc.)

(2) all members of adoptive family excluding extended family
(3) adoptive mother
(4) adoptive father
(5) adoptive siblings
(6) other (please specify )

b) Please rate your level of satisfaction with your relationships with your adoptive

family member(s).
very satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 not satisfied
c) Please add any additional comments/explanations

 

 

 

26. Please give an approximate breakdown of the percentage of individuals belonging to the
different racial groups attending your high school.

 

 

 

Caucasian % African American % Latino %
Asian American % Native American %
Biracial % Other (please specify ) %

 

 

204

27. Where did you live when you attended high school? City
State School District Was it public or private? (circle one)

 

 

28. Please give an approximate breakdown of the percentage of individuals belonging to the
different racial groups and living in your community/neighborhood while you were growing

 

 

 

up.

Caucasian % African American % Latino %

Asian American % Native American %

Biracial % Other (please specify ) %

 

 

29.What percentages of your social support network (e. g., friends or those who provide social
outlets and support) were made up of individuals belonging to the following groups while you
were growing up.
From your racial group: % From your parents' racial group: %
From other racial groups (excluding your own racial group and your parents'): %

30. Please give an approximate breakdown of the percentage of individuals belonging to the
different racial groups and living in your community/neighborhood where you live now.

 

 

 

Caucasian % African American % Latino %
Asian American % Native American %
Biracial % Other (please specify ) %

 

 

31. What percentages of your current social support network (e.g., friends or those who provide
social outlets and support) are made up of individuals belonging to the following groups.

From your racial group: % From your parents' racial group: %
From other racial groups (excluding your own racial group and your parents'): %
32. What is the race of your closest friend?(circle one). 1) Caucasian/White
2) African Am./Black 3) Asian 4) Native American 5) Latino/Hispanic
6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

 

33. What is the race of your next three closest friends? (circle one).
Friend 1: 1) Caucasian 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian 4) Native American 5) Latino
6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )

Friend 2: l) Caucasian 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian 4) Native American 5) Latino
6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )

Friend 3: l) Caucasian 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian 4) Native American 5) Latino
6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

34. Would you consider an interracial marriage?El Yes D No What are the racial
backgrounds of those you have dated?

 

35. To which racial/ethnic group does your knowledge of culture primarily pertain?
l) Caucasian 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian 4) Native American 5) Latino
6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

205

36. Have there been any non-parent individuals (e.g., role models) whom you believe to have
played an important/crucial role in your life? [:1 Yes Cl No
NOTE: If you answered "yes" to 28, please describe briefly the top three such

 

relationships and the impact they had in your life in the spaces provided. PLEASE
DESCRIBE THREE RELATIONSHIPS if possible.
This Person's Briefly Describe This Person's
Relationship #1 to You: Gender Impact on Your Life:
1) Female
2) Male

 

 

Racial Background of This Person
1) Caucasian 2) African AmJBlack 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino

 

 

 

6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )

This Person's Briefly Describe This Person's H
Relationship #2 to You: Gender Impact on Your Life:

1) Female

2) Male

 

 

Racial Background of This Person
1) Caucasian 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino

 

 

 

6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )
This Person's Briefly Describe This Person's
Relationship #3 to You: Gender Impact on Your Life:
1) Female
2) Male

 

 

Racial Background of This Person

1) Caucasian 2) African Am./Black 3) Asian
4) Native American 5) Latino

6) Other 7) Multiracial (please specify )

 

37. Please rank the following according to your level of comfort with the following groups with
"l " as the most comfortable and "3" the least comfortable.

_individuals from your racial background

_individuals from your parents' racial background

_individuals fiom racial backgrounds other than yours or your parents'?

*III*Ik¢**#*#*************t*****##Ihttiittiifiiitii#**#******#****#******¥*#*******Ifi**
Illt************#******#*****#*****#**********#****#¢*#**#******#*#****#*********t*

206

Scoring Key for the Cultural-Racial Identity Questionnaire
Confounds to be controlled for in analyses:

Item! 8)

OOQUJNU—

,9

19, 20

Confounding Variable

Current Age--continuous variable

Sex of Transracial Adoptee-categorical variable

Age at adoption--continuous variable

Number of Pre-Adoptive Placements--categorical variable
Level of Trauma Associated with Adoption--categorical
variable

Socioeconomic Status of Adoptive F amily--continuous variable

Demographic Variables to be used for Post—Hoe Analyses

 

 

Religion of Transracial Adoptee--categorical variable
Level of Trauma Associated with Adoption--categorical

Highest Education Level of Transracial Adoptee--continuous
Socioeconomic Status of Transracial Adoptee--continuous

Prestige Level of Occupation--continuous variable

Race of Adoptive Parents/Family ("Must be Caucasian for
Marital Status of Adoptive Parents--categorical variable
Religion of Adoptive Family--categorical variable

Number, Gender, Race, and Adoption Status of Siblings--
Interracial Dating Practices of Transracial Adoptee--categorical
Level of Integration of Transracial Adoptee's School-

Level of Integration of Transracial Adoptee's Community--

Role Model, hnpact, Gender, and Race-~categorical
Appearance, Similar Physical Features as Parents--Validity

Appearance, Pass as Biological Child of Parents--Validity

Item_(s) Post-Hoc/Demglgphic Variables
5 Race of Transracial Adoptee--categorical variable
6
7, 8, 9

variable
10

variable
1]

variable
12
13 Race of Birth Parents--categorical variable
14 Religion of Birth Parents--categorical variable
15

study)
16
17
18

categorical
24

var.
26

categorical var.
27

categorical
30
44

Check
45

Check
46

Appearance, Pass as White--Validity Check

207

Scoring for Variables

Level of Trauma associated with Adoption: Items 7, 8, 9---One point for each indicated
pre-adoptive placement, one point for each item checked in #8 and #9 except for choice
"12" in #8 and choice "10" in #9. Total for level of trauma ranges from 0 on up with
lower numbers indicating less trauma and higher numbers indicating more trauma. High,
medium, and low levels of trauma will be determined by getting the mean for these items
and designating those one standard deviation above the mean or greater as in the "high
trauma" group, those at the mean and within one standard deviation above and below the
mean as in the "medium/average trauma" group, and those one standard deviation below
the mean or less as in the "low trauma" group.

Social Support Netwgk: Item 21-—Estimates given will be turned into standardized
scores.

208

APPENDIX B

209

APPENDIX B

The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure—Revised
(Phinney, 1992)

In this country, people come from a lot of different cultures and there are many
different words to describe the different background or ethnic groups that people come
from. Some examples of the names of ethnic groups are Mexican-American, Hispanic,
Black, Asian-American, American Indian, Anglo-American, and White. Every person is
born into an ethnic group, or sometimes two groups, but people differ on how important
their ethnicity is to them, how they feel about it, and how much their behavior is affected
by it. These questions are about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel
about it or react to it.

Please fill in:
In terms of ethnic group, I consider myself to be

 

Use the numbers given below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement.

4: Strongly 3: Somewhat 2: Somewhat 1: Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree
1. I have Spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its
history, traditions, and customs.

I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my own
ethnic group.

I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me.

I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own.

I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership.

5"

I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to.

I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didn't try to mix

together.

I am not very clear about the role of my ethnicity in my life.

9. I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than my own.

10. I really have not spent much trying to learn more about the culture and history of my
ethnic group.

11. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.

12. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me, in terms of
how to relate to my own group and other groups.

13. In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other people
about my ethnic group.

14. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments.

210

$9509.”

4: Strongly 3: Somewhat 2: Somewhat l: Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree
15. I don't try to become fiiends with people from other ethnic groups.

16. I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or
customs.

17. I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups.

18. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.

19. I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than my own.

20. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background.

21. I know the language/dialect/slang of my people from my own ethnic group.

22. I celebrate the holidays of people from my own ethnic group (e. g., if Chinese,
celebrate Chinese New Years, etc.).

23. I have values and beliefs similar to those of people from my own ethnic group.
Now consider each of the following items in terms of your adoptive parents' ethnic
group. As a transracial adoptee, this means you Should consider each of the items using
your parents' ethnic group as the basis. These questions are about your parents' ethnicity
or their ethnic group and how you feel about it or react to it.

Please fill in:
In terms of ethnic group, I consider my parents to
be

 

Use the numbers given below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement.

4: Strongly 3: Somewhat 2: Somewhat l: Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree
24. I have spent time trying to find out more about my parents' ethnic group, such as its
history, traditions, and customs.

25. I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my
parents' ethnic group.

26. I have a clear sense of my parents' ethnic background and what it means for me.

27. I like meeting and getting to know people fiom ethnic groups other than my parents'.

28. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my parents' ethnic group
membership.

29. I am happy that my parents are members of the group they belong to.

30. I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didn't try to mix
together.

31. I am not very clear about the role of my parents' ethnicity in my life.
32. I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than my parents'.

211

33.

34.
35.

36.

37.
38.

39.

40.

41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.

4: Strongly 3: Somewhat 2: Somewhat l: Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree

I really have not spent much trying to learn more about the culture and history of my

parents' ethnic group.

I have a strong sense of belonging to my parents' ethnic group.

I understand pretty well what my parents' ethnic group membership means to me, in

terms of how to relate to my parents' group and other groups.

In order to learn more about my parents' ethnic background, I have often talked to

other people about my parents' ethnic group.

I have a lot of pride in my parents' ethnic group and its accomplishments.

Except for my parents' ethnic group, I don't try to become friends with people from

other ethnic groups.

I participate in cultural practices of my parents' group, such as special food, music, or

customs.

Except for my parents' ethnic group, I am involved in activities with people from other

ethnic groups.

I feel a strong attachment towards my parents' ethnic group.

I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than my parents'.

I feel good about my parents' cultural or ethnic background.

I know the language/dialect/slang of people from my parents' ethnic group.

I celebrate the holidays of people from my parents' ethnic group.

I have values and beliefs similar to those of people from my parents' ethnic group.

Note. From Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale
for use with diverse groups. J ourntal of Adolescent Research. 2, 156-176. Copyright 1992
by the Journal of Adolescent Research. Adapted with permission.

212

 

 

Scoring for the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure
Sum items in each of the following groups:

Ethnic Identity for Transracial Adoptee's Ethnic Group: reverse negative items (indicated
by "R"), sum across items, and obtain the mean
Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8R,10R,11,12,13,14,16, 18, and 20
Ethnic Identitv for Adoptive Parents' Ethnic Grow: reverse negative items (indicated by
"R"), sum across items, and obtain the mean
Items 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31R, 33R, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, and 43
Affirmation yd Belonging for Transracial Adoptees' Ethnic Grorm:
Items 6,11,14, l8, and 20
Affirmation and Belongipg for Adoptive Parents' Ethnic Group:
Items 29, 34, 37, 41, and 43
Ethnic Identity Achievement for Transracial AdLMees' Ethnic Group:
Items 1, 3, 5, 8R,10R,12, and 13
Ethnic Identity Achievement for Adoptive Parents' Ethnic Group:
Items 24, 26, 28, 31R, 33R, 35, 36
Ethnic Behaviors for Transracial Adoptees' Ethnic Group:
Items 2, 16, 21, 22, and 23
Ethnic Behaviors for Adoptive Parents' Ethnic Group:
Items 25, 39, 44, 45, and 46
Ethnic Self-Identification and Parent-Identification:
Open-ended
Ethnicity for Transracial Adoptees' Ethnic Group:
See Items 5 and 6 of CRIQ
Parents' Ethnicity for Transracial Adoptees' Ethnic Group:
See Item 15 of CRIQ
Other-Group Orientation for Transracial Adoptees' Ethnic Group:
Items 4, 7R, 9, 15R, 17, and 19
Other-Group Orientation for Adoptive Parents' Ethnic Group:
Items 27, 30R, 32, 38R, 40, and 42

 

 

213

APPENDIX C

214

APPENDIX C

Brief Symptom Inventory
(Derogatis & Cleary, 1977)
BS]

On these pages is a list of problems people sometimes have. Please read each one carefully, and
circle number that best describes HOW MUCH THAT PROBLEM HAS DISTRESSED OR
BOTHERED YOU DURING THE PAST 7 DAYS INCLUDING TODAY. Circle only one
number for each problem and do not skip any items. If you change your mind, cross out the
incorrect answer and circle the appropriate number.

 

0

Nmmdl
10123 4
2 0123 4
3 0123 4
4 0123 4
5 0123 4
6 0123 4
7 0123 4
8 0123 4
9 0123 4
100123 4
110123 4
120123 4
130123 4
140123 4
150123 4
160123 4
170123 4
180123 4
190123 4
200123 4
210123 4
220123 4
230123 4
240123 4
250123 4
260123 4
270123 4
280123 4
290123 4
300123 4
310123 4
320123 4
0 4

U)
DJ

123

1 2 3 4
A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely
Nervousness or shakiness inside
Faintness or dizziness
The idea that someone else can control your thoughts
Feeling others are to blame for most of your troubles
Trouble remembering things
Feeling easily annoyed or irritated
Pains in heart or chest
Feeling afraid in open spaces or on the streets
Thoughts of ending your life
Feeling that most people cannot be trusted
Poor appetite
Suddenly scared for no reason
Temper outbursts that you could not control
Feeling lonely even when you are with people
Feeling blocked in getting things done
Feeling lonely
Feeling blue
Feeling no interest in things
Feeling fearful
Your feelings being easily hurt
Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you
Feeling inferior to others
Nausea or upset stomach
Feeling that you are watched or talked about by others
Trouble falling asleep
Having to check and double-check what you do
Difficulty making decisions
Feeling afraid to travel on buses, subways, or trains
Trouble getting your breath
Hot or cold spells
Having to avoid certain things, places, or activities because they frighten
Your mind going blank
Numbness or tingling in parts of your body
21 5

 

34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

 

OCOOCOCOOOOOOOOOOOCO

0

Not at all

123
123
123
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
123
123
123
123

wwwwwwwwwwwww

h-hhAAbAA-bAAk-bAA-bhhhh

1 2 3 4
A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

The idea that you should be punished for your sins
Feeling hopeless about the future

Trouble concentrating

Feeling weak in parts of your body

Feeling tense or keyed up

Thoughts of death or dying

Having urges to beat, injure, or harm someone

Having urges to break or smash things

Feeling very self-conscious with others

Feeling uneasy in crowds, such as shopping or at a movie
Never feeling close to another person

Spells of terror or panic

Getting into frequent arguments

Feeling nervous when you are left alone

Others not giving you proper credit for your achievements
Feeling so restless you couldn't sit still

Feelings of worthlessness

Feeling that people will take advantage of you if you let them
Feelings of guilt

The idea that something is wrong with your mind

216

 

APPENDIX D

217

APPENDIX D

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965)

SES

1: Strongly 2: Agree 3: Disagree 4: Strongly
Agree Disagree
. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others.
I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

_

.N

w

All in all, 1 am inclined to feel that 1 am a failure.

A

. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
I take a positive attitude toward myself.

090.999

On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.

1 wish I could have more respect for myself.

. I certainly feel useless at times.
10. At times I think I am no good at all.

218

APPENDIX E

219

APPENDIX E

Tme Study

Hello! I am a doctoral student in counseling psychology and I am also a transracial adoptee. I was
adopted from Hong Kong when I was one by White parents. As a result of my own experience
and that of my sister who was also adopted, I became interested in gaining a greater understanding
of the effects and implications of transracial adoption. To do so, I must first identify individuals
over age 18 who are racially different from their adoptive parents. In America, most transracial
adoptions have been of non-White children who were adopted by White parents. For this reason, I
expect the transracial adoptees to be Asian American, African American, Latino, or Native
American. With your help, I hope to be able to identify individuals fitting this description. At this
point, I would like to request their assistance in completing my dissertation study.

The study that I am interested in doing involves surveying adult transracial adoptees regarding
their adoptive history, adoptive family history, and personal history. This study involves
completion of a series of questionnaires which take approximately 30 minutes to an hour to
complete. All of the information obtained will be strictly confidential and will be anonymous. A
lottery with a winning prize of $200 (with an approximately 1 in 90 chance of winning) will also
be offered for those completing surveys. I hope to begin to send out questionnaires by the month of
July, 1997.

If you or anyone you know is an adult transracial adoptee, then I would like to ask for your
help in completing this study. If you have information about potential participants or if you
yourself are willing to get more information and/or participate, please do not hesitate to contact
me. I can be reached via e-mail (badenama@pilot.msu.edu) or at the following addresses and
phone numbers:

Amanda Baden, M.Ed.
787 Burcharn Drive Apt. #6 or 435 Erickson Hall
East Lansing, MI 48823 Michigan State University
(517)333-3864 East Lansing, MI 48824

(517)355-8502

220

APPENDIX F

221

APPENDIX F

Dear Amanda:

Your research sounds very interesting. It would extend the growing literature
on biracial/biethnic individuals, who Share some of the same issues (I would
imagine) as transracial adoptees. You are welcome to use and modify the
MEIM, and your suggestions sound generally appropriate. I do have several
questions, which may stem from my lack of familiarity with the topic. Would
it be possible for the ethnic self-identification of the transracial adoptee

to be either that of their natural/birth parents or of their adoptive

parents? I'm not sure what racial groups you are including, but if

appearance is not salient, would it not be possible for an adoptee to know
that their ethnicity is different from that of their adoptive parents but yet

to identify with them? Instead of using self-identification, would it make
sense to ask the adoptee to respond to the MEIM first in terms of the
ethnicity of their natural/birth parents and second in terms of their

adoptive parents? It seems that a separate question then might be which
group they most strongly identify with. In any case, I do think you

should specific which parents you are referring to when you ask about their
ethnicity. Perhaps it would be clearer if I was familiar with your model. I
would appreciate receiving a copy of your papers describing the model, from
APA and/or the C-C Roundtable. I would of course be interested in receiving a
copy or summary of results from your study when it is completed.

Sincerely, Jean Phinney

Dept of Psychology

California State University, LA
Los Angeles, CA 90032-8227

222

APPENDIX G

223

APPENDIX G

[Front of the Postcard]

Hi! I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University and I am doing my
dissertation on transracial adoption. I am seeking transracial adoptees who are
willing to participate in my dissertation study. To be eligible, you must be at least
18 years old, you must be racially different from your parents, and both of your
adoptive parents must be Caucasian. If you fit these criteria, I would greatly
appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. For those who agree to be
in the study and who complete the short survey that I will send them, I will be
having a $200 lottery drawing (approximately 1 in 90 chance of winning). The
survey will take between 30-45 minutes to complete and it will be at no cost to you.

If you are interested in this study, please fill out the following information,
check the appropriate box, and mail this card back to me as soon as possible.

 

 

 

 

Name Age
Address

City State Zip
Phone E-mail

 

 

1:1 I am interested in the study but would like to request more information.

D I am a transracial adoptee fitting these criteria and I am willing to
participate in the study. Please send me more information about the study.

El 1 am a transracial adoptee fitting these criteria and I am willing to
participate in the study. Please mail me a survey when it is ready.

 

Name

Address

City State
Zip

 

 

 

Amanda L. Baden, M.Ed.

Department of Counseling and Educational
Psychology and Special Education

Michigan State University

435 Erickson Hall

East Lansing, MI 48824

[Back of the Postcard]

224

REFERENCES

225

REFERENCES

Abdullah, S. B. (1996). Transracial adoption is not the solution to America’
problem of child welfare. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 254-261.

Alexander, Jr., R., & Curtis, C. M. (1996). A review of empirical research
involving the transracial adoption of African American children. Journal of Black
Psychology, _2_2, 223-235.

Alstein, H., & Simon, R. J. (1977). Transracial adoption: An examination of an
American phenomenon. Journal of Social Welfare; 5, 63-71.

Alstein, H., Coster, M., First-Hartling, L., Ford, C., Glasoe, B., Hairston, S.,
Kasoff, J, & Wellbom Grier, A. W. (1994) Clinical observations of adult intercountry

adoptees and their adoptive parents. Child Welfare fl, 261-269.

 

Andujo, E. (1988). Ethnic identity of transethnically adopted Hispanic
adolescents. Social Work, 3, 531-535.

Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1989). CounselingAmerican
minorities: A cross-cultural p_e_rspective (3rd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Brown.

Baden, A. L. (1995, August). Racial identity development of racial/ethnic
minority children adopted by white parents: Implications for service delivery. In R. J.
Steward (Chair), Rethinking the application of racial identity in developmental theogy,
training, and counseling application. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the

American Psychological Association, New York, New York.

226

Baden, A. L., & Steward, R. J. (1997, February). The role of parents and farnilv in

the psychologic_al adiustrnent of transracial adoptees: Implications for the Cultural-Racial

 

Identity Model for Transracial Ad0ptees. Paper presented at the meeting of the Fourteenth
Annual Teachers College Roundtable on Cross-Cultural Psychology and Education, New
York, NY.

Baden, A. L., & Steward, R. J. (1998). A frameworlt for use with racially and
culturally integgated families: The Cultural-Racial Identitv Model as applied to transracial
adoption. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Baden, A. L., & Steward, R. J. (1996). The Cultural-Racial Identity Model:
Understanding the racial identity a_r_l_d cultural identity development of traparacjal
adoptees. Unpublished manuscript.

Bagley, C. (1992). The psychology of adoption: Case studies of national and
international adoptions. Bulletin of the HongKogJ’g/chologjpal Sociey, 28/2995-115.

Bagley, C. (1993a). Chinese adoptees in Britain: A twenty-year follow-up of
adjustment and social identity. Interpatmal Social Work, _3_6, 143-157.

Bagley, C. (1993b). Transracial adoption in Britain: A follow-up study, with

policy considerations. Child Welfare 7_2, 285-299.

 

Bagley, C., Young, L., & Scully, A. (1993). International and transracial
adoptions. Aldershot, England: Avebury.
Barth, R. P., Berry, M., Yoshikami, R., Goodfield, R. K., & Carson, M. L. (1988).

Predicting adoption disruption. Social Work, _3_3, 227-233.

227

 

Beale, D. K. (1972). What’s so significant about .05? American Psychologist, 21,
1079-1080.

Brenner, E. M. (1993). Identity formation in the transracially-adopted adolescent
(Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology at Berkeley/Almeda,

1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, _5_4_, 3871.

 

Brown, U. M. (1995). Black/white interracial young adults: Quest for a racial
identity. American Journg of Orthopsvchiafl, 65, 125-130.

Chirnezie, A. (1975). Transracial adoption of Black children. Social Work, 20,
296-301.

Cohen, J. (1977). S_t_atistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New
York: Academic Press.

Cohen, P. (1994). Yesterday's words, tomorrow's world: From the racialisation of
adoption to the politics of difference. In I. Gaber & J. Aldridge (Eds.) In the best interests
of the child: Culture, identity and traparacial adoption. (pp. 43-76). London: Free
Association Books Ltd.

Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience: Toward a
psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20, 13-27.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological
nigrescence: A review. The Journal of Blac_k Psychology, 5, 13-31.

Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventogy: Administration, scoring

procedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems, Inc.

228

Derogatis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional
structure of the SCL-90-R: A study in construct validation. Journal—of Clinical
Psychology, 33, 981-989.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: W. W. Norton
& Company, Inc.

Falk, L. L. (1970). A comparative study of transracial and inracial adoptions.
Child Welfare, _45, 82-88.

F anshel, D. (1972). E from the Reservation: The transracial adaption of
American Indian children. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Feigelman, W. & Silverman, A. R. (1983). Chosen children: New patternflf
adoptive relationships. New York, NY: Praeger.

Frazier, P. A., & Schauben, L. J. (1994). Stressful life events and psychological
adjustment among female college students. Mgaalaement & Eva_laation in Counaelingg
Development, _2_7, 280-292.

Gill, 0., & Jackson, B. (1983). Adoption and race: Black, Asian and mixed race
children in White fgnjliaa New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc.

Gill Willis, M. (1996). The real issues in transracial adoption: A response. J_Q_ur_'_na_1

of Black Psychology, 2, 246-253.

229

Goddard, L. L. (1996). Transracial adoption: Unanswered theoretical and
conceptual issues. Journfi of B15515 Psychology, Q, 273-281.

Gopaul-McNicol, S. (1996). Critique of “A review of the research on transracial
adoption.” Jourpal of Black Paychology, _2_2, 270-272.

Griffith, E. E. H., & Duby, J. L. Recent developments in the transracial adoption
debate. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiaarv and the Law, fl, 339-350

Grow, L. J ., & Shapiro, D. (1974). BM children-white parents. New York:
Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Harper, J. (1986). Inter-country adoption of older children in Australia. Adoption
& Fostering, l_Q, 27-31.

Harrison, A. O. (1996). Comments on transracial adoption. Journg of Blac_k
Psychology, Q, 236-239.

Hayes, P. (1993). Transracial adoption: Politics and ideology. Child Welfare

 

2, 301-310.

Helms, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theonl. researah,ap§
pram. New York: Greenwood Press.

Helwig, A. A., Ruthven, D. H. (1990). Psychological ramifications of adoption
and implications for counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counaeling, _12, 24-37.

Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, Jr., D. M., & Wampold, B. E. (1992). Ream

dtflgn in couaseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

230

 

Hill, M., & Peltzer, J. (1982). A report of thirteen groups for White parents of
Black children. Family Relations, 3_1, 557-565.

Hollingsworth, L. D. (1997). Effect of transracial/transethnic adoption on
children’s racial and ethnic identity and self-esteem: A meta-analytic review. m
and Family Review, 2._5_. 99-130.

Idelson, H. (1996). House backs effort to relax rules for adoption. Congessional
Quarterly Weealy Report. 8, 1303-1305.

Johnson, P. R., Shireman, J. F., & Watson, K. W. (1987). Transracial adoption
and the development of black identity at age eight. Child Welfare, _6_6, 45-55.

Kim, D. S. (1977). How they fared in American Homes. Children Today, 6, 2-6.

Kim, S. P., Hong, S., & Kim, B. S. (1979). Adoption of Korean children by New
York couples: A preliminary study. Child Welfare, 58, 419-427.

Kim, W. J. (1995). International adoption: A case review of Korean children.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 22, 141-154.

LeVine, E. S., & Sallee, A. L. (1990). Critical phases among adoptees and their
families: Implications for therapy. Child para Adolescent Social Work, 1, 217-232.

Levinson, E. J. (1971). The modification of intelligence by training in the
verbalization of word definitions and simple concepts. Child Development, Q, 1361-
1380.

Loenen, A., & Hoksbergen, R. (1986). Inter-country adoption: The Netherlands

attachment relations and identity. Adoption & Fostering, _IQ, 22-26.

231

Magidson, J. (1978). Reply to Bentler and Woodward: The .05 significance level
is not all-powerful. Eaalaation Quarterly. 2, 511-520.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of
Adolescent Psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

McRoy, R. G., Zurcher, L. A., Lauderdale, M. L., & Anderson, R. E. (1982).
Self-esteem and racial identity in transracial and intraracial adoptees. Social Work, 21,
522-526.

McRoy, R. G., Zurcher, L. A., Lauderdale, M. L., & Anderson, R. E. (1984). The
identity of transracial adoptees. Social Casework, .62, 34-39.

McRoy, R. G. (1989). An organizational dilemma: The case of transracial
adoptions. The Jouraal of @plied Behavioral Science, _2_5, 145-160.

Myer, R., & James, R. K. (1989). Counseling internationally adopted children: A
personal intervention approach. Elementary School Guidance & Couaseling, 23, 324-328.

National Association of Black Social Workers. (September, 1972). w
opmses transracial adoption. New York: National Association of Black Social Workers.

Norvell, M., & Guy, R. F. (1977). A comparison of self-concept in adopted and
non-adopted adolescents. Adolescence, _5_2, 443-448.

Office for Civil Rights. (1996). The Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA)-fact
sheet. Available Netscape search term: transracial adoption.

Olejnik, S. F. (1984). Planning educational research: Determining the necessary

sample size. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 40-48.

232

Patterson, S. J ., Sochting, I., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). In G. R. Adams, T. P.
Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.). Adolescent identity formiion (pp. 9-24). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and identity formation: A
sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30, 83-92.

Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group
adolescents. Jourfll of Early Adolescence. 2, 34-49.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for
use with diverse groups. Joumal of Adolescent Reseaach. 2, 156-176.

Phinney, J. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence: Process,
context, and outcome. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.).
Adolescent identity formation (pp. 145-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Prater, G., & King, L. T. (1988). Experiences of Black families as adoptive
parents. Social Work, 33, 543-545.

Project 21. (1995, March). Afiican-American leadership group condemns _r_ag_i_s_t
adoption practices. (On-line). Available:
http://www.nationalcenter.inter.net/TransRacialAdopt.htrnl

Ramos, J. D. (1990). Counseling internationally adopted children. Elementgy
School Guidance & Counseling, 25, 147-152.

Rathbun, C., & Kolodny, R. L. (1967). A groupwork approach in cross-cultural

adoptions. Children, 1_4, 1 17-121.

233

Richards, B. (1994). What is identity? In I. Gaber & J. Aldridge (Eds.) In the best
interests of the child: Culture, identig and transracial adoption. (pp. 77-88). London: Free
Association Books Ltd.

Rickard Liow, S. J. (1994). Transracial adoption: Questions on heritage for
parents, children and counsellors. Counaeliag Psychology Quarterly, 1, 375-3 84.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Socieg and adolescent self-imag_e_. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Ryan, A. S. (1983). Intercountry adoption and policy issues. Journal of Children
in Contemporary Society. fl, 49—60.

Sax, G. (1980). Principles of educationaL and psychological measurement and
evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

Shine, L. C. (1980). The fallacy of replacing an a priori significance level with an
a posteriori significance level. Educational and Psychomal Measurement. 19, 331-335.

Shireman, J. F ., & Johnson, P. R. (1986). A longitudinal study of Black
adoptions: Single parent, transracial, and traditional. Social Work, _3_1_, 172-176.

Silverman, A. R., & Feigelman, W. (1981). The adjustment of Black children
adopted by White families. Social Casework: The Journal of Contenmorary Social
M, 62, 529-536.

Simon, R. J ., & Alstein, H. (1977). Ilgaasracial adoption. New York: Wiley
Interscience.

Simon, R. J ., & Alstein, H. (1981). Transracial adoption: A follow-up.

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
234

 

Simon, R. J ., & Alstein, H. (1987). msraLial adoptees and their families: A
study of identity and commitment. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Simon, R. J ., Alstein, H., & Melli, M. S. (1994). The case for transracial
emf—0131911. Washington, DC: The American University Press.

Singer, L. M., Brodzinsky, D. M., Ramsay, D., Steir, M., & Waters, E. (1985).
Mother-infant attachment in adoptive families. Child Development, 56, 1543-1551.

Taylor, R. J ., & Thornton, M. C. (1996). Child welfare and transracial adoption.
Jouanal of Black Psychology, 22, 282-291.

Tizard, B. (1991). Intercountry adoption: A review of the evidence. Journal of
Child Psycholagyand Psychiatry. _32, 743-756.

Tizard, B., & Phoenix, A. (1994). Black identity and transracial adoption. In I.
Gaber & J. Aldridge (Eds.) In the best interesth of the child: Culture. identity and
transracial adoption. (pp. 89-102). London: Free Association Books Ltd.

Tizard, B., & Phoenix, A. (1995). The identity of mixed parentage adolescents.
Journal of Child chhology & Psychiag, 35, 1399-1410.

Trolley, B. C. (1994-1995). Grief issues and positive aspects associated with
international adoption. O_m_ega, _3_Q, 257-268.

Verhulst, F. C., Althaus, M., & Versluis-den Bieman, H. (1990a). Problem
behavior in international adoptees: I. An epidemiological study. Journal of the Americfiaa

Academy of Child & Adolescent Puchiam, ;9_, 94-103.

235

 

Verhulst, F. C., Althaus, M., & Versluis-den Bieman, H. (1990b). Problem
behavior in international adoptees: 11. Age at placement. J ouraal of the American
Academ of Child & Adolescent Psychirm, 2_9, 104-111.

Verhulst, F. C., Althaus, M., & Versluis-den Bieman, H. (1992). Damaging
backgrounds: Later adjustment of international adoptees. Joumal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiag, 3_1, 518-524.

Verhulst, F. C., Versluis-den Bieman, H., Van der Ende, J., Berden, G. F., &
Sanders-Woudstra, J. A. R. (1990c). Problem behavior in international adoptees: III.
Diagnosis of child psychiatric disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychyiat_ry, Q, 420-428.

Vroegh, K. S. (1997). Transracial adoptees: Developmental status after 17 years.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 52, 568-575.

Waggener, N. M., & Galassi, J. P. (1993). The relation of frequency, satisfaction,
and type of socially supportive behaviors to psychological adjustment in marital
separation. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 2_1, 139-159.

Ward, M. (1965). Culture shock in the adoption of older children. The Social
m, 18, 8-11.

Whaley, A. L. (1993). Self-esteem, cultural identity, and psychosocial adjustment
in African American children. Journala of Blapk Psychology, 12, 406-422.

Welter, M. (1965). Comparison of adopted older foreign born and American

children. Sociai Service Review. 3, 355-356.

236

 

Zastrow, C. (1977). Outcome of blMMlflen-wfite parent transracial

adoptions. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates.

237

 

"11111111111711.7111111115