/
The Relationship of Adoption and Attachment in Adolescence The Relationship of Adoption and Attachment in Adolescence

The Relationship of Adoption and Attachment in Adolescence - PowerPoint Presentation

pamella-moone
pamella-moone . @pamella-moone
Follow
387 views
Uploaded On 2017-08-25

The Relationship of Adoption and Attachment in Adolescence - PPT Presentation

A Moderator for Risk for Borderline Features in TeensA Comparison Study Reasons for StudyGeneral Previous adoption studies have focused on generalized studies comparing adoptees to their nonadoptee counterparts only across developmental domains school achievement physical health social d ID: 581992

adoption attachment groups preoccupied attachment adoption preoccupied groups risk features adoptees adopted study group sample clinical unresolved status birth

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The Relationship of Adoption and Attachm..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

The Relationship of Adoption and Attachment in Adolescence

A Moderator for Risk for Borderline Features in Teens-A Comparison StudySlide2

Reasons for Study-General

Previous adoption studies have focused on :

generalized studies comparing adoptees to their non-adoptee counterparts only across developmental domains: school achievement, physical health, social development capacity

current identity studies in adoption have included the adoption triad (birth parents, adoptive parents and adoptees) within a context of a family system, openness and access to information; not the individual adoptee

cross-cultural studies looking at impact of international adoptions

Use of attachment as a theoretical framework has been primarily in high risk, maltreated samples in late placement adoptions i.e. foster care system Slide3

Reasons for Study-Personal

Clinical Experience

Intakes for adopted children & teens seemed to cluster into 2 groups:

Developmental disabilities -typically seen in very young children who were internationally adopted (possibly due to maltreatment in orphanages or neurodevelopmental etiology)

Teens referred for multi-problematic behaviors, adolescent DBT or anxiety/disruptive behavioral disorders in school-age children

Self-Disclosure

Exploration of adoption literature over time revealed numerous difficulties for many adult adoptees: unresolved issues of identity, search-reunion. Social policy around privacy and symptomatic complaints of axis-I disorders (mood/anxiety)

NSSR adult adoption study on levels of anxiety in adult adoptees yielded very high levels of anxiety, preoccupation and unresolved conceptualization of adoption and the self, even in secures

survey monkey link on facebook numerous adoption groupsSlide4

Toward a Hypothesis

my early perceptions of the effects of adoption continue to be demonstrated in both non-clinical and clinical samples

Empirical research that does exist does not typically examine the more normative adoption population found in our culture from an attachment framework

D. Brodzinsky-Identity development + Dev. Stages

(Donaldson Institute; Rutgers University)

H. Grotevant (UMass; Univ. of MN)- Adoption Triad

M. Dozier (Univ. Delaware)-Attachment + Maltreatment in Foster Care

M. & H. Steele (NSSR)-Attachment + Maltreatment in late placement adoption (using attachment for placement as a means to bolstering developmental catch-up)Slide5

Examine whether or not adoption serves as a moderating risk factor for borderline features in adolescentsChose adolescents for:

Their reflective capacity on their own experience

Presenting problems have shown some relative stability over time, given their developmental age

Younger school age children have lower ability to reflect on their experience, they may not know that they are adopted yet and parents would likely participate as informants which may not be so reliable

Current Study HypothesisSlide6

Sample

n=

(adoptees)

n=

n=

(non-adoptees) Placement Date Criteria:

Age Range:

Ethnicity:

Clinical sample:

126

total participants

38

(6 male; 32 females)

88

(27 males, 61 females)

Adopted group participants all met criteria for being placed within family under 12 months of age, born in the U.S.

15.2

years -

17.8

years (

M

= 16.3 years)

66% Caucasian, 11% African American, 20% Hispanic, 3% other

Chosen from an adolescent DBT program at Mental Health Center in NYC Metropolitan AreaSlide7

Measures

Birth Status

Attachment Classification

Borderline Features

Patient Intake Demographic Form

*

included forced choice question of adopted or non adopted (less than 20 minutes to complete)

Adult Attachment Interview

(AAI)

(Main, M., Goldwyn, Hesse, 1985)

60-90 minute semi-structured interview assessing attachment classification in the 4 categories: S/Autonomous, I/Dismissing, I/Preoccupied & Unresolved

Life Problems Inventory

(LPI)

(Miller, A., Wyman, S., Huppert, J., Glassman, S. & Rathus, J., 2000)

Self report questionnaire that assesses BPD features in adolescents across 4 indices: confusion of self (CS), impulsivity (IM), emotional instability (EI) and interpersonal problems (IP) (Less than 30 minutes to complete)Slide8

Analyses and Results

Significant Findings

2-way ANOVA was used to assess the interaction effects of the relationship between birth status, preoccupied attachment and borderline features

p

<.05 level for adoptees with preoccupied attachment and high levels of BPD features

p<.05 for both groups in unresolved attachment

p

>.05 in autonomous and dismissing in both groups

Insignificant Findings

2-way ANOVA was used to assess the interaction effects of the relationship between birth status, preoccupied attachment and borderline features

p

<.05 level for both groups with preoccupied attachment and high levels of BPD features

p

<.05 for both groups in unresolved attachment

p

>.05 in autonomous and dismissing in both groupsSlide9

Results Matrix

S/Autonomous

I/Dismissing

I/Preoccupied

I/Unresolved

Birth Status

LPI

LPI

LPI

LPI

Adopted

.5

.13

.0001**

.03

Non-Adopted

1.3

.16

.05

.03

S/Autonomous

I/Dismissing

I/PreoccupiedI/UnresolvedBirth StatusLPILPILPILPIAdopted1.3 .11.05*.03*Non-Adopted1.3.91.05*.03*

Attachment Classification (Significant findings)

Attachment Classification

(Insignificant findings)Slide10

Discussion

Significant findings

Demonstrates an increased risk- possibly found in the double loss

early disruption in attachment, facilitated by negative adoptive environment (a/ambivalent infant + preoccupied parent= preoccupied teen)

We still expect to see significance in the preoccupation & unresolved status in the NA group because of the insecure attachment trajectory

stronger significance in the adoptive preoccupied group, indicating an additional risk involved; ambivalence in parent child dyad suggests a diathesis for either success or problemsA/Preoccupied group: possible problems within dyad in constructing dual narrative to build cohesive identity-promoting understanding of issues arising in adoption

Insignificant findings

Attachment Theory continues to be supported

The balance of significance between attachment status in each group indicates that in the attachment relationship that may predict risk for children, regardless of birth status

Indicates further exploration on the etiology of increased risk for adopted individuals (see in prior research)Slide11

Sample was small; adoptee group was not large enough to get a clear understanding of moderating risk pertinent to them

Clinical sample; broader, non-clinical sample might delineate the differences between groups more clearly

Ethnicity is skewed to Caucasian group; broader reach for larger sample size would be better to capture larger range of ethnic groups

Gender differences: clearly, larger numbers of females in both groups were present

Study does not assess other contributing factors to these features, such as possible trauma post-adoption, relational violence, sibling relationships, substance use, etc.

Study Limitations