Content uploaded by Haley Kranstuber Horstman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Haley Kranstuber Horstman on Jan 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contributing Factors of Adult Adoptees’Identity Work and
Self-Esteem: Family Communication Patterns and
Adoption-Specific Communication
Haley Kranstuber Horstman
a
, Colleen Warner Colaner
a
, and Christine E. Rittenour
b
a
5Department of Communication, University of Missouri;
b
Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia
University
ABSTRACT
Drawing from family communication patterns (FCP) theory and the commu-
nication-based conceptual model of adoptive identity work (Colaner & Soliz,
102015), we investigated the ways that families’adoption-focused communica-
tion and general communication environment predict identity work and self-
esteem in adult adoptees (n= 143). Specifically, we tested the assumption that
FCP (i.e., conversation and conformity orientation) serve as a backdrop for
adoption communication openness and adoptive identity work. Structural
15equation modeling revealed that conversation orientation—but not confor-
mity orientation—significantly predicted adoptive parents’communicated
openness about adoption. Adoption communication openness negatively
predicted adoptees’preoccupation with adoption. Indirect paths between
conversation orientation, adoption communication openness, and adoptive
20identity and self-esteem illuminated the importance of the general commu-
nication environment on adoption outcomes. Implications are explored for
expanding understanding of adoptive family communication and advancing
FCP theory by testing its nature as a context-specific and/or global assessment
of family communication.
25Approximately 2.1 million children in the United States are adopted, and that number is expected to
increase with same-sex marriages, infertility, and adoption acceptance (Lofquist, Lugaila, O’Connell, &
Feliz, 2012). As a “discourse dependent”family type (i.e., diverse families who rely on talk to manage
their identities; Galvin, 2006), adoptive families must communicate to make sense of their adoption
experience and help adoptees create a coherent adoptive identity, or an understanding of what it means
30to be adopted (Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2002; Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2003).
Adoptees grapple with their “layers of differentness”(i.e., differing abilities, appearances, and traits)
through interactions with their family (Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004). Through these interactions, adoptees
construct answers to their questions about adoption (Colaner & Kranstuber, 2010) and create an
adoptive identity through reflective exploration and preoccupation (Colaner, 2014). The success of this
35adoptive identity work relies, in part, on communication in the adoptive family (Colaner & Soliz, 2015).
Although research has shown that adoptive families use discursive strategies (i.e., naming, explaining,
storying) to make sense of their complex family structure (Galvin, 2006), the role of general communication
practices is unclear (Colaner & Soliz, 2015). Given that family communication patterns (FCP) assess
everyday family interaction (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), we investigate the way FCP contribute to
40adoptive identity. The two schemata highlighted in FCP theory—conversation orientation (i.e., the degree
to which a family participates in unrestrained and open interactions) and conformity orientation (i.e., the
degree to which a family stresses homogeneity)—create a family’s communication environment and
CONTACT Haley Kranstuber Horstman horstmanh@missouri.edu Department of Communication, University of
Missouri, 210 Switzler Hall, Columbia, MO 65211.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION
2016, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 1–14
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2016.1181069
predict myriad well-being outcomes (Schrodt, Witt, & Messersmith, 2008). We posit that FCP create the
foundation for adoption-related communication, andtherebycontributetoadoptiveidentitywork.
45The current study investigates openness in families’adoption-specific communication in relation
to adoptee-reported FCP, adoptive identity, and well-being. In so doing, we acknowledge that
adoptive families may have unique rules for discussing adoption. Baxter and Akkoor (2011) have
theorized that conversation and conformity orientation are not global family traits, as proposed in
FCP theory (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Rather, families call forward topic-specific schemata to
50apply to particular topics of conversation. To address these differing viewpoints on the nature of
FCP, we test FCP in relation to the discursive rules of a specific topic of conversation, and thereby
expand understanding of communication in adoptive families.
Theoretical foundations of adoptive identity
Due to adoptees’complex entrance into the family and ongoing questions based on their adopted status,
55they must work to make sense of the role of adoption in their definition of self (Grotevant & Von Korff,
2011). Compared to most of their adoptive family members, adoptees experience differences of genetic
origins, physical appearance, personality, and proclivities (Colaner, Halliwell, & Guignon, 2014), which
can coincide with feelings of ambiguous loss and uncertainty about the meaning of their adoption, birth
parents, and adoptive parents (Colaner & Kranstuber, 2010;Powell&Afifi,2005).
60Adoptive identity scholars (e.g., Colaner, 2014; Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011) have applied the
Eriksonian perspective on general ego identity development to the process of adoptive identity work.
In accordance with Erikson’s(1968) dual processes of exploration and commitment, scholars have
proposed that adoptive identity work occurs through the processes of reflective exploration and pre-
occupation. Regarding Erikson’s principle of exploration, adoptees—particularly those in closed adop-
65tions—tend to have incomplete or ambiguous information about their birth family and lineage (Colaner
& Kranstuber, 2010; Powell & Afifi, 2005), requiring lengthy consideration of how their adoption came to
be and currently shapes the self (Grotevant, Dunbar, Kohler, & Esau, 2000). This process, labeled
reflective exploration, refers to thinking about the details of one’s adoption at length (Colaner, 2014).
High levels of reflective exploration allow individuals to come to terms with their adoption and resolve
70feelings of adoption-related loss (Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004), and are associated with higher self-esteem
and more positive affect about their adoption (Colaner, 2014; Colaner & Soliz, 2015).
Regarding the Eriksonian principle of commitment, the second component of adoptive identity,
“adoptive identity salience”(Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004), isdefined as the meaning that individuals place
on their adoption. Individuals with low levels of adoptive identity salience view their adoption as
75unimportant to their definition of self, and those at the moderate level view their adoption as meaningful
but balanced with other aspects of the self (Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004). Individuals with high adoptive
identity salience view adoption as the “organizing theme”in defining the self (Grotevant et al., 2000,p.
382), wherein adoption “consumes a great deal of psychic and emotional energy”(Dunbar & Grotevant,
2004, p. 140). This over-commitment to one’s adoption status—labeled preoccupation—corresponds
80with feelings of isolation and low levels of trust in adoptive parents (Kohler et al., 2002), as well as low
levels of positive affect about adoption and self-esteem (Colaner, 2014).
Although adoptees do not differ significantly from nonadopted peers on levels of self-esteem
(Juffer & Van IJzendoorn, 2007), any perceived rejection from birth parents may require them to
reconcile feelings about the self with feelings of loss (Brodzinsky, Schechter, & Henig, 1992).
85Adoptees with a lack of clarity surrounding reasons for their adoption experience confusion of
identity, low self-esteem, and depression (Friedlander, 1999); however, individuals with a greater
understanding of the events surrounding their adoption tend to have higher levels of self-esteem and
lower levels of depression (Brodzinsky, 1993). Building upon this research and the necessity of
adoptive identity to form positive feelings about the self (i.e., self-esteem), the current project focuses
90on self-esteem as an indicator of well-being.
2H. K. HORSTMAN ET AL.
Across the few studies of adoptive identity in adolescent and adult adoptees, high reflective
exploration and low preoccupation were most conducive for adoptee development (Colaner & Soliz,
2015; Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004). To replicate this trend, extend research on adoptive identity and
self-esteem, and create a foundation for analysis, our first hypothesis is:
95H1:(a) Reflective exploration is positively associated with adoptee self-esteem and (b) preoccupa-
tion is negatively associated with adoptee self-esteem.
Adoption-specific communication in adoptive families
Adoption-specific communication between adoptiveparents and children occurs through storytelling
100(Harrigan, 2010), privacy management (Suter & Ballard, 2009), uncertainty management (Colaner &
Kranstuber, 2010), and adoption communication openness (Brodzinsky, 2006). Within these types of
adoption-specific communication, adoption communication openness emerges as particularly impactful.
Regardless of how much adoptive parents know about the birth family, those parents with high rates of
adoption communication openness—or, the content, quality, and ease of adoption-related communication
105—establish a family environment that is open, direct, and empathic (Brodzinsky, 2006). In turn, their
adoptive children are better adjusted (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998) and have increased parent-child relation-
ship quality (Passmore, Feeney, & Foulstone, 2007) compared to adoptees whose parents are not open
about their adoption. Adoption communication openness likely facilitates adoptive identity work as
adoptive parents create an avenue for the child to make sense of adoption-related loss (Donahue, 2008),
110as adoption communication openness is associated with adoptees’heightened adoptive identity formation
(Von Korff & Grotevant, 2011) and lower rates of preoccupation in adulthood (Colaner & Soliz, 2015).
Thus, to empirically establish the links between adoption communication openness and adoptive identity
work, the second hypothesis is:
H2:Adoptive parents’adoption communication openness is (a) positively associated with reflective
115exploration and (b) negatively associated with preoccupation.
Yet, adult adoptees report that adoption is not the most important, nor is it the most regular topic
of conversation between themselves and their adoptive parents (Colaner & Kranstuber, 2010).
Through their communication-based conceptual model of adoptive identity work, Colaner and
120Soliz (2015) proposed that adoptive parents’“nonadoption communication”in conjunction with
adoption-specific communication contributes to individuals’adoptive identity work. Although both
nonadoption and adoption-specific communication were significant, Colaner and Soliz found that
nonadoption communication was the better predictor of adoptive identity and adoptees’attitudes
toward adoption and their birth parents. Given that adoptive parent general communication colors
125adoptees’attitudes of themselves and their adoption, we investigate the family communication
environment (i.e., FCP) in which adoption-related communication occurs.
General communication in adoptive families: FCP
The fundamental proposition of FCP theory is that families create a shared reality by repeatedly
enacting communication behaviors over time until they become engrained as models of personal
130relationships, or relational schemata (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). The two schemata highlighted in
FCP theory are conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Families high on conversation
orientation “create a climate in which all family members are encouraged to participate in unrest-
rained interactions about a wide array of topics”(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 85). These families
value an open exchange of ideas in which all members may engage in high levels of self-disclosure
135and decision-making. Families low in conversation interact less and cover a narrower array of topics.
JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION 3
Conformity orientation represents “the degree to which family communication stresses a climate of
homogeneity of attitudes, values, and beliefs”(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 85). High conformity
oriented families have hierarchical power structures, place family welfare ahead of individual
interests, and expect children to follow parental decisions more than those with low conformity
140orientation, who tend to praise individual success, equality, and personal growth.
Much of the research in FCP has shown conversation orientation’s positive association and
conformity orientation’s negative association with adult child psychosocial, information processing,
and behavioral outcomes (see Schrodt et al., 2008). In particular, conversation orientation is often
found to positively relate to family member self-esteem (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007; Schrodt,
145Ledbetter, & Ohrt, 2007). As a whole, a pattern of openly communicating within the family
contributes to individuals’well-being.
Research on FCP in adoptive families suggests their need for communication openness. In their
research on adoptive and non-adoptive families, Samek and Rueter (2011) found that both adoptive
and non-adoptive families high in conversation and conformity orientation (i.e., consensual families)
150reported the greatest amount of adolescent sibling emotional closeness. Drawing from the same
dataset, Rueter and Koerner (2008) found that, compared to non-adoptive families, adoptive families
had a more pronounced trend for low psychological adjustment for adolescent children whose
families were high conformity/low conversation (i.e., protective families) or low overall (i.e., lais-
sez-faire families). Adolescents from families with a higher conversation orientation were also at less
155risk for adjustment problems, regardless of their adoption status. Together, these findings suggest
that adoptive families may benefit from frequent conversation that encourages relational closeness.
Perhaps higher levels of conversation orientation allow adoptees to explore their (adoptive) identity
and increase self-esteem.
To also consider the option that conversation orientation is domain-specific, we draw from
160Baxter and Akkoor’s(2011) recent expansion of FCP theory. The authors concluded that families’
global conversation orientation explained adolescent/parent communication surrounding “dialogi-
cally expansive topics”(i.e., adolescent friendships and everyday occurrences), as adolescents
reported less expectation or pressure to adhere to parents’perspective during such conversations.
“Dialogically contractive”topics of drinking/drugs/smoking, money matters, and educational pro-
165gress allowed for only some discussion between parents and adolescent children, and largely
privileged the parents’perspective by the end of the conversation. We propose that adoption is a
“dialogically expansive”topic because a family’s overall communication openness (i.e., conversation
orientation) sets the stage for their discussions of adoption (Wrobel et al., 2003). Thus, the domain-
specific family orientation toward openness will likely emerge similarly to its overall conversation
170orientation. As such, the third hypothesis is posed:
H3:Conversation orientation is positively associated with adoption communication openness.
Against clear predictions for the effects of conversation orientation, conformity’s proposed role in
adoptive families is more complex. High conformity oriented families’tendencies to minimize
175difference of opinion suggests that high conformity could stifle adoptive identity work by establish-
ing an expectation of family consensus about the adoption (e.g., expectations, ways of discussing,
values, beliefs; Young, 2009). But, because it is conversation orientation—and not conformity
orientation—that addresses the true openness of communication (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), it
would be wrong to assume that all adoptees would be negatively impacted by high conformity. In
180fact, high conformity might provide the sense of inclusion and “we are all on the same page”to aid
in an adopted child feeling secure and unified with his/her adoptive family. As conformity may
change based on the nature of these adoption conversations (Baxter & Akkoor, 2011), we explore
adoption communication openness in relation to conformity orientation in the following research
question:
4H. K. HORSTMAN ET AL.
185RQ1:How, if at all, does conformity orientation relate to adoption communication openness?
As theoretically proposed and previously shown in other contexts (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002;
Schrodt et al., 2008), conversation orientation and conformity orientation may interact when
contributing to the adoptive family’s willingness to openly communicate about adoption. For
190example, Thorson and Kranstuber Horstman (2014) found that the association between conversation
orientation and emerging adults’openness about finances depended on the level of conformity in
their family. Thus, adoptive families’conversation and conformity orientation may interact to
contribute to their adoption communication openness. Families’tendency to stress a culture of
homogeneity (i.e., high conformity) may affect their likelihood to call upon conversation orientation
195when discussing adoption. Thus, we pose the second research question, which investigates the
combined role of conversation and conformity orientation on adoption communication openness:
RQ2:How, if at all, does conversation orientation and conformity orientation interact to predict
adoption communication openness?
200Mediating effects of adoption-specific and general family communication
Past FCP theorists have asserted that the connection between FCP and well-being is often mediated
by other family communication processes, such as parental confirmation, affection, and emotional
intelligence (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007; Schrodt et al., 2008; Wilson, Chernichky, Wilkum, & Owlett,
2014). Adoption researchers have found that families who are approachable, exhibit free-flowing
205discussion, encourage children to discuss adoption and openly ask questions best promote adoptees’
identity work (Colaner & Soliz, 2015). Following suit, we propose that families with high conversa-
tion and/or low conformity likely create a safe context for adoptee identity exploration; and those
low in conversation and/or high in conformity may stifle an adoptee’s ability to express his/her
feelings about adoption. Thus, we test adoption communication openness as mediating the relation-
210ship between FCP and adoptive identity:
H4:Adoption communication openness mediates the relationship between family communication
patterns (i.e., conversation and conformity orientation) and adoptive identity work (i.e., reflec-
tive exploration and preoccupation).
215Finally, we test the mediating power of adoptive identity. In previous work, increased adoption
communication promotes healthy adoptive identity (Colaner & Soliz, 2015;VonKorff&Grotevant,
2011), and adoptive identity predicts adoptee self-esteem and development (Colaner, 2014;Dunbar&
Grotevant, 2004).Andsoweexpectadoptiveidentitytoactasthemechanismthroughwhichparental
communication is processed in ways that promote adoptee well-being (Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011), thus
220bridging family communication and self-esteem. Colaner and Soliz (2015) found that adoptive identity
mediated the relationship between parental communication and relational quality; we extend upon this
finding by exploring the individual outcome of adoptee self-esteem. In order to test the assumption that a
family’s adoption communication openness likely sets the stage for their adopted child’s identity work and
consequent self-esteem, we present our last hypothesis:
225H5:Adoptive identity work (i.e., reflective exploration and preoccupation) mediates the relationship
between adoption communication openness and self-esteem.
By synthesizing adoptive identity theorizing with FCP theory we attend to the interdependent
nature of general and adoption-specific family communication (Colaner & Soliz, 2015), and test an
230integrative model of adoptive identity, family communication, and well-being (See Figure 1).
JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION 5
Method
Participants
Participants were 143 adult adoptees (61 men, 81 women, 1 non-specified) recruited through online
forums about adoption, undergraduate courses at a large Midwestern university and network and
235snowball sampling to complete online surveys about their adoption. Participants were adopted by
someone other than a step-parent and ranged in age from 18 to 72 years old (M= 34.48, SD = 14.73).
Participants identified as White/Caucasian (n= 114, 79.9%), Asian/Asian American (n= 13, 9.1%),
African American/Black (n= 4, 2.8%), Native American (n= 4, 2.8%), Hispanic (n= 1, 0.7%), and
multi-ethnic (n= 4, 2.8%), and one participant did not report. Among the sample, 127 participants
240were adopted domestically, with 12 adopted internationally, and four did not report. Age at which
adoption occurred was 0–6 months (n= 81, 56.6%), 7–12 months (n= 18, 12.6%), more than 1 year
(n= 36, 25.2%), and non-indicated (n= 8, 5.6%).
Measurement model analysis
Data analysis was conducted through structural equation modeling (SEM) with ML estimation using the
245lavaan package of R, an open-sourced statistical analysis program (R Core Team, 2014;Rosseel,2012).
Lavaan is the package for latent variable modeling in R, and thus allows for both correction of model
error and estimation between multiple independent and dependent variables. Prior to model fitting, we
imputed a small amount of missing data (less than 1%) using an expectation-maximization algorithm in
SPSS. According to Little’s MCAR test, the data were completely missing at random, and thus did not
250violate the assumptions of missing data imputation (Enders, 2010).
Following the Kline’s(2005) two-step process of model testing, we first conducted a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the overall fit of the manifest indicators and their latent constructs.
Each scale item served as an indicator of its latent variable. The CFA demonstrated poor fit χ
2
(N= 143, 1695) = 3365.84, p< .00, χ
2
/df = 1.99, CFI = .78; RMSEA = .08 (CI [0.08, 0.09]). The R
2
255statistics indicated that several items were problematic such that they exhibited low variance
explained by the latent variable (> .35) and high residual variances (< .65), which suggested that
these items were not measuring the intended construct. Items that emerged as problematic were
assessed for theoretical relevance to the given construct and removed if it was theoretically sound to
Figure 1. Hypothesized structural model.Note. The hypothesized model also included indirect effects, not depicted (H4 and H5).
6H. K. HORSTMAN ET AL.
do so. Removed items are discussed below in Measures. Items were then parceled (i.e., creating
260indicators comprised of the average of two or more items) to identify each construct and reduce the
number of parameter estimates (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Because there was
no pre-identified rationale for parcel construction, parcels were created by dividing the items into
thirds. After removing a total of seven problematic items and parceling items, model fit improved to
acceptable model fit, χ
2
(N= 143, 120) = 160.46, p< .01, χ
2
/df = 1.33, CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05 (CI
265[0.03, 0.07]).
Measures
See Table 1for the means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for all measures.
Adoption communication openness
Brodzinsky’s(2006)Adoption Communication Openness Scale assessed the degree to which adop-
270tees perceived their adoptive parents to be open, honest, and approachable about adoption issues.
The unidimensional, 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true of me, 7 = absolutely true of me) has
14 items (e.g., “My parents talked to me about my adoption on a regular basis during my upbring-
ing”). Examination of item-level data in the current sample revealed that three items about the birth
mother had low factor loadings (“My adoptive parent(s) were uncomfortable when I asked questions
275about my birth parents,”“I felt very uncomfortable discussing my birth parents with my adoptive
parents,”and “I had my thoughts and feelings about being adopted or about my birth parents that I
could not share with my adoptive parents”). Participants in largely closed adoptions, such as those
likely in the current study, may have little information about their birth parents and thus be less able
to discuss them (Galvin & Colaner, 2013). Because it is consistent with theorizing that conversations
280about birth mothers may be conceptually different from those about the adoption generally (Galvin
& Colaner, 2013), these three items were dropped. One item speculating about adoptive parents’
ability to take the adoptee’s perspective (“My adoptive parent(s) had difficulty understanding
adoption from my point of view”) also emerged as problematic. This item measures perspective-
taking about the adoption, rather than openness to discuss the topic, and thus there is theoretical
285reason to drop this item as well. In total, 11 items measured adoption communication openness.
Family Communication Patterns
Ritchie and Fitzpatrick’s(1990)Revised Family Communication Patterns (RFCP) instrument assessed
adoptees’perceptions of their adoptive family communication patterns. In the original scale, conversation
orientation and conformity orientation were measured on a 26-item, 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
290disagree,5=strongly agree), wherein 15 items assessed conversation orientation (e.g., “My parents
encouragemetoexpressmyfeelings”) and 11 items measured conformity orientation (e.g., “My adoptive
parent(s) often said something like, ‘A child should not argue with adults.’”). In the current study, one item
emerged as problematic in the conversation orientation subscale (“In our family, we often talked about
Table 1. Correlation matrix with means, standard deviations, and reliability statistics (n= 143).
12345MSDα
1. Adoption communication openness –4.52 1.67 .93
2. Conversation orientation .76** –4.42 1.63 .97
3. Conformity orientation −.48** −.64** –4.02 1.47 .89
4. Reflective exploration .10 .03 .13 –4.51 1.51 .77
5. Preoccupation −.19* −.22* .23* .46** –3.45 1.76 .89
6. Self-esteem .29** .33** −.26** −.28* −.29** 5.27 1.31 .91
*p< .05, **p< .01.
Note. Adoption communication openness, reflective exploration, and preoccupation were measured on 7-point Likert-type scales
(1 = not at all true of me, 7 = absolutely true of me), as was self-esteem (1 = strongly disagree,7=strongly agree); conversation
orientation and conformity orientation were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree,5=strongly agree).
JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION 7
topics like politics and religion where some persons disagree with others”). Structurally, this complex item
295is questionable due to its double-barreled nature (i.e., querying about both politics and religion, which may
result in different answers) and the assumption that some of those topics were controversial. As such, we
dropped it from the analysis and 14 total items were used to measure conversation orientation.
In the conformity orientation scale, two items demonstrated low factor loadings (“My adoptive parent
(s) often said something like, ‘You’ll know better when you grow up’” and “When I was at home, I was
300expected to obey my adoptive parent(s) rules”).Thefirstitemmaynotbeassessingafamily’sexpectations
to conform, but rather dismissiveness or low levels of perspective-taking. Other items in the scale provide
examples of statements parents may make (e.g., “A child should not argue with adults”) to direct the child’s
behavior, whereas the statement “You’ll know better when you grow up”does not provide the child with
direction and thus may not be assessing conformity. The item assessing parental rules may not load with
305the others because it is the only item to assess rules in the family, rather than communication about values
and ideas. Given the theoretical and methodological issues with these two items, they were dropped from
the analysis and in total nine conformity items were used.
Adoptive Identity Work: Reflective exploration and preoccupation
Participants’adoptive identity was assessed through Colaner’s(2014) Adoptive Identity Work Scale.
310This 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true of me,7=absolutely true of me) assessed adoptees’
reflective exploration and preoccupation with their adoption, with five items measuring reflective
exploration (e.g., “Reflecting on the events leading up to my adoption has been helpful to me”) and
five items measuring preoccupation (e.g., “I am first and foremost an adopted individual”).
Self-esteem
315Adoptees’self-esteem was assessed through Rosenberg’s(1965) Self-Esteem Scale. Participants indicated
their value of self on 10 items using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree,7=strongly agree).
Items include: “I feel I have a number of good qualities”and “Iamabletodothingsaswellasmostother
people.”
Structural model analysis
320Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the current study’s hypotheses. Both the
measurement and the structural models included six latent constructs: conversation orientation, conformity
orientation, adoption communication openness, reflective exploration, preoccupation, and self-esteem.
Reflective exploration and preoccupation were freed to covary, given their interdependence (i.e., Colaner,
2014; Colaner & Soliz, 2015). We controlled for adoptee sex and age to account for any differences in family
325communication due to these factors.
The structural model of the hypothesized model demonstrated acceptable model fit, χ
2
(N= 143, 343) = 402.44, p< .001, χ
2
/df = 1.17, CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04; (CI [0.02, 0.05]). We
computed a latent interaction term with residual centered product indicators (Little, Bovaird, &
Widaman, 2006) to investigate the possible differential effects of conformity depending on
330conversation.
1
The statistical significance of paths was tested using the chi-squared difference
test of nested models as recommended by Holbert and Gill (2015). In their explanation of the
nested model comparison test, Holbert and Gill posit, “it is important to not only test the primary
theoretical measurement model, but also test it against other plausible, nested alternatives”(p.
312). A nested model was created by constraining a path to equal zero. The nested model was then
335compared to the unconstrained model to determine the change in chi-square created by imposing
the zero-constraint on the path. A significant change in chi-square (on one degree of freedom)
indicates that the path is significantly different from zero. Each path was tested individually and
compared to the unconstrained model. We used the lavaan package of R (Rosseel, 2012)to
examine all indirect effects and generate 95% confidence intervals such that indirect paths with
340confidence intervals containing zero are not significant.
8H. K. HORSTMAN ET AL.
Results
The structural model explained 61.3% of the variance in adoption communication openness, 0.3% of
the variance in reflective exploration, 4.1% of the variance in preoccupation, and 20.2% of the
variance in self-esteem. See Table 1 for the means, standard deviations, reliabilities of each measure,
345as well as the correlations at the manifest level of measurement; see Table 2 for parameter estimates,
standard errors, and chi square difference statistics.
The first hypotheses proposed that (a) reflective exploration is positively associated and (b)
preoccupation is negatively associated with adoptees’self-esteem. Results demonstrated that reflec-
tive exploration (β= .37, Δχ2(1) = 11.80, p< .001) and preoccupation (β= -.51, Δχ2(1) = 22.81,
350p< .001) significantly related to self-esteem. Thus, H1a and H1b were supported.
Hypotheses two posited that adoption communication openness (a) positively relates to reflective
exploration and (b) negatively relates to preoccupation. H2b was supported such that adoption
communication openness negatively predicted preoccupation (β= -.20, Δχ2(1) = 5.00, p< .05); yet
H2a was not supported, with a non-significant relationship between adoption communication
355openness and reflective exploration (β= .06, Δχ2(1) = 0.38, p> .05).
H3 posited that conversation orientation is positively associated with adoption communication
openness. Results supported this hypothesis such that conversation orientation positively predicted
adoption communication openness (β= .81, Δχ2(1) = 75.74, p< .001).
RQ1 tested the link between conformity orientation and adoption communication openness, and
360RQ2 tested the relationship between the conversation-conformity interaction and adoption commu-
nication openness. Results showed that neither conformity (β= .05, Δχ2(1) = 0.36, p> .05) nor the
conversation-conformity interaction (β= -.06, Δχ2(1) = 1.02, p> .05) significantly predicted
adoption communication openness.
The fourth hypothesis posited that adoption communication openness mediates the relationship
365between FCP and adoptive identity (i.e., reflective exploration and preoccupation). Of the four
possible mediation paths, only one emerged as significant. Specifically, adoption communication
openness significantly mediated the relationship between conversation orientation and preoccupa-
tion (β= -.16, p< .05, CI [−0.31, −0.01]). There were no significant mediation effects of adoption
communication openness between conformity orientation and preoccupation (β= -.01, p> .05, CI
370[−0.04, 0.02]). There were also no significant mediation effects between either conversation orienta-
tion (β= .05, p> .05, CI [−0.10, 0.19]) or conformity orientation (β= .00, p> .05, CI [−0.10, 0.02])
Table 2. Structural equation modeling results with standardized coefficients.
Parameter Estimate βpSEΔχ2pCI
Reflect.—self-esteem .37 .00 .12 11.80 .00
Preoccupation—self-esteem −.51 .00 .13 22.81 .00
ACO—preoccupation −.20 .03 .06 5.00 .03
ACO—reflect. .06 .54 .06 0.38 .54
Conversation—ACO .81 .00 .18 75.74 .00
Conformity—ACO .05 .55 .13 0.36 .55
C×C—ACO −.06 .32 .10 1.02 .31
Conversation—ACO—preoccupation −.16 .03 .08 −0.31, −0.01
Conformity—ACO—preoccupation −.01 .56 .02 −0.04, 0.02
Conversation—ACO—Reflect. .05 .54 .08 −0.10, 0.19
Conformity—ACO—Rreflect. .00 .67 .01 −0.10, 0.02
ACO—Reflect.—Self-esteem .02 .55 .02 −0.03, 0.06
ACO—Preoccupation—Self-esteem .07 .04 .03 0.02, 0.14
Conversation—ACO—Reflect.—Self-esteem .01 .58 .03 −0.04, 0.07
Conversation—ACO—Preoccupation—Self-esteem .07 .05 .04 −0.00, 0.15
Conformity—ACO—Reflect.—Self-esteem .00 .68 .00 −0.00, 0.01
Conformity—ACO—Preoccupation—Self-esteem .00 .57 .01 −0.01, 0.02
Note. Reflect. = Reflective exploration; ACO = Adoption communication openness; C×C = Conversation × conformity interaction; χ
2
(N= 143, 343) = 402.44, p< .05, χ
2
/df = 1.17, CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04; (CI = 0.02, 0.05).
JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION 9
and reflective exploration. Thus, because of the significant mediation with adoption communication
openness, H4 was partially supported.
H5 predicted that adoptive identity (i.e., reflective exploration and preoccupation) mediates the
375relationship between adoption communication openness and adoptee self-esteem. Preoccupation
significantly mediated the relationship (β= .07, p< .05, CI [0.02, 0.14]), but reflective exploration did
not (β= .02, p> .05, CI [−0.03, 0.06]). Thus, this hypothesis was partially supported.
Discussion
Through addressing family communication schemata (i.e., FCP), adoption-focused communication,
380identity work, and self-esteem within the adoptive family, we revealed that conversation orientation
predicted adoptive parents’tendency to engage in open adoption communication, which negatively
predicted adoptees’preoccupation with their adoption. These findings expand theory and research in
two ways: (1) clarifying the unique roles of conversation and conformity orientation in domain-specific
discussion and, (2) highlighting the way global and domain-specific family communication contributes
385to (adoptive) identity. These implications are explored alongside limitations and directions for future
research.
FCP as contributor to identity work through domain-specific family communication
Among our sample, an adoptive family’sconversation orientation—but not conformity orientation
—predicted its openness about adoption. Although we found evidence of the FCP theory assump-
390tion that that families form patterns of behaviors that cut across time and context (Koerner &
Fitzpatrick, 2002), we also agree with Baxter and Akkoor (2011) that FCP is also a fluid feature of
family discourse. In the current study, the global nature of FCP was observed only for conversa-
tion orientation (and the R
2
value of 61.3% suggests relatively large effects). On the topic of
adoption, the family’s orientation to conversation seems to be a roadmap to their approach to
395discussing adoption, supporting FCP theory (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002).
In line with a domain approach to FCP, however, it is possible that adoption is largely a
dialogically expansive topic, rather than dialogically contractive (Baxter & Akkoor, 2011). Although
Baxter and Akkoor found only two types of conversation to be dialogically expansive—“adolescent
friendships”and “everyday things”—our findings suggest that there may be other categories such
400as family life history and family memories that are freely discussed without considerations of the
effect of conformity. Keating, Russell, Cornacchione, and Smith (2013) assert that there may be
certain types of conversations that occur regardless of the family’s FCP because “their significance
outweigh(s) the importance of the family’s perceived communication structure”(p. 174). A family’s
orientation to conformity can color its approach to discussion of specific topics, but does not
405necessarily dictate that discussion. There may be certain topics—perhaps dialogically contractive
topics—that do not adhere to the family’s orientation to conformity because there are less
heterogeneous attitudes, beliefs, and values available (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). As opposed
to divisive topics such as politics, perhaps there is less to “conform about”regarding adoption,
thus negating the need to call upon conformity orientation. In light of these differing perspectives,
410scholars must continue to tease out the nature of FCP.
A second theoretical contribution further explains family communication’s link to adoptive
identity work. Although family communication sets the foundation for identity work in adoptees
(Colaner & Soliz, 2015; Galvin, 2006), the relationship is largely untested. We found that adoptive
parents who foster communicative openness provide a space that promotes healthful consideration,
415rather than rumination, about adoptive identity. In Schrodt et al.’s(2008) meta-analysis of FCP
research, conversation orientation emerged as the stronger predictor of psychosocial outcomes.
Perhaps conversation is a more accurate reflection of a family’s general communication environ-
ment, which sets the stage for identity work; whereas conformity is a more precise look into parents’
10 H. K. HORSTMAN ET AL.
approach to discipline and uniformity, which may be less relevant to identity work. R
2
values for
420preoccupation were relatively small (4.1%), suggesting that parental communication may play only a
small role in encouraging adoptive identity work. As such, FCP’s association with identity work must
be further empirically tested.
Third, much research on FCP and well-being is grounded in individuals’perceptions of their
family of origin, without taking family structure into account (Schrodt et al., 2008). Exemplary
425research in divorced (i.e., Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007) and military families (Wilson et al., 2014)
shows that FCP play an important role in discourse dependent families (Galvin, 2006). Schrodt and
Ledbetter (2007) reported conformity orientation was a significant indirect predictor of well-being in
divorced families, but not in nondivorced families, which suggests that FCP may operate uniquely in
discourse dependent families. The current study adds adoptive families to the body of FCP research
430in discourse dependent families, thus expanding the scope of FCP theory beyond assumptions of the
“traditional”family as viewed by emerging adults.
Family communication and adoptive identity
Our findings also expand knowledge in adoptive identity by reiterating the importance of open
dialogue for making sense of one’s adoption, positioning communication as a protective element
435against preoccupation. Echoing previous research reporting negative associations between commu-
nication and preoccupation, but nonsignificant relationships between communication and reflective
exploration (e.g., Colaner & Soliz, 2015), our sample is one of many that show adult adoptees (from
closed adoptions specifically) often experience adoption-related issues of unresolved grief, uncer-
tainty, and concerns of belongingness in the adoptive family (Colaner et al., 2014; Colaner &
440Kranstuber, 2010). An inability to openly discuss these matters with their adoptive families may
present barriers to resolving adoption-related issues; whereas general and adoption-specific open
communication may provide an outlet for putting these insecurities to rest. Given that preoccupa-
tion is related to low self-esteem in the present study, openly discussing adoption has important
implications for positive feelings about the self via adoptive identity. The present study provides
445context to this finding by highlighting the role of overall family communication environment in
adoptive identity.
In regard to the reflective exploration, the lack of a significant relationship with family commu-
nication suggests that this component of adoptive identity is better explained through other aspects
of the individual, relational, and social factors (Colaner & Soliz, 2015; Grotevant et al., 2000). The
450degree to which individuals think about their adoption may be more indicative of their personal
disposition, based on factors such as tolerance for ambiguity, level of curiosity, and mental health
(Colaner & Soliz, 2015; Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011). Additional research may provide greater
context to the process by which adoptees make sense of their adoption vis-à-vis their personal,
familial, and communal proclivities and experiences (Grotevant et al., 2000).
455Research in adoption communication has consistently shown that adoptive parents largely control
the content that is discussed or avoided (Freeark, Rosenblum, Hus, & Root, 2008) and adoption
communication openness facilitates children’s identity work by encouraging open conversation
about adoption (e.g., Brodzinsky, 2006; Colaner & Soliz, 2015; Wrobel et al., 2003). Yet, engaging
in a conversational topic—such as adoption—is not a binary decision of disclosure or avoidance, but
460rather a process of managing the appropriateness and expectations of engaging in a conversational
topic (Baxter & Akkoor, 2011). The present study examines the process adoptive parents undergo in
deciding how to discuss adoption with their children, with respect to the established FCP. Findings
showed that those who weave expectations of openness into their family communication patterns
created an understanding that adoption is an approachable topic of discussion. Also, conversations
465regarding adoption are unlikely to involve expectations of conformity of attitudes and beliefs. Thus,
perhaps in adoptive families, adoption is not a stigmatized or contested issue and thus an expectation
of conforming beliefs is irrelevant.
JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION 11
Limitations, directions for future research, and practical applications
Limitations set the stage for future research in adoptive family communication and identity. First, we
470acknowledge a cohort effect favoring more closed—rather than open—adoptions. Given the secrecy
that permeated adoptions in the era in which these individuals were adopted, participants would
likely have been adopted with limited information about their birth mother (Galvin & Colaner,
2013). Of the sample, 55.9% (n= 80) had not met their birth mother, indicating a trend toward
closed adoption configurations. Although our assessment does not account for those who may have
475learned about their birth mother or had corresponded without meeting (e.g., letters), this suggests
less involvement with the birth family than in more recent cohorts. Our findings, as well as those in
other adoptive communication studies may shift along with new and more involved cohorts, and
future research must account for this shift.
Relatedly, expanding on the finding that FCP predicted general communicative openness about
480adoption, researchers should investigate links between FCP and communication openness about
specific topics of adoption, particularly in adoptions involving older children and/or open adoptions.
With the recent rise of open adoptions (i.e., Galvin & Colaner, 2013), adoptive parents have become
more privy to information and need to determine how to appropriately manage negative details
about the birth family or the adoption (Hays, Horstman, Colaner, & Nelson, 2015). This research
485would more pointedly expand understanding of the nature of FCP in relation to domain-specific and
stigmatized disclosure. Future research should also continue to account for siblings and family
structure in their efforts to understand adoptive family communication (i.e., Samek & Rueter, 2011).
Further, given that we did not collect data on the adoptive family racial/ethnic makeup, researchers
could build on our preliminary connections between FCP and adoptive identity in interracial/ethnic
490families. Because they are “visible”adoptive families (Harrigan, 2010), they may be confronted with
experiences that may prompt unique discussions.
Regarding practical implications, our findings demonstrate that it is necessary to move beyond adop-
tion-specific communication messages to also teach adoptive parents the importance of establishing an
overall environment of openness and warmth in their family. Because the family communication environ-
495ment facilitates adoptees’identity work and self-esteem, adoptive parents should focus their attention on
the way they build the culture of communication in their families. In pre-adoption workshops and
counseling, adoption practitioners should highlight that communication environment and corresponding
family relationships can color the conversations and thus could affect his/her self-esteem. Prospective
adoptive parents should be informed that their adoption-specific communication happens within the
500context—not in isolation—ofthefamilycommunicationenvironment. Workshops addressing adoption-
specific communication questions (i.e., “How do I react when someone asks an offensive question in front
of my child?”) should address ways to build support and openness in the family.
As a whole, the present study highlighted the importance of both adoption-focused communica-
tion as well as general communication in the adoptive family. Our findings illuminated the
505contribution of general family communication on adoption outcomes. Because conversation orien-
tation—but not conformity orientation—significantly predicted family adoption communication
openness, these findings also expanded scholars’understanding of the ways family communication
patterns operate with respect to the context and domain-specific topics of discussion. In so doing,
the current study shed light upon the complex communication structure and outcomes of these
510important discourse dependent families (Galvin, 2006).
Note
1. Residual centering involves regressing each item on the remaining indicators of the two constructs and saving
the residual. This creates six orthogonal items. Little et al. (2006) have demonstrated that this process is
superior to mean centering and double mean centering for latent interaction analysis. Each residual centered
515item was multiplied by all items in the interacting variable to create nine interaction items, then used to specify
a latent interaction term.
12 H. K. HORSTMAN ET AL.
References
Baxter, L. A., & Akkoor, C. (2011). Topic expansiveness and family communication patterns. Journal of Family
Communication,11,1–20. doi:10.1080/15267431003773523
520Brodzinsky, D. M. (1993). Long-term outcomes in adoption. The Future of Children,3, 153–166. doi:10.2307/1602410
Brodzinsky, D. M. (2006). Family structural openness and communication openness as predictors in the adjustment of
adopted children. Adoption Quarterly,9,1–18. doi:10.1300/J145v09n04_01
Brodzinsky, D. M., Schechter, M. D., & Henig, R. M. (1992). Being adopted: The lifelong search for self. New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
525Colaner, C. W. (2014). Measuring adoptive identity: Validation of the adoptive identity work scale. Adoption
Quarterly,17, 134–157. doi:10.1080/10926755.2014.891546
Colaner, C. W., Halliwell, D., & Guignon, P. (2014). “What do you say to your mother when your mother’s standing
beside you?”Birth and adoptive family contributions to adoptive identity via relational identity and relational-
relational identity gaps. Communication Monographs,81, 469–494. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.955808
530Colaner, C. W., & Kranstuber, H. (2010). “Forever kind of wondering”: Communicatively managing uncertainty in
adoptive families. Journal of Family Communication,10, 236–255. doi:10.1080/15267431003682435
Colaner, C. W., & Soliz, J. (2015). A communication-based approach to adoptive identity: Theoretical and empirical
support. Communication Research [advanced online publication] 10.1177/0093650215577860
Donahue, E. A. (2008). Open communication in adoption and adoptive identity development (Unpublished disserta-
535tion). Long Island University, New York, New York.
Dunbar, N., & Grotevant, H. D. (2004). Adoption narratives: The construction of adoptive identity during adolescence.
In M. W. Pratt, & B. H. Fiese (Eds.), Family stories and the life course: Across time and generations (pp. 135–161).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis (Methodology in the social sciences series). New York, NY: Guilford.
540Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Freeark, K., Rosenblum, K. L., Hus, V. H., & Root, B. L. (2008). Fathers, mothers and marriages: What shapes adoption
conversations in families with young adopted children? Adoption Quarterly,11,1–23. doi:10.1080/
10926750802291393
Friedlander, M. L. (1999). Ethnic identity development of internationally adopted children and adolescents:
545Implications for family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,25,43–60. doi:10.1111/j.1752-
0606.1999.tb01109.x
Galvin, K. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and identity. In L. Turner & R.
West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Galvin, K., & Colaner, C. (2013). Created through law and language: Communicative complexities of adoptive families.
550In K. Floyd, & M. T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle (2nd ed., pp. 191–209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grotevant, H. D., Dunbar, N., Kohler, J. K., & Esau, A. M. L. (2000). Adoptive identity: How contexts within and
beyond the family shape developmental pathways. Family Relations,49, 379–387. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2000.00379.x
Grotevant, H. D., & McRoy, R. (1998). Openness in adoption: Exploring family connections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
555Grotevant, H. D., & Von Korff, L. A. (2011). Adoptive identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.),
Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 585–601). New York, NY: Springer.
Harrigan, M. M. (2010). Exploring the narrative process: An analysis of the adoption stories mothers tell their
internationally adopted children. Journal of Family Communication,10,24–39. doi:10.1080/15267430903385875
Hays, A., Horstman, H. K., Colaner, C. W., & Nelson, L. R. (2015). “She chose us to be your parents”: Exploring the
560content and process of adoption entrance narratives told in families formed through open adoption. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships [advanced online publication] 10.1177/0265407515611494
Holbert, R. L., & Gill, C. (2015). Clarifying and expanding the use of confirmatory factor analysis in journalism and
mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,92, 292–319. doi:10.1177/
1077699015583718
565Juffer, F., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Adoptees do not lack self-esteem: A meta-analysis of studies on self-esteem
of transracial, international, and domestic adoptees. Psychological Bulletin,133, 1067–1083. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.133.6.1067
Keating, D. M., Russell, J. C., Cornacchione, J., & Smith, S. W. (2013). Family communication patterns and difficult
family conversations. Journal of Applied Communication Research,41, 160–180. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.781659
570Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory,12,
70–91. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00260.x
Kohler, J. K., Grotevant, H. D., & McRoy, R. G. (2002). Adopted adolescents’preoccupation with adoption: The
impact on adoptive family relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family,64,93–104. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
5753737.2002.00093.x
JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION 13
Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Widaman, K. F. (2006). On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms:
Implications for modeling latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling,13, 497–519. doi:10.1207/
s15328007sem1304_1
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the
580question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling,9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Lofquist, D., Lugaila, T., O’Connell, M., & Feliz, S. (2012). Households and families: 2010 (2010 Census Briefs C2010BR-
14). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf
Passmore, N., Feeney, J. A., & Foulstone, A. R. (2007). Secrecy within adoptive families and its impact on adult
adoptees. Family Relationships Quarterly,5,3–5.
585Powell, K. A., & Afifi, T. D. (2005). Uncertainty management and adoptees’ambiguous loss of their birth parents.
Journal of Social & Personal Relationships,22, 129–151. doi:10.1177/0265407505049325
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of
590interpersonal relationships. Communication Research,17, 523–544. doi:10.1177/009365090017004007
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,48,1–36.
Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
Rueter, M. A., & Koerner, A. F. (2008). The effect of family communication patterns on adopted adolescents
595adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family,70, 715–727. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00516.x
Samek, D. R., & Rueter, M. A. (2011). Associations between family communication patterns, sibling closeness, and
adoptive status. Journal of Marriage and Family,73, 1015–1031. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00865.x
Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2007). Communication processes that mediate family communication patterns and
mental well-being: A mean and covariance structures analysis of young adults from divorced and nondivorced
600families. Human Communication Research,33, 330–356. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00302.x
Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family
communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. Journal of Family Communication,7,23–46.
doi:10.1080/15267430709336667
Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Messersmith, A. S. (2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and
605their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication
Monographs,75, 248–269. doi:10.1080/03637750802256318
Suter, E. A., & Ballard, R. L. (2009). “How much did you pay for her?”: Decision-making criteria underlying adoptive
parents’responses to inappropriate remarks. Journal of Family Communication,9, 107–125. doi:10.1080/
15267430902773253
610Thorson, A. R., & Kranstuber Horstman, H. (2014). Buy now, pay later: Family communication patterns theory,
parental financial support, and emerging adults’openness about credit card behaviors. Journal of Family
Communication,14,53–71. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.857324
Von Korff, L. A., & Grotevant, H. D. (2011). Contact in adoption and adoptive identity formation: The mediating role
of family conversation. Journal of Family Psychology,25, 393–401. doi:10.1037/a0023388
615Wilson, S. R., Chernichky, S. M., Wilkum, K., & Owlett, J. S. (2014). Do family communication patterns buffer
children from difficulties associated with a military parent’s deployment? Examining deployed and at-home parents’
perspectives. Journal of Family Communication,14,32–52. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.857325
Wrobel, G. M., Kohler, J. K., Grotevant, H. D., & McRoy, R. G. (2003). The family adoption communication (FAC)
model: Identifying pathways of adoption-related communication. Adoption Quarterly,7,53–84. doi:10.1300/
620J145v07n02_04
Young, S. L. (2009). The function of parental communication patterns: Reflection-enhancing and reflection-discoura-
ging approaches. Communication Quarterly,57, 379–394. doi:10.1080/01463370903320823
14 H. K. HORSTMAN ET AL.
