Adoption And Identity Formation
There has been an enormous amount of
research conducted about adoptees and their
problems with identity formation.
Many of the researchers agree on some of the
causes of identity formation
problems in adolescent adoptees, while other
researchers conclude that there
is no significant difference in identity
formation in adoptees and birth
children. This paper will discuss some of the
research which has been
conducted and will attempt to answer the following
questions: Do adoptees
have identity formation difficulties during adolescence?
If so, what are
some of the causes of these vicissitudes? Is there a significant
difference
between identity formation of adoptees and nonadoptees? The
National
Adoption Center reports that fifty-two percent of adoptable
children have
attachment disorder symptoms. It was also found that the older
the child when
adopted, the higher the risk of social maladjustment (Benson
et al., 1998). This
is to say that a child who is adopted at one-week of age
will have a better
chance of normal adjustment than a child who is adopted at
the age of ten. This
may be due in part to the probability that an infant
will learn how to trust,
where as a ten-year-old may have more difficulty
with this task, depending on
his history. Eric Erickson, a developmental
theorist, discusses trust issues in
his theory of development. The first of
Erickson`s stages of development is
Trust v. Mistrust. A child who
experiences neglect or abuse can have this stage
of development severely
damaged. An adopted infant may have the opportunity to
fully learn trust,
where as an older child may have been shuffled from foster
home to group home
as an infant, thereby never learning trust. Even though Trust
v. Mistrust is
a major stage of development, the greatest psychological risk for
adopted
children occurs during the middle childhood and adolescent years (McRoy
et
al., 1990). As children grow and change into adolescents, they begin
to
search for an identity by finding anchoring points with which to
relate.
Unfortunately, adopted children do not have a biological example
to which to
turn (Horner & Rosenberg, 1991), unless they had an open
adoption in which
they were able to form a relationship with their biological
families as well as
their adoptive ones. Also key to the development of trust
is the ability to bond
with adoptive parents. The absence of a biological
bond between the adoptee and
adoptive parents may cause trust issues in the
adoptee (Wegar, 1995). Baran
(1975) stated, Late adolescence . . . is the
period of intensified identity
concerns and is a time when the feelings about
adoption become more intense and
questions about the past increase. Unless
the adopted child has the answers to
these arising questions, identity
formation can be altered and somewhat halted.
McRoy et al. (1990) agree
with this point: Adolescence is a period when young
people seek an integrated
and stable ego identity. This occurs as they seek to
link their current
self-perceptions with their self perceptions from earlier
periods and with
their cultural and biological heritage (Brodzindky, 1987, p.
37). Adopted
children sometimes have difficulty with this task because they
often do not
have the necessary information from the past to begin to develop a
stable
sense of who they are. They often have incomplete knowledge about why
they
were relinquished and what their birth parents were like, and they may
grieve
not only for the loss of their birth parents but for the loss of part
of
themselves. In essence, it seems that the adolescent`s identity formation
is
impaired because he holds the knowledge that his roots or his essence have
been
severed and remain on the unknown side of the adoption barrier. The
identity
struggles of the adolescent are (part of a human need to connect
with
their natural clan and failure to do so may precipitate psychopathology
(Wegar,
1995). Also in agreement with Wegar, McRoy, and Baran is Frisk.
Baran et al.
(1975) wrote, (Frisk conceptualized that the lack of family
background
knowledge in the adoptee prevents the development of a healthy
genetic ego ..
. In most of the studies surveyed, the researchers
are in agreement about
one fact. Vital to the adopted adolescent`s identity
development is the
knowledge of the birth family and the circumstances
surrounding the adoption.
Without this information, the adolescent has
difficulty deciding which family
(birth or adopted) he resembles. During the
search for an identity in
adolescence, the child may face an array of
problems including hostility toward
the adoptive parents, rejection of anger
toward the birth parents, self-hatred,
transracial adoption concerns, feeling
of rootlessness . . . . (McRoy et al.,
1990). While searching for an
identity, adolescent adoptees sometimes are
involved in a behavior which
psychologists term family romance. This is not a
romance in a sexual manner,
but rather a romance in the sense of fantasizing
about birth parents and
their personal qualities. Horner and Rosenberg (1991)
stated that (the
adopted child may develop a family romance in order to
defend against painful
facts. Often times, adoptees wonder why they were
adopted, and because
closed-adoptions are common, the adoptee is left with many
unanswered
questions about the circumstances of the adoption. The adoptee may
have a
tendency to harbor negative feelings about himself, feeling like he
was
unwanted, bad, or rejected by the birth parent. These feelings can be
quite
powerful, so the adoptee will engage in this family romancing behavior
in order
to offset the negative feelings and try to reconcile his identity
crisis. This
point is stressed by Horner and Rosenberg (1991) when they
write, The painful
reality to be confronted by adoptees is that their
biological parents did not
want, or were unable, to find a way of keeping and
rearing their own child. The
children feel that they were either not meant to
be or intolerable . . ..
Finding an identity, while considering both sets
of parents is a difficult task
for the adolescent. The adoptee does not want
to hurt or offend his adoptive
parents, and he also does not want to ignore
what is known about his biological
roots. Horner and Rosenberg (1991) write:
Adoptive status may represent a
developmental interference for children
during adolescence. Instead of the usual
struggles over separation and the
establishment of a cohesive sense of self and
identity, the adopted child
must struggle with the competing and conflictual
issues of good and bad
parents, good and bad self, and separation from both
adoptive parents and
images of biological parents. If all adoptions were open,
the adoptee would
have the ability to know about the traits of each family. He
would have an
easier task of forming an identity for himself, rather than
struggling with
the issues of to whom he can relate. If the adolescent has some
information
about his birth parents, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
and
religion, Horner and Rosenberg (1991) believe that the following can
happen:
From the bits of fact that they possess, adopted children develop
and elaborate
explanations of their adoptions. At the same time, they begin
to explain
themselves, and they struggle to develop a cohesive and realistic
sense of who
they are and who they can become. It appears that if the adoptee
has even a
minimal amount of information about his birth parents and
adoption, he will have
an easier time with identity formation than an adoptee
who has no information
about his adoption. The adoptive parents can also play
a key role in aiding in
identity formation of the adopted adolescent. Much of
the research I surveyed at
least touched upon the role of the adoptive
parents. Kornitzer stated that the
more mysterious the adoptive parents make
things for the child the more he will
resort to fantasy (Baran et al., 1975).
This is yet another argument for open
adoptions. Again, if the child knows
the circumstances of his adoption and other
pertinent information about his
biological roots, he will have an easier time
forming an identity in
adolescence. It is also noted that, . . . young
adoptees are
vulnerable to feeling different or bad due to the comments and
actions of
others (Wegar, 1995). This is to say that the child will feel more
accepted,
and that his adoption is not a stigma if his adoptive parents have
the
conviction that being adopted does not make the family bad, and it does
not mean
that the adoptive parents are failures because they could not have
biological
children. Sometimes the negativity of adoptive parents about the
circumstances
of the adoption can be sensed by the adoptee, thus causing the
adoptee to
believe that there is something wrong with being adopted. Once
again, this can
cause identity formation problems, especially if the
adolescent believes that he
is inferior or bad because he is adopted and not
raised in his biological
family. The literature on adopted children has long
documented particular and
sometimes intense struggles around identity
formation, and suggests that in many
ways adopted children follow a different
developmental course from children who
are raised by their biological
parents (Horner and Rosenberg, 1991). While
most of the studies I
read found that adoptees have difficulty in identity
formation during
adolescence, I did find an article which refutes this point.
Kelly et al.
(1998) write: Developing a separate, autonomous, mature sense of
self is
widely recognized as a particularly complex task for adoptees. While
many
scholars have concluded that identity formation is inherently more
difficult
for adoptees some recent comparisons of adopted and nonadopted youth
have
found no differences in adequacy of identity formation, and a study
by
Stein and Hoopes (1985) revealed higher ego identity scores for
adoptees. Goebel
and Lott (1986) found that such factors as subjects` age,
sex, personality
variables, family characteristics, and motivation to search
for birth parents
accounted more for quality of identity formation than did
adoptive status. In
conclusion, it is difficult to say who is right in their
beliefs about adoptees
and identity formation. The research I have reviewed
has mostly shown that
adoptees do have quite a bit a difficulty forming an
identity during
adolescence, and that this difficulty can be due to a number
of factors.
Negative parental attitudes about adoption can have a
negative affect on the
adoptee. The issue of open versus closed adoptions
will forever be a debate, but
the research does show that the more an adoptee
knows about his birth family and
the circumstances surrounding his adoption,
the easier it will be for him to
form an identity during adolescence. Most of
the researchers who wrote about the
family romance seemed to do so in a
negative manner, when in fact I believe that
the ability to fantasize about
the birth family may be a healthy option for the
adolescent who is the victim
of a closed adoption. It allows him to construct a
view of what his birth
family is like, and it also allows him to relieve himself
of some of the
internal pain which is caused by closed adoptions. Overall, most
of the
literature supported the notion that adoptees do indeed have
identity
formation problems.
Bibliography
Baran, A., Pannor,
R., & Sorosky, A. (1975). Identity Conflicts in
Adoptees. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45(1), 18-26. Benson, P., McGue,
M., &
Sharma, A. (1998). The Psychological Adjustment of United States
Adopted
Adolescents and Their Nonadopted Siblings. Child Development,
69(3),
791-802. Benson, P., McGue, M., & Sharma, A. (1996). The
Effect of Common
Rearing on Adolescent Adjustment: Evidence from a U.S.
Adoption Cohort.
Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 604-613. Brinch, P.
& Brinch, E. (1982).
Adoption and Adaptation. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 170, 489-493.
Cote, A., Joseph, K., Kotsopoulos, S., Oke,
L., Pentland, N., Sheahan, P., &
Stavrakaki, C. (1988). Psychiatric
Disorders in Adopted Children: A Controlled
Study. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 58(4), 608-611. Hajal, F., &
Rosenberg, E. (1991).
The Family Life Cycle in Adoptive Families. American
Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 78-85. Horner, T., & Rosenberg, E.
(1991).
Birthparent Romances and Identity Formation in Adopted Children.
American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 70-77. Kelly, M., Martin, B.,
Rigby,
A., & Towner-Thyrum, E. (1998). Adjustment and Identity
Formation in Adopted
and Nonadopted Young Adults: Contributions of a Family
Enviornment. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 497-500. McRoy,
R., Grotevant, H., Furuta,
A., & Lopez, S. (1990). Adoption
Revelation and Communication Issues:
Implications for Practice. Families
in Society, 71, 550-557. Wegar, K. (1995).
Adoption and Mental Health: A
Theoretical Critique of the Psychopathological
Model. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 65(4),
540-548.