Process of adoption communication openness in adoptive families: Adopters' perspective

Abstract

Communication about adoption is a family interaction process which is more than the simple exchange of information. Adoption communication can be characterized in terms of the level of openness of family conversations regarding the child's past and the degree of the family's adoption social disclosure. The objective of this study is to explore the process of adoption communication openness in Portuguese adoptive families by identifying the impact of variables related to the adoption process, the adoptive parenting and the adoptee. One hundred twenty five parents of children aged 3 to 15, who were adopted on average 4 years ago, participated in this study. Data was collected during home visits using the Parents Adoption Process Interview. A cluster analysis identified three different groups of families according to the level of adoption communication openness within the family and outside. The findings also showed that the process of the adoption communication openness started when parents decided to adopt, developed in parent-child interaction and was susceptible to change under professional intervention. The relevance of training given to prospective adopters and of professional practice based on scientific evidence is highlighted.

Full text

R E S E A R C H Open Access
Process of adoption communication
openness in adoptive families: adopters’
perspective
Maria Acciaiuoli Barbosa-Ducharne
*
and Joana Soares
Abstract
Communication about adoption is a family interaction process which is more than the simple exchange of
information. Adoption communication can be characterized in terms of the level of openness of family
conversations regarding the child’s past and the degree of the family’s adoption social disclosure. The objective of
this study is to explore the process of adoption communication openness in Portuguese adoptive families by
identifying the impact of variables related to the adoption process, the adoptive parenting and the adoptee. One
hundred twenty five parents of children aged 3 to 15, who were adopted on average 4 years ago, participated in
this study. Data was collected during home visits using the Parents Adoption Process Interview. A cluster analysis
identified three different groups of families according to the level of adoption communication openness within the
family and outside. The findings also showed that the process of the adoption communication openness started
when parents decided to adopt, developed in parent-child interaction and was susceptible to change under
professional intervention. The relevance of training given to prospective adopters and of professional practice
based on scientific evidence is highlighted.
Keywords: Adoption, Communication openness, Communication process, Adoptive parenting, Adoption
professional intervention
Adoption is a way of growing a family which is ever
more on the rise. In Portugal, every year, about 400
children are legally adopted and around 500 are placed
in selected adoptive families, in order to be legally
adopted by them in the near future. In this way, it can
be said that adoption is the third highest chance that a
child has to quit the Portuguese welfare system, of which
he/she has been a part of, ever since his/her birth family
was proven incapable of providing for, in terms of his/
her overall development. Presently, 8470 Portuguese
children and youngsters are in residential or foster care.
This number represents 0.36 % of the overall population
under the age of 18 (Instituto de Segurança Social, Insti-
tuto Público [Institute of Social Security, Public Insti-
tute] (ISS, IP, 2015). Only 8.7 % of these children can
eventually leave out-of-home care in order to be
adopted. Nevertheless, for each adopted child, there is a
possibility of growing up in an environment which fits
his/her needs and features. It is, therefore, essential to
assure that all the families who are given a chance to
adopt should be able to overcome the challenges which
adoption presents.
Background
Since 1980, Portuguese professional intervention in
adoption has been regulated by law (Decreto-Lei [Act]
274/80). The consecutive changes of the Portuguese
juridical adoption regime (Decreto lei [Act] 185/93,
22 May, Decreto Lei [Act] 12/98, 8 May e Lei [Law]
31/2003, 22 August) have led to different professional
practices. Interventions, which were solely centered on
the assessment and selection of prospective adopters,
evolved into more complex interventions including train-
ing and preparation for adoptive parenting, as well as the
required follow up during the family adaptation phase
(officially during 6 months prior to legal adoption) and
isolated post-adoption interventions. The Plan for
Training in Adoption [Plano de Formação em Adoção]
* Correspondence: abarbosa@fpce.up.pt
Universidade Do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Psicolo
g
ia: Reflexão e Cr
í
tic
a
© 2016 Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link
to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9
DOI 10.1186/s41155-016-0024-x

for prospective adopters started being systematically im-
plemented in 2010 (Departamento de Desenvolvimento
Social e Programas [Department of Programmes and So-
cial Development] do ISS, IP, 2014). The training for
adoptive parenting which has been provided for adopters
in six small group sessions prior to the child’s arrival, aims
to reflect the specific needs surface along the adoption
process. These needs relate to the definition of a realistic
adoption project. The training for adoptive parenting
works on the adopters’motivations and decision-making,
as well as, the development of a secure attachment to the
child and the boost of an open family adoption communi-
cation. This structured training, according to guidelines
common to all national adoption agencies, shares all the
goals that Sequeira and Stella (2014) specify for Brazilian
Groups for Adoption Support [Grupos de Apoio à
Adoção], namely the development of positive parenting.
In fact, professional intervention has evolved across
the years and has become obvious in the new law on the
juridical adoption statute which was primarily approved
a while ago (Presidência do Conselho de Ministros
[Board for the Council of Ministers]). This legal bill ac-
knowledges the compulsory natures of adopters’train-
ing, proposes listening to the child’s voice and his/her
adoption preparation, besides recommending public
post-adoption services both for children and parents.
Even though the Portuguese law on adoption is rela-
tively progressive in relation to Children’s Rights, adop-
tion is still socially discriminated as the second best
option of having children. Genetics and the bloodline it-
self are considered the priority regarding family bonds
and it is common to single out adopted children from
biological ones. An intergenerational study including
grandparents, parents and children within the same fam-
ily, supplied different notions of adoption. Grandparents
found it difficult to acknowledge adoption specificities
and rated the bloodline more highly (Barbosa-Ducharne
& Barroso, 2012). Furthermore, grandchildren, children
and adolescents, reported situations in which they felt
differential and discriminative treatment as adoptees,
both within the extended family, and in other social con-
texts. As stated by Merçon-Vargas et al. (2014), the so-
cial principles and beliefs about adoption influence the
adoption process and the meaning it has for adopters.
Considering adoption in Brazil, Maux and Dutra (2010)
refer a social image rooted in a bloodline culture deeply
connected to a troublesome view of the adoptee and
the consequent secrecy of adoption, including the
myths and fears related to adoption disclosure and
communication.
Current international research on adoption (cf.
Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010 for a complete review)
opens way for a completely different attitude in this
respect. Adoption has been acknowledged as a successful
natural intervention for children who have suffered early
adversity, thus, allowing for total or partial developmental
recovery (van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2006). Likewise, the
quality of the adoptive family’s experiences is a key factor
in this recovery (Juffer et al., 2011) and adoption commu-
nication is essential to specific adoptive family dynamics
(Brodzinsky, 2005).
Adoption communication evolves along the family
lifespan and is crosswise to all adoptive families,
notwithstanding the age of the adoptee’s placement.
Adoption must be revealed to adoptees who were
adopted as infants or toddlers. Also, later adoptions re-
quire close-knit family communication about the child’s
recollections, in order to allow for the child’s under-
standing and meaningfulness (Palacios, 2010). Howe and
Feast (2003) pointed out that parent-child communica-
tion was more difficult in later adoptions than in earlier
ones.
It is well known that the adoption communication
process should begin as early as possible after the
child’s arrival, or rather, at 2 to 4 years of age when
the child was adopted as an infant (Brodzinsky et al.
1984; MacIntyre, 1990). The adoption story, which is
initially quite simple, becomes more and more com-
plex and thorough according to the child’scognitive
and emotional skills (Brodzinsky, 2011; Brodzinsky
et al., 1984). The adoption concept is abstract and re-
ferstoasocialentity.Asthechildhasanopportunity
to experience or talk about adoption, he/she will
gradually construct a more complex conception of
what it is (Barbosa-Ducharne et al. 2011).
Wrobel et al. (2003) propose a theoretical descriptive
model of the development of adoption communication
within the family. According to this same model, the
adoption communication process develops along three
different phases. As such, adoption communication
evolves from a phase in which the adopters give their
children unsolicited information and control the quan-
tity and quality of the information that is shared. In the
next phase, adopters answer to the child’s curiosity,
which focuses on different aspects, according to the
child’s development. In the third phase, the adoptee
takes on control of the information which he/she con-
siders necessary. At this stage, the child is proactive in
satisfying his/her own curiosity. The openness of the
shared communication in each phase is different from
family to family (Barbosa-Ducharne et al. 2015).
Kirk (1964) first identified two family patterns which dif-
fer according to the recognition of the adoption
specificities, highlighting the relevance of open communi-
cation between adopters and adoptees. Parents who
rejected adoptive family specificities avoided talking about
the adoptees’origins and showed less empathy towards
the child’s birth family. Parents who acknowledged the
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 2 of 9

adoption specificities accepted the adoptee’s connection
with both families, and empathised more with his/her
birth family. This last family pattern predicted a more
positive family dynamic. Later on, Brodzinsky (1990)
showed that some parents exaggerated in acknowledging
the adoption specificities by insisting on the differences
specially when facing conflicts. In these cases, the message
that was put across focused on the adoptive status as a
problem for the family (Palacios & Sanchez-Sandoval,
2005). Thus, parents’attitudes should vary across different
moments of the family lifespan. Sometimes, it is necessary
to reject or minimise the adoption specificities, while in
other situations, it is better to acknowledge the existing
differences (Brodzinsky 1990).
In 2005, Brodzinsky defined the openness of adoption
communication as “a willingness on the part of individ-
uals to consider the meaning of adoption in their lives,
to share that meaning with others, to explore adoption
related issues in the context of family life, to acknow-
ledge and support the child’s dual connection to two
families”(p.149). Later on, he (Brodzinsky, 2006, 2011)
and other authors (e.g. Grotevant et al. 2005; Le Mare &
Audet, 2011) elaborated on this concept as well.
Adoption openness communication is not simply the
exchange of information but rather that of adoption
related affective attunement, sharing, acceptance, emo-
tional expression and coconstruction of meanings
(Brodzinsky, 2005, 2006). The degree of openness of
adoption communication is a result of reciprocal in-
fluences between parents and children. Nevertheless,
following a developmental perspective, it is supposed
that the parents’attitudes and behaviours create the
initial context which promotes the subsequent open-
ness on behalf of the child (Le Mare & Audet, 2011).
In this way, adoption communication openness is not
a static characteristic of the family but rather a dy-
namic one, which can be developed in the parent-
child interaction.
The available empirical evidence confirms the hypoth-
esis that more open communication patterns are, both,
associated to higher satisfaction regarding adoption
(Howe & Feast, 2003) and adoption communication
(Wydra et al. 2012). These same communication pat-
terns also promote more confidence in adopters (Kohler
et al. 2002) and are related to secure attachment to
adoptive parents (Farr et al. 2014), as well as a stronger
psychological adjustment of adopted adolescents and
adults (Grotevant et al. 2011; Levy-Shiff, 2001). Adopted
children and adolescents, within these more open com-
munication patterns, also show more psychological ad-
justment and self-esteem (Barbosa-Ducharne et al. 2012;
Brodzinsky, 2006; Hawkins et al., 2007; Neil, 2009).
Further to the adoption communication openness
within the family, it is also important to disclose
adoption to the outside world. Even though there is
scarce evidence on this subject, the openness to the out-
side world can contribute to a society in which family di-
versity will be more accepted and in which the adopted
child will feel like “a normal human being belonging to
human diversity”(Palacios, 2012, p. 89).
The present exploratory study aims to characterise the
communication openness process, following the parents’
perspective, within and outside the family, by identifying
adoption communication patterns and analysing the im-
pact of the variables related to the adoption process, the
adoptive parenting and the adoptee. A better knowledge
of the factors involved in the development of adoption
communication openness will bring solid scientific
basis to professional practices, both in the preparation
for adoptive parenting, as well as in post adoption
follow up.
Method
Participants
One hundred and twenty-five adoptive parents partici-
pated in this study, 95 mothers and 30 fathers, mutually
independent of one other. They were aged between 31
and 59 years old (M= 43.58, SD = 5.34) and their school-
ing was 13.28 years, on average (SD = 4.58, range 4–22).
The participant parents adopted 125 children (76 boys
and 49 girls), when they were 0 to 12 years old (M=3.45,
SD = 2.42). These children, aged 3 to 15 years (M=8.02,
SD = 2.98) were in the adoptive family for 4.58 years
on average (SD = 2.42, range 0.5–12.5). All these chil-
dren had a past of adversity and were domestically
adopted from 1998 to 2009, through the Portuguese
Welfare System.
Instrument and measures
Parents’Interview on the Adoption Process [Entre-
vista sobre o Processo de Adoção (EPA)]. The Portu-
guese EPA (Palacios et al., 2013) is a semi-structured
interview, composed of 124 questions. This interview
followed the adoption process itself, covering different
adoption themes, namely the reasons and processes of
adoption decision making; the waiting period; the
child’s proposal and information regarding the child’s
past; the transition into the adoptive family; the
child’s arrival at the adoptive home; the child’s adap-
tation and development; the child placed within the
adoptive family; the communication about adoption;
the adoption social disclosure; the attitudes towards
adoption and the future and self-evaluation of adop-
tion. The interview included open-ended questions
(“How did you tell the child that he/she had been
adopted?”), Yes-No questions (“Have you ever spoken
to him/her about being adopted?”) and 4-point Likert
scale questions (“If you had to evaluate the way you
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 3 of 9

dealt with this situation, would you say that you
feel…” – level of satisfaction). The variables related to
the adoption decision making process and adoption com-
munication, such as frequency and openness in com-
munication, parents’behaviours, emotions and ideas
regarding adoption communication and child’sadop-
tion communication behaviours were measured by
specific EPA interview questions. A new variable was
computed in order to calculate the time period from
the child’s placement to the first communication/
revelation about adoption. This variable - communi-
cation timing –was gauged by calculating the differ-
ence between the child’sageinthefirst
communication/revelation and the child’sageat
placement (Timing = Age at revelation - Age at
placement). In this calculus the variable related to
age of placement was recoded by considering
2.5 years of age for all the children who were
adopted prior to this time, because it is highly rec-
ommended to begin the adoption communication
process at this age (e.g. Brodzinsky et al., 1984). The
higher the communication timing, the longer was the time
period until the first adoption communication within the
adoptive family.
Procedures
Sample selection
This study is part of the IPA Project –Research on the
Adoption Process: Parents’and Children’s Perspectives
[Investigação sobre o Processo de Adoção: Perspetiva de
Pais e Filhos], which was approved by the University’s
Ethics Committee. For this project participant families
were selected according to: (1) adoptive families whose
legal adoption was more than half a year ago, i.e. the
adoptee had been part of the family for at least a year,
because in Portugal legal adoption is only considered
after at least 6 months of life in common, and (2) fam-
ilies with adoptees between the ages of 3 and 15. All par-
ticipant families in this Project are included in this
study. Bearing in mind the ethical code of confidentiality
ruling adoptive families, the first contact asking for co-
operation was made by the adoption professionals in
public agencies who had been responsible for the family
file. All eligible families who were invited and voluntary
agreed to participate were included in study.
Data collection
The interviews were held at home by qualified adoption
researchers. The parents were previously asked to give
their written consent. The interview lasted for 95.71
minuts, on average (SD = 28.51, range 45–180), and was
aimed at the parent who considered him/herself closest
to the child.
Data analysis
The data were analysed quantitatively by using descrip-
tive statistical analysis, variance analysis (test post hoc of
Turkey) and cluster analysis. In order to identify missing
values, outliers, the normality of the distributions and
the homogeneity of the variances, an exploratory ana-
lysis was previously made. To define the clusters, a
mixed hierarchical and non hierarchical (K-means) pro-
cedure was used and the similarity of the participants
was measured by Euclidean distance. Because this dis-
tance is considered sensitive to the scale measure of the
variables, standardized variables were therefore used. By
using the hierarchical method, the centroids were identi-
fied and the ideal number of clusters was explored to de-
fine the clusters by the non-hierarchical procedure.
Results
Adoption communication: descriptive analysis
Seventy-nine percent of the participants (n= 99) had
spoken to their children about adoption. Nevertheless,
in 26 families none of the children knew about their
adoption. A significant difference, t(123) = 4.11, p< .001,
d= 0.93, 95 % CI [1.32, 3.77], was found between the
average age of the children who already knew about
their adoption (M=8.55, SD = 2.86, ranging from 3
to 15 years) and those who did not know (M=6.00,
SD = 2.62, ranging from 3 to 13 years). Regarding the
99 children who knew they were adopted, the first
family communication was the revelation of adop-
tion, in 69 % of the cases (n= 68), and had happened
before the age of six, on average. The rest of the
children were adopted at an age in which they were
already aware of their situation and the first family
communication focused on different topics related to
their past history/story and the adoption itself.
Table 1 presents the frequency of the family communica-
tion about adoption as being relatively low. Parents did
not speak much about adoption and children asked very
few questions. Nevertheless, outside the family there was
more openness and the topic was discussed at school, with
friends and neighbours. The communication timing was
considered overdue, since it was, on average, beyond
2years.
Table 1 Adoption Communication: Descriptive analysis
MSDMin. Max.
Child’s age at first communication 5.85 2.42 2.5 12.5
Communication timing (years) 2.38 2.07 0 9.5
Frequency of the parents’communication 1.57 1.02 0 3
Frequency of the child’s questioning 1.19 0.98 0 3
Frequency of parent-child
communicative interaction
1.38 0.92 0 3
Adoption social disclosure 3.16 0.67 1 4
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 4 of 9

Adoption communication: clusters analysis
Three clusters were identified, considering three variables
related to adoption communication, namely, communica-
tion timing, frequency of parent-child communicative
interaction and social disclosure of adoption. The means
of these variables were compared in the three clusters by
using a one way analysis of variance (see Table 2). The
three clusters showed significant differences in the three
communication variables, with a moderate effect size (Co-
hen, 1988). Thus, the three clusters were composed of
three types of families according to the level of adoption
communication openness. Cluster 1 included families with
a notably delayed communication timing, a markedly
closed intrafamily communication, which was almost in-
existent, and medium levels of social disclosure. Families
belonging to Cluster 1 were, therefore, significantly differ-
ent from those within Clusters 2 and 3. The families be-
longing to Cluster 2 showed a significantly more open and
timely adoption communication, both within the family
and the outside world, when compared to the families in
Cluster 1. Cluster 3 was composed of the families who
were the most open, within and out of the family, and
whose communication timing was more timely, yet not
significantly different from Cluster 2.
Openness communication and adoption process
The three clusters were significantly different regarding
some variables related to the adoption process. The easi-
ness of decision making about adoption (evaluated on a
4-point Likert scale) was significantly different in the
three groups, F(2, 122) = 3.00, p=.049, η
2
= 0.05. Cluster
1, showing closed and delayed communication, presented
lower values of easiness in decision-making, (M=2.78,
SD =0.87, n= 32), followed by Cluster 2 (M= 3.00,
SD =0.66, n= 51) and Cluster 3 (M= 3.19, SD = 0.63,
n= 42), which revealed a more open and timely adop-
tion communication. There are significant statistical
differences between Cluster 1 and Cluster 3, 95 % CI
[-0.81, -0.01], p= .042. These same differences were
also found regarding the adopters’awaiting time for
adoption, F(2, 122) = 3.21, p= .044, η
2
= 0.05. Partici-
pants belonging to Cluster 1 waited longer for the
child (M= 3.52, SD = 1.61, n= 32), followed by partici-
pants in Cluster 2 (M= 3.08, SD = 1.76, n= 51) and
Cluster 3 (M=2.49, SD =1.86, n= 42), which was
significantly different from Cluster 1, 95 % CI [-2.00,
-0.05], p= .037.
There was a significant association between the
spouse’s reaction to the adoption decision (assessed by
means of a nominal variable with three categories:
comply, accept or hesitate) and the three clusters,
χ
2
(4) = 9.86, p= .043, V= 0.26. The spouses who com-
plied belonged essentially to Cluster 3, who showed
more open communication. The spouses who ac-
cepted the adoption project proposed by his/her part-
ner were found in Clusters 1 and 2. Spouses who
hesitated were mainly in Cluster 1, whose adoption
communication was closed and delayed. In this clus-
ter there were also more participants who considered
forsaking the adoption, during the awaiting period. In
Clusters 2 and 3 there were more participants, than
those expected, who did not consider interrupting the
adoption process, χ
2
(2) = 6.16, p= .046, V= 0.22.
The support and counselling, about adoption communi-
cation, provided by professionals to prospective adopters
during the adoption process, were also associated to the
clusters, χ
2
(6) = 14.25, p=.027,V= 0.25. The participants
who were given concrete strategical indications about
adoption communication were mainly found in Cluster 3,
whereas those who were given simple recommendations
mostly belonged to Cluster 2.
Communication openness and parenting
Table 3 presents parenting variables related to adoption
communication behaviours, feelings towards adoption
communication and adoption communication beliefs
and cognitions, according to the three clusters. In terms
of behaviours, the frequency of communication with the
spouse about problems was higher in Cluster 3, which
was significantly different from Cluster 1. In relation to
feelings, Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 are significantly differ-
ent, seeing that the parents in Cluster 3 spoke more eas-
ily about the child’s origins and showed more positive
feelings towards the child’s birth family. Regarding be-
liefs, all three clusters were significantly different. Partic-
ipants in Cluster 3 showed less unfavourable beliefs
about communication openness.
Openness communication and child variables
The child’sagewasdifferentinthethreegroups,
F(2, 122) = 6.07, p=.003, η
2
= 0.09. Cluster 1 included
Table 2 Adoption Communication: Cluster Analysis
Cluster 1 (n= 32) Cluster 2 (n= 51) Cluster 3 (n= 42) F(2, 122) η
2
Communication timing (years) 5.03 a 1.70 b 1.20 b 83.78* 0.58
Frequency of parent-child communicative interaction 0.17 a 1.38 b 2.30 c 211.88* 0.78
Adoption social disclosure 2.45 a 3.14 b 3.71 c 66.25* 0.52
Notes: Different letters represent differences between clusters (p< .001). According to Cohen (1988): η
2
> 0.5 –very large effect size
*p< .001
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 5 of 9

younger children (M=6.66,SD =2.94,n= 32), followed by
Cluster 2 (M=8.06, SD =2.82, n= 51) and finally Cluster
3(M=9.00, SD =2.87, n= 42), with older children. Clus-
ter 1 and Cluster 3 are significantly different, 95 % CI [-
3.94, - 0.75], p= .002. Gender also appeared associated
with the development of adoption communication
openness, χ
2
(2) = 8.00, p=.02,V= .25: males had a higher
probability of belonging to Cluster 1 and females had a
higher probability of belonging to Cluster 2 or 3. Accord-
ing to the parents’perspective, the child’s behaviours
were relatively different in relation to adoption com-
munication openness. Table 4 shows the significant
associations between the child’s behaviour regarding
adoption communication, according to the parents’
perspective, and the respective clusters. This table
presents the real number of participants in each clus-
ter, as well as the expected one. Children in Cluster 1
and 2 have a more closed and passive behaviour than
the one expected, whereas children in Cluster 3 have
a more opening and active behaviour in adoption
communication within the family.
Discussion
This study aimed at exploring the process of adoption
communication openness in the participating families.
Data showed differences between the families along an
adoption communication openness continuum, ranging
from families with strictly closed communication (the child
did not know he/she had been adopted), families who just
simply revealed the adoption status, to other families with
an open and frequent adoption communication. The re-
sults showed the complexity of this phenomenon (adoption
communication as being both universal and specific at the
same time), which differed according to each family. Fur-
thermore, results also highlighted the difficulty that some
participating parents had in managing this task and in un-
derstanding adoption communication as a process rather
than a single moment in time. Revealing adoption is only a
small part of the adoption communication process which
involves, not only the act of sharing the information, but
also the feelings, doubts, frustrations and joys that the
adoptee and adopters may naturally feel about their adop-
tion status (Palacios, 2012).
Table 3 Clusters of Adoption Communication and Parenting –ANOVAs
Cluster 1 MCluster 2 MCluster 3 MF p η
2
Behaviours (n= 32) (n= 48) (n= 39) (2115)
Frequency of communication with spouse about problems 2.97 a 3.29 a, b 3.41 b 4.06 .02 0.07
Feelings (n= 32) (n= 51) (n= 42) (2122)
Easiness in talking about child’s origins 2.25 a 2.53 a 2.93 c 10.31 <.001 0.15
Positive feelings toward child’s birth family 2.75 a, b 2.68 a 2.92 b 4.91 .009 0.07
Cognitions (n= 30) (n= 49) (n= 41) (2117)
Unfavourable beliefs about communication openness 2.23 a 1.88 b 1.60 c 12.49 <.001 0.18
Notes: Different letters represent differences between clusters (p< .001). These variables were measured on a 4-point scale. According to Cohen (1988): η
2
] 0.05 –
0.25] –moderate effect size
Table 4 Associations between Clusters and Child’s Behaviours towards Adoption Communication
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 χ
2
(2) pV
The child refuses to talk about adoption n2 16 1 13.31 .001 0.37
Exp. 1.2 9.8 8.1
The child never initiates a conversation about adoption n3 21 4 12.86 .002 0.36
Exp. 1.7 14.4 11.9
The child doesn’t show curiosity about adoption or the past n4 30 6 20.80 < .001 0.46
Exp. 2.4 20.6 17
As the child was growing up, more questions were asked n0 13 21 9.48 .009 0.31
Exp. 2.1 17.5 14.4
The child talks easily about adoption n2 30 37 13.34 .001 0.37
Exp. 4.2 35.5 29.3
The child speaks frequently about adoption n0 4 11 7.17 0.28 0.27
Exp. 0.9 7.7 6.4
Notes: n=nreal;Exp.=nexpect. According to Cohen (1988): V] 0.25 –0.5] –large effect size
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 6 of 9

Frequency of the communicative interaction between
parents and children was low, and there was a cycle of
closed communication, as mentioned by Palacios and
Sanchez-Sandoval (2005): parents do not talk because
children do not ask questions and children do not ask
questions because they do not feel enough communica-
tion openness on behalf of the parents.
Results also highlighted the relevance of prior prepar-
ation and training for prospective adopters. It should be
referred that in Portugal adoption preparation was only
instilled in 2010 and only now has it become compul-
sory by law. Nevertheless, it should be said that the par-
ticipants in this study did not have any training because
they adopted prior to 2009. Adoption professionals
should prepare prospective adopters for the complexity
of this process and promote their skills in order to
understand the importance of answering to the adopted
child’s needs, besides managing this adoption communi-
cation process, which as referred by Brodzinsky (2005),
does not just depend on the amount of existing informa-
tion about the child’s past. It should be possible to talk
about what is known, as well as, what is not known
when searching for answers as a family. This study
found that simple recommendations or rather concrete
communication strategies given to prospective adopters
were associated to different levels of adoption communi-
cation openness later within the family. These types of
professional intervention were part of the assessment
and selection process and not of training programmes,
as above mentioned.
Furthermore, data revealed that parents postponed
adoption revelation to the time when children started
school. Possibly they were afraid that, once at school,
the child would be told about his/her adoption by some-
one else. These same results could be better explained
according to contextual variables. The community’s ac-
ceptance and social insight on adoption can influence
the process of adoption communication openness within
the family. Similar to what happens in Brazil (Maux &
Dutra, 2010; Merçon-Vargas et al., 2014), in Portugal it
is also seen as an “alternative”,“second best”option and
the birth family is still described as the “natural family”
and birth parents are still seen as “real parents”. Adop-
tion language is full of myths and stereotypes, displaying
differential and discriminatory treatment of adoptive
families, adopters and adoptees. Future research should
consider the role played by contextual variables related
to adoption social beliefs in order to explain the process
of adoption communication openness.
This study allowed for the identification of three dif-
ferent groups of families, within the heterogeneity of the
participating adoptive families, according to adoption
communication openness. Two groups at opposing ends
showed contrasting characteristics (Clusters 1 and 3)
and the third intermediate group presented particular
features (Cluster 2). Cluster 1, titled Delayed and Closed
Adoption Communication, was composed of the families
who had more difficulty in adoption decision-making
(having hesitated), who waited longer for the child, who
considered backing out during the awaiting time, who
found it more difficult to talk to his/her spouse about
problems, who were challenged in speaking about the
child’s birth family and who revealed more unfavourable
beliefs about adoption communication openness. The
children belonging to these families were younger and
most of them were male. Cluster 2, called Timely and
Opening Adoption Communication, was characterised
by a timely communication timing, showing a kind of
communication which was not totally flowing nor highly
frequent. This intermediate group stood out from the
others regarding the lack of empathy felt towards the
birth family by showing less positive feelings in this re-
spect. Since the adoptees in Cluster 1 did not know they
had been adopted, it was the ones belonging to Cluster 2
who presented more closed adoption communication.
Cluster 3, labelled Timely and Open Adoption Commu-
nication, included the families who found it easier to de-
cide in favour of adoption, who waited less for the child,
who did not consider backing out of the process during
the awaiting time, who received concrete strategies on
adoption communication provided by professionals, who
talked more openly about problems as a couple, who
spoke more easily about the child’s origins, who showed
more empathy towards the birth family and who pre-
sented less unfavourable beliefs about adoption commu-
nication openness. These were families who achieved a
higher level of adoption communication openness and
consequently the children belonging to these families,
who were older and mostly female, showed more open
adoption communication behaviours, higher curiosity
and were able to speak more easily and frequently about
adoption.
These results support the understanding that adoption
communication is a developmental process which does
not only start at the child’s arrival to the family, but ra-
ther evolves throughout the adoption process from the
moment the parents decide to adopt. This study allowed
for the definition of indicators in adoption communica-
tion openness which were evident along the adoption
process. These indicators are related to the adoption
decision-making, as well as the adoption process itself,
seeing that a higher awaiting time normally corre-
sponded to the wish for younger children or even a
lower level of parenting skills in order to answer respon-
sively to the child’s needs. Furthermore, the results high-
light that adoption communication is essentially an
interactive process as stated by Le Mare and Audet
(2011). Both parents and children interact in the
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 7 of 9

promotion of the adoption communication openness.
The adoptees who were more curious and spoke more
openly about adoption belonged to families in which
parents also communicated more openly as a couple
about everything and where there was more empathy to-
wards the adoptee’s origins and life story. In other
words, adoption communication is a dynamic develop-
mental process whose openness is strengthened through
parent-child interaction. Furthermore, it can also be re-
lated to other variables regarding the family interaction
and dynamics, such as attachment, general communica-
tion patterns, socio-emotional competence and reflective
functioning. These have not been studied in this paper,
but could eventually explain this process and be included
in future research.
The results also show that some variables related to
the adoption process and parental behaviour are associ-
ated to the development of the adoption communication
openness and can be changed with the help of skilled
professionals. It should also be pointed out that this
process can be redeemed in any phase of the adoptive
families’life span. This is true even for families with a
delayed and more closed communication who can
develop a better level of adoption communication open-
ness, through skilled professional intervention. Conse-
quently, the results translate into adoption policies and
professional practices, not only in terms of the relevance
of prospective adopters’training, but also in terms of de-
signing evidence-based adoption practices. For maximum
efficiency, professional intervention should break the
boundaries of the work done only with prospective
adopters and adoptive families and take on a larger social
context which favours a change in the social image of
adoption, as recommended by Maux and Dutra (2010).
Conclusion
Finally it should be specified that the analysis of the
process of adoption communication openness which is
presented in this paper, only includes the parents’per-
spective. This is obviously one of the limitations of this
study. Future research should consider the child’s view
point in the analysis of the variables approached in this
study. Moreover, variables related to adoption communi-
cation should also be analysed qualitatively, for example
in terms of physical and emotional availability to talk
about the subject, emotional attunement and narrative
coherence of the discourse. These variables should not
be limited to quantitative indicators of communication
frequency. In spite of these limitations, this study ap-
proaches the process of adoption communication open-
ness in adoptive families, which empirically supports the
development of professional intervention in order to
promote adoption communication openness.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author's contributions
Research, data collection, analysis and writing of the manuscript were joint
contributions of both authors. Both authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Received: 9 March 2016 Accepted: 7 April 2016
References
Barbosa-Ducharne M, Barroso R. Análise intergeracional do processo de
adoção: Avós, pais e filhos [Intergenerational analysis of the adoption
process: Grandparents, parents and children]. AMAzônica: Revista de
Psicopedagogia, Psicologia Escolar e Educação [Amazónica: Journal of
Psychopaedogogy, School Psychology and Education]. 2012; 8(1):
185-209. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/63869
Barbosa-Ducharne M, Ferreira J, Soares J. Communication openness in the
adoptive family and the psychological adjustment of adoptees. In:
Proceedings of the XV European Conference on Developmental Psychology.
Roma: Medimond; 2012b. p. 215–24.
Barbosa-Ducharne M, Ferreira J, Soares J, Barroso R. Parental perspectives on
adoption communication within Portuguese adoptive families: Children/
adolescents. Family Science. 2015;6(1):58–67. doi:10.1080/19424620.2015.
1080994.
Barbosa-Ducharne M, Soares J, Ferreira J. Comunicação pais-filhos sobre adoção e
desenvolvimento da compreensão do conceito de adoção [Parent-children
adoption communication and adoption understanding development]. In:
Lopes J, Pinheiro M, Brandão MC, Dias P, Sampaio R, editors. Atas do IV
Encontro sobre Maus Tratos, Negligência e Risco na Infância e Adolescência
[Proceedings of the IV Meeting on Abuse, Negligence and Risk in Childhood
and Adolescence]. Maia: ASAS; 2011. p. 45–9.
Brodzinsky DM. A stress and coping model of adoption adjustment. In:
Brodzinsky DM, Schechter MD, editors. The psychology of adoption. New
York: Oxford University Press; 1990. p. 3–24.
Brodzinsky DM. Reconceptualizing openness in adoption: Implications for theory
research and practice. In: Brodzinsky D, Palacios J, editors. Psychological
issues in adoption: Research and practice. New York: Greenwood;
2005. p. 145–66.
Brodzinsky DM. Family structural openness and communication openness as
predictors in the adjustment of adopted children. Adopt Q. 2006;9(4):1–18.
doi:10.1300/J145v09n04_01.
Brodzinsky DM. Children’s understanding of adoption: developmental and clinical
implications. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2011;42(2):200–7. doi:10.1037/a0022415.
Brodzinsky DM, Singer LM, Braff AM. Children’s understanding of adoption. Child
Dev. 1984;55:869–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep12424986.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Departamento de Desenvolvimento Social e Programas do Instituto de
Segurança Social, Instituto Público [Departement of Social Development and
Programmes of the Institute of Social Security, Public Institute] DSSP do ISS,
IP. Adoção Nacional e Internacional. Relatório 2013 [Domestic and
Intercountry Adoption Report 2013]. Lisboa: DSSP do ISS, IP; 2014.
Decreto-lei [Act] 12/98 de 8 de Maio [of 8
th
May].
Decreto-lei [Act] 185/93 de 22 de Maio [of 22
nd
May].
Decreto-lei [Act] 274/80 de 13 de Agosto [of 13
th
August].
Farr RH, Grant-Marsney HA, Grotevant HD. Adoptees’contact with birth parents
in emerging adulthood: The role of adoption communication and
attachment to adoptive parents. Fam Process. 2014;53(4):656–71.
doi:10.1111/famp.12069.
Grotevant HD, Perry YV, McRoy RG. Openness in adoption: Outcomes for
adolescents within their adoptive kinship networks. In: Brodzinsky D, Palacios
J, editors. Psychological issues in adoption: Research and practice. New York:
Greenwood; 2005. p. 167–86.
Grotevant HD, Ruetter M, Von Korff L, Gonzalez C. Post-adoption contact,
adoption communicative openness, and satisfaction with contact as
predictors of externalizing behavior in adolescence and emerging
adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2011;52:529–36. doi:10.111/j.
1469-7610.2010.02330.x.
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 8 of 9

Hawkins A, Beckett C, Rutter M, Castle J, Colvert E, Groothues C, et al.
Communicative openness about adoption and interest in contact in a
sample of domestic and intercountry adolescent adoptees. Adopt Q.
2007;10(3–4):131–56. doi:10.1080/10926750802163220.
Howe D, Feast J. Adoption, search and reunion: The long-term experience of
adopted adults. London: BAAF; 2003.
Instituto de Segurança Social, Instituto Público [Institute of Social Security, Public
Institute] ISS, IP. CASA 2014 –Caracterização Anual da Situação de
Acolhimento das Crianças e Jovens [CASA 2014 –Annual Caracterization of
Children’and Youth’s Out-of-home Care]. Lisboa: ISS, IP; 2015.
Juffer F, Palacios J, LeMare L, Sonuga-Barke E, Tieman W, Bakermans-Kranenburg M,
et al. Development of adopted childrenwithhistoriesofearlyadversity.
Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2011;76:31–61. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.
2011.00627.
Kirk HD. Shared fate: A theory and method of adoptive relationships. New York:
Free Press; 1964.
Kohler JK, Grotevant HD, McRoy RG. Adopted adolescents’preoccupation with
adoption: The impact on adoptive family relationships. J Marriage Fam.
2002;64:93–104. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00093.x.
Le Mare L, Audet K. Communicative openness in adoption, knowledge of culture
of origin, and adoption identity in adolescents adopted from Romania.
Adopt Q. 2011;14(3):199–217. doi:10.1080/10926755.2011.608031.
Lei [Law] 31/2003 de 22 de Agosto [of 22
nd
August].
Lei [Law] 143/2015 de 8 de setembro [of 8
th
September].
Levy-Shiff R. Psychological adjustment of adoptees in adulthood: Family
environment and adoption-related correlates. Int J Behav Dev.
2001;25(2):97–104. doi:10.1080/01650250042000131.
MacIntyre JC. Debate forum: Resolved: Children should be told of their adoption
before they ask: positive. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.
1990;29(828–829):832–3.
Maux A, Dutra E. A adoção no Brasil: Algumas reflexões [Adoption in Brazil:
Some reflections]. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia [Studies and Research
in Psychology] 2010; 2: 356-72. Retrieved from: http://www.revispsi.uerj.br/
v10n2/artigos/pdf/v10n2a05.pdf
Merçon-Vargas EA, Rosa EM, Dell’Aglio DD. Adoção nacional e internacional:
Significados, motivações e processos de habilitação [Domestic and
intercountry adoption: Meanings, motivations and qualification processes].
Revista da Sociedade de Psicoterapias Analíticas Grupais do Estado de São
Paulo [Journal of the Society of Group Analitic Psychoterapies of the State of
São Paulo]. 2014;15(2):12–26. Retrieved from: http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/
rspagesp/v15n2/v15n2a03.pdf.
Neil E. Post-adoption contact and openness in adoptive parents’minds:
Consequences for children’s development. Br J Soc Work. 2009;39:5–23.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm087.
Palacios, J. Familias adoptivas [Adoptive families]. In E. Arranz & A. Oliva (coord.).
Desarrollo psicológico en las nuevas estructuras familiars [Psychological
development in new family structures], Madrid: Ed. Pirâmide; 2010 p. 51–67.
Palacios J. Adopción: identidad o identidades? [Adoption: Identity or identities?].
Cidade Solidária [Solidarity City]. 2012;15(27 e 28):86–91.
Palacios J, Brodzinsky D. Adoption research: Trends, topics, outcomes. Int J Behav
Dev. 2010;34:270–84. doi:10.1177/0165025410362837.
Palacios J, Sanchez-Sandoval Y. Beyond adopted/non-adopted comparisons. In:
Brodzinsky D, Palacios J, editors. Psychological issues in adoption: Research
and practice. New York: Greenwood; 2005. p. 117–44.
Palacios J, Sanchez-Espinosa E, Sanchez-Sandoval Y, Barbosa-Ducharne M, Moreira
A, Ferreira da Silva A, Monteiro J, Soares J. EPA: Entrevista sobre o Processo
de Adoção [EPA: Parents’Interview on the Adoption Process]. In J. A. Lima,
M. Serra de Lemos, A Gamelas (Eds.) Instrumentos de investigação
desenvolvidos, adaptados ou usados pelo Grupo de Investigação
Desenvolvimental, Educacional e Clínica com Crianças e Adolescentes
[Research instruments developed, adapted or used by the Developmental,
Educational and Clinical Research with Children and Adolescents Group].
Porto: FPCEUP; 2013; p.117–21.
Sequeira VC, Stella C. Preparação para a adoção: grupo de apoio para
candidatos [Adoption preparation: Support group for prospective
adopters]. Revista Psicologia: Teoria e Prática [Psychology Journal:
Theory and Practice]. 2014; 16(1): 69-78. Retrieved from http://pepsic.
bvsalud.org/pdf/ptp/v16n1/06.pdf
van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F. The Emanuel Miller memorial lecture 2006:
Adoption as intervention. Meta-analytic evidence for massive catch-up and
plasticity in physical, socio-emotional and cognitive development. J Child
Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;47:1228–45. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01675.x.
Wydra M, O’Brien K, Merson E. In their own words: Adopted persons’experiencies
of adoption disclosure and discussion in their families. J Fam Soc Work.
2012;15(1):62–77. doi:10.1080/10522158.2012.642616.
Wrobel GM, Kohler JK, Grotevant HD, McRoy RG. The family adoption
communication (FAC) model: Identifying pathways of adoption related
communication. Adopt Q. 2003;7(2):53–84. doi:10.1300/J145v07n02_04.
Submit your manuscript to a
journal and benefi t from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the fi eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
Barbosa-Ducharne and Soares Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:9 Page 9 of 9