Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Current Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Anonymous birth: Biographical knowledge and dyadic coping
in adoptive mothers and fathers
Anna Felnhofer
1,2
&Jennifer Kernreiter
1,2,3
&Claudia Klier
1,2
&Mercedes M. Huscsava
2,4
&Christian Fiala
3
&
Michael Zeiler
2,4
Accepted: 10 March 2021
#The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Research on adoptive parents of anonymously born children is still scarce. Open issues are (1) examining how much biographical
information is available to adoptive parents, (2) considering differences between adoptive mothers and fathers, and (3) under-
standing what affects their dyadic coping. Hence, this study set out to compare adoptive mothers’and fathers’mental health,
attachment styles, dyadic coping, and biographical knowledge, and to identify predictors of dyadic coping. 62 mothers and 40
fathers (mean age: 46 years) raising an anonymously born adoptee answered online orpaper-pencilversions of the Brief Symptom
Inventory,Vulnerable Attachment Style Questionnaire,Dyadic Coping Inventory,Child Behavior Checklist, and a checklist of
biographical data. Descriptive analyses showed that biographical knowledge was generally low in adoptive parents. More
information was available on the birth mother than the birth father, with letters being the most common memorial.
Furthermore, student t-tests revealed few differences: adoptive mothers reported to be more anxious and rated their ability to
communicate stress and common dyadic coping as higher than did adoptive fathers. Finally, a hierarchical linear regression
identified knowledge of more biographical data, parents’older age as well as child’s younger age and higher psychopathology
scores as predictors of betteradoptive parents’dyadic coping. These findings highlight the difficult task of gathering biographical
information whilst maintaining the birth mother’s anonymity. They also stress the need of further research which may inform
policies tailored to the specific needs of adoptive parents in the context of anonymous birth.
Keywords Anonymously adopted children and adolescent .Adoptees .Adoptive parents .Gender
Introduction
Adopting a child is considered a major event in a couples’life
(Bird et al., 2002). In contrast to biological parents, adoptive
parents are faced with challenges which are specific to the
context of adoption and may exacerbate the demands of par-
enthood, as well as impede adjustment to the parental role
(Calvo et al., 2015; Canzi et al., 2019b). In particular, stress
may stem from prior experiences of infertility (Daniluk &
Hurtig-Mitchell, 2003), from the adoptee’s possible history
of early life adversities (e.g. Smith et al., 2018), the child’s
older age at adoption (e.g. Bird et al., 2002; Canzi et al.,
2019c), prevailing developmental delays (Viana & Welsh,
2010), medical problems (e.g. Judge, 2003), and emotional
and/or behavioral difficulties (e.g. Canzi et al., 2019c).
Additional strain may come fromthe fact that in some cases
of adoption, determining the adoptee’s history is difficult
(Bird et al., 2002), and contact with birth families is impossi-
ble. Particularly, in the context of safe relinquishment (Orliss
et al., 2019) or anonymous birth (Grylli et al., 2016) which
allow the safe abandonment of infants without legal prosecu-
tion, biographical data is often unknown. Limited biographi-
cal knowledge and lack of birth family contact, however, are
thought to bear unique challenges not only for the anony-
mously born child, but also for adoptive parents (e.g. Orliss
et al., 2019). While some research exists on semi-open inter-
national adoptions (e.g. Hails et al., 2019), studies on closed
adoption forms like anonymous birth are still scarce.
*Michael Zeiler
michael.zeiler@meduniwien.ac.at
1
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Medical
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2
Comprehensive Center for Pediatrics, Medical University of Vienna,
Vienna, Austria
3
Gynmed Clinic Vienna, Mariahilfer Guertel 37,
1150 Vienna, Austria
4
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Medical University
of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01620-y
/ Published online: 20 March 2021
Current Psychology (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Furthermore, there is a pending need to include the unique
perspective of adoptive fathers to better understand an adop-
tive couple’s functioning and coping with the stress of parent-
ing (Grotevant et al., 2019).
Hence, the current paper introduces a cross-sectional study
on adoptive mothers and fathers of anonymously born chil-
dren. Following a comprehensive overview of the existing
literature, the focus is put on examining adoptive parents’
biographical knowledge of the adoptee’s birth parents and
on evaluating possible differences between adoptive mothers
and fathers regarding their mental health, attachment styles
and dyadic coping. Additionally, possible predictors of adop-
tive parents’dyadic coping are analyzed.
Biographical Knowledge in Anonymous Adoption
Currently, there is consensus that knowing about their birth
families and maintaining some form of contact with them is
beneficial to the adopted child (Von Korff & Grotevant,
2011). Biographical knowledge and contact are thought to
promote not only an adoptive identity formation (Farr et al.,
2018) and more positive family communication, but also to
reduce the risk of externalizing problems (Grotevant et al.,
2019). However, this type of openness is not always possible:
Apart from international adoptions, where the availability of
facts about the birth family may be limited (see Bird et al.,
2002; Roberson, 2006; Smith et al., 2018), safe surrender
programs like anonymous birth typically go along with even
less background information and no birth family contact at all
(see Orliss et al., 2019).
These programs allow for placing the newborn in a baby
hatch or for anonymously delivering the child in a hospital
without risking legal penalty (Grylli et al., 2016;Orlissetal.,
2019). In contrast to baby hatches, where no information is
typically conveyed, anonymously delivering the child in a
hospital offers the opportunity to (at least) record medical facts
related to the birth process. Also, the birth mother is encour-
aged by hospital and juvenile custody service staff to leave
information about herself (e.g. in the form of a letter or
photograph, Grylli et al., 2016). However, anecdotal evidence
shows that biographical information left by the birth mother/
the birth parents is limited, and establishment of contact with
the birth family is impossible (see Galliez et al., 2019).
Overall, there is a lack of data on safely surrendered chil-
dren (Orliss et al., 2019), and even less is known about the
impact of the type and extent of biographical knowledge on
adoptive parents of anonymously born children. Studies on
more open forms of adoption (international or domestic) pro-
vide some indication about the nature of this association:
while they generally show that attitudes towards openness –
be it biographical knowledge or communicative openness
(Henze-Pedersen, 2019)–vary greatly across adoptive fami-
lies (Grotevant et al., 2019), research has also found adoptive
mothers to report more negative or ambiguous feelings about
birth mother contact than adoptive fathers (Farr et al., 2018).
Consequently, further studies are needed to establish what and
how much adoptive parents know about the biographies of
their anonymously born children, and to determine whether
this knowledge is associated with better parental coping.
Differences between Adoptive Mothers and Adoptive
Fathers
Adoptive couples are faced with the task of promoting ade-
quate adjustment and secure attachment of the adopted child,
as well as to support the in understanding their adoptive iden-
tity (Hock & Mooradian, 2012;Roberson,2006). Typically,
adoptive mothers and fathers are both strongly engaged in
these tasks (Canzi et al., 2019a), and past research emphasizes
the specific contribution each parent makes to the child’sup-
bringing and welfare: For instance, it has been shown that
parents perceive the child’s temperament and mental health
differently (Felnhofer et al., 2019,2020;Pharesetal.,2005).
Accordingly, it has been assumed that mothers and fathers
may also perceive and handle parenting stress in a different
manner. While some studies (e.g. Rosnati et al., 2013)support
this, others (e.g. Ponnet et al., 2013) have failed to find a
difference, leaving it an open issue in this research domain.
In the context of adoption, adoptive fathers seem to consti-
tute a particular resource for the child’s adjustment and devel-
opment (Canzi et al., 2019a; Ferrari et al., 2015). Yet, most
adoption studies focus only on adoptive mothers (Canzi et al.,
2019b), strongly highlighting the necessity of considering
both. It is expected that examining adoptive mothers and
adoptive fathers separately, and comparing each of their per-
spectives will shed more light on the nature of how parents
cope with the unique task of adopting an anonymously born
child.
Adoptive Parents’Dyadic Coping
One crucial factor helping couples to deal with the demands of
parenting –independent of whether they are the biological or
adoptive parents –, is successful dyadic coping. Guided by the
Systemic Transactional Model (STM, Bodenmann, 1995), an
extension of Lazarus’and Folkman’s(1984) individual-
oriented stress model (Meuwly et al., 2012), dyadic coping
describes a couple’s ability to manage stress both on an indi-
vidual as well as on a dyadic level (i.e. joint appraisal of, and
response to stressors, Bodenmann et al., 2006). As such, it
considers the interdependence of handling stress as a couple
(Alves et al., 2020) and hence allows for a more in-depth
analysis of relationship functioning. In the Process Model of
Parenting (Belsky, 1984), stress is assumed to negatively im-
pact parenting behaviors, with negative consequences not on-
ly for the parents’own well-being, but also for the child’s
2720 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
welfare (Bodenmann, 2008; Zemp et al., 2016). In the past,
successful dyadic coping has been found to improve relation-
ship satisfaction, marital quality (Falconier et al., 2015;
Hilpert et al., 2016), dyadic adjustment and quality of life
(Alves et al., 2020).
While a reasonable amount of data on adoptive par-
ents’biographical knowledge of birth parents are avail-
able, dyadic coping in adoptive parents remains an
understudied subject. To our knowledge, so far only two
studies have examined dyadic coping in the context of
adoption. Hock and Mooradian (2012) found that positive
dyadic coping was linked to better co-parenting. Yet, this
association was tested only in adoptive mothers, leaving
open questions with regard to adoptive fathers. Canzi
et al. (2019a), in turn, only interviewed prospective adop-
tive parents. Hence, their results are likely not comparable
to those parents who are already in the midst of bringing
up an adoptee. Furthermore, both studies only focus on a
specific aspect of dyadic coping, not taking into account
the range of factors which may possibly impact it (see
Berg & Upchurch, 2007), such as contextual issues (e.g.,
socioeconomic status, biographical knowledge) and devel-
opmental factors (e.g., length of adoption).
Additionally, past studies (e.g. Canzi et al., 2019c)in-
dicate that children’s age at adoption and existing emo-
tional and behavioral difficulties predict both adoptive
mothers’and adoptive fathers’stress levels. Similarly,
parental mental health has been discussed to significantly
impact relationship quality and coping with stress (Viana
&Welsh,2010). Although a plethora of studies exists on
birth parents’mental health and adjustment to parenthood,
only few have examined these issues in adoptive parents
(Anthony et al., 2019). Among these, one has found that
adoptive parents with high depression levels prior to
adoption later tend to exhibit more parenting stress
(Goldberg & Smith, 2014). Finally, attachment style
(Bowlby, 1973) may also impact parenting. Past research
(Meuwly et al., 2012) suggests that those who perceive
and receive more positive coping from their partner, re-
cover faster from stress, and that this association is mod-
erated by attachment style and gender: Hence, women
with high attachment anxiety were less likely to benefit
from dyadic coping regarding stress recovery. Generally,
parents’own attachment experiences are thought to shape
their behavior towards their child, with insecurely at-
tached parents (i.e. dismissive, or ambivalent) exhibiting
more difficulties in adequately responding to the chil-
dren’s needs (Caltabiano & Thorpe, 2007). Past adoption
research has indeed found that successful caregiving may
be dependent on the adoptive mother’s secure attachment
style (Kaniuk et al., 2004), yet, the scarcity of research on
this subject –especially concerning adoptive fathers –
precludes definite conclusions.
Objective
Raising an anonymously born child presents a unique chal-
lenge for adoptive parents. Due to the anonymity of safe re-
linquishment, background information is usually scarce, and
contact with the birth family is not possible. While data for
more open forms of adoption are available, research on safely
surrendered children is insufficient (Orliss et al., 2019). Also,
there is a pending need to expand the focus by including
adoptive fathers when researching adoptive couples. Hence,
this study set out to evaluate the extent of biographical knowl-
edge in adoptive parents of anonymously born children.
Furthermore, key factors of parental well-being were com-
pared between adoptive mothers and fathers. Finally, possible
predictors of dyadic coping were analyzed.
Methods
Procedure and Participants
This is a cross sectional study on mothers and fathers who had
anonymously adopted a child. Participants were recruited via
three private adoption services and six public adoption offices
at the Austrian juvenile custody service, as well as via eight
resident pediatricians in Vienna. Adoptive mothers and fathers
with sufficient German language skills were eligible for par-
ticipation. Written informed consent was obtained from adop-
tive parents prior to their participation. Both adoptive parents
were invited to participate in this study; however, data were
also included if only one parent took part. Upon agreeing to
take part in the study, participants were free to choose whether
they preferred to complete a paper-pencil, or an online version
of the survey. If they preferred the paper-pencil question-
naires, they were sent via postal mail, including an addressed
return envelope and the instruction not to include any person-
alized information (i.e., address) to ensure anonymization. For
the online version, a link was provided which led to an online
survey programmed via the open-source platform SoSci
Survey (www.soscisurvey.de). Data were collected
anonymously, and no sensitive information (i.e. IP-address)
was stored. Participants did not receive any remuneration, and
ethical approval was granted by the local institutional review
board (#1354/2013).
Measures
The following demographic variables on the parents them-
selves, as well as on the adoptive child such as gender, current
age, age at adoption, time since adoption, highest educational
degree, marital status, years in relationship prior to adoption
etc. were collected. In addition, participants completed the
following questionnaires:
2721Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biographical Knowledge Regarding Birth Circumstances and
Biological Parents A questionnaire containing 40 checkboxes
was constructed on the basis of past research (e.g., Wrobel &
Grotevant, 2019) to assess whether adoptive parents had re-
ceived any personal biographical information on the biologi-
cal parents (i.e. age, country of origin, education, marital sta-
tus, genetic diseases) or on the circumstances of the birth (i.e.
birth date, place of birth, birth weight, type of delivery).
Furthermore, adoptive parents were asked whether they had
obtained any ‘memorials’(i.e. photos, letters, statements for
the abandoned child).
Parental Mental Health The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI,
Franke, 2000) was used to assess different aspects of parental
psychopathology. This questionnaire consists of 53 items
which are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 4 =
very strongly). Item ratings are summed up to a total score
representing global psychopathology, and nine subscales
representing specific mental health (somatization, obsessive-
compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety,
hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, psychoticism).
Higher values indicate higher levels of psychopathology.
The internal consistency is excellent for the total score
(α=.92) and low to acceptable (α> .60) for most subscales
(see also Franke, 2000). Clinically relevant psychopathology
scores were derived using gender and age specific T-scores,
with T-scores ≥60 indicating clinically relevant mental health
problems.
Attachment Style The Vulnerable Attachment Style
Questionnaire (VASQ, Bifulco et al., 2003)assessesbehav-
iors, emotions and attitudes related to attachment relationship
styles using 22 items (rated on a 5-point Likert scale, 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and results in two fac-
tors: the first factor (‘insecurity’) represents feelings and atti-
tudes relating to discomfort with closeness to others (e.g. in-
ability to trust, fear of being let down); the second factor
(‘proximity seeking’) comprises other-dependence or ap-
proach behavior (e.g. relying on others to make decisions,
being anxious when close people are away). Furthermore,
items are aggregated to a total score with higher values indi-
cating higher levels of vulnerable attachment. The internal
consistency for this study was α= .82 (insecurity) and
α= .67 (proximity seeking). The authors have proposed cut-
off values of 30 for the insecurity subscale and 27 for the
proximity-seeking subscale to define highly vulnerable
attachment.
Dyadic Coping The Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI,
Bodenmann, 2008) was designed to measure perceived com-
munication with the partner and dyadic coping in situations
when one or both partners are stressed. This self-report ques-
tionnaire comprises 35 items which are rated on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = very rarely, 5 = very often) and are summed
up to ten subscores and a total score. Two subscales describe
to which degree stress is communicated by oneself and by the
partner. Two subscales assess supportive dyadic coping,
which means that one partner provides problem- or emotion-
focused support if needed. Two subscales assess the degree of
delegated dyadic coping, which means that one partner takes
over responsibilities to reduce the partner’s stress. Two sub-
scales reflect the degree of negative dyadic coping (by oneself
and the partner), which includes hostile, ambivalent, or super-
ficial actions or words. Another subscale measures common
dyadic coping, which means that both partners work together
to handle stressful situations. The last subscale (‘evaluation of
dyadic coping’) represents the satisfaction of the support one
partner receives from the other partner. In addition to the sub-
scales, a total score is computed. Coping levels are regarded
average if this total score is above the cut-off of 111 (see
Bodenmann et al., 2018). In this study, the internal consisten-
cy was α= .91 for the total score and ranged between .61 and
.86 for the subscales.
Adoptive Child’s Mental Health The Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL, 2 versions: < 4 years, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000;≥
4 years, Achenbach, 1991) was used to assess adoptive
mothers’and fathers’perceptions of their adoptive child’s
mental health. This questionnaire encompasses a wide range
of internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems (101
items in the version for younger children, 112 items in the
version for older children) which are rated on a 3-point scale
(0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or
very often true). For the purpose of this study, only the total
problem score (sum of all items), representing the overall psy-
chological burden, was used. Cronbach’s alpha of the total
score was .96 (version for children <4 years) and .88 (version
for children, ≥4 years), respectively. We used T-scores based
on gender and age specific norms, which allows for merging
scores from the two CBCL versions. Higher scores indicate
higher levels of adoptive children’s mental health problems.
We additionally calculated z-scores to compare evaluations of
adoptive mother and fathers.
Results
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 (SPSS, Inc.
Chicago, USA). A significance level of p< 0.05 was used for
all analyses. We calculated descriptive statistics (means, stan-
dard deviations, percentages) to describe the study population
and biographical knowledge on biological parents (separately
for adoptive parents’gender). We used Student t-tests (for
continuous variables, including effect sizes in terms of
Cohen’sd)andχ
2
-tests (for categorical variables) to analyze
differences between outcome variables obtained from
2722 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
adoptive mothers and fathers. Furthermore, a hierarchical lin-
ear regression was performed to identify possible predictors of
parental dyadic coping.
Sample
The participants’flow is shown in Fig. 1. Of 169 datasets
received, 67 had to be excluded due to incomplete data (n=
51). To ensure homogeneity of the sample and thus, compar-
ison of the data, reports from adoptive parents whose adoptive
child had been placed in a baby hatch (n= 16) were excluded
from the analysis. Finally, data from 62 adoptive mothers and
40 adoptive fathers of anonymously adopted children (n=
102; 86.3% online questionnaire, 13.7% paper-pencil form)
were included in the analysis. The age ranged between 34 and
77 years for mothers (M = 45.35, SD = 6.30) and between 33
and 62 years for fathers (M = 46.45, SD = 6.52). Overall,
55.7% of adoptive mothers and 57.5% of adoptive fathers
had a university degree, the majority of participants were mar-
ried, or lived in partnership, and 56.5% of adoptive mothers
and 62.5% of adoptive fathers lived in an urban area (see
Table 1). There were no significant differences between adop-
tive mothers and adoptive fathers with regard to key demo-
graphic variables, only the percentage of participants with
full-time employment was significantly higher in adoptive
fathers (85.0%) compared to mothers (17.7%). The parents’
age when adopting the child was 38 years (mothers), respec-
tively 37 years (fathers) on average. The average time since
adopting the child was 6.82 years (SD = 3.27) in adoptive
mothers and 7.42 years (SD = 4.02) in adoptive fathers.
Adoptive children’s overall age ranged between 2 and 17 years
(M = 6.04, SD = 3.52). Their mental health problems were
rated within the norm of the general population of children
(T-score M = 50.28, SD = 12.18) with no differences emerg-
ing between adoptive mothers’and fathers’evaluations (z-
scores: mother: M = 0.01 (SD = 0.95), father: M = -0.02
(SD = 1.08); t(100) = 0.136, p= .892, d = 0.03).
Biographical Knowledge Regarding Birth
Circumstances and Biological Parents
The biographical knowledge regarding birth circumstances, or
the biological parents was generally low among adoptive par-
ents (see Table 2). Of the 40 factors assessed, on average,
adoptive mothers reported to know only of M = 10.42 (SD =
4.91) factors, while fathers knew of M = 10.00 (SD = 4.35)
factors (t(100) = 0.440; p= .661, d = 0.09). On average,
93.5% of adoptive mothers and 95.0% of fathers were able
to name at least some background information on birth cir-
cumstances, with no difference between parents. While the
knowledge of any personal information on the biological
mother was reported by 72.6% of adoptive mothers and
77.5% of adoptive fathers, personal information on the
biological father was scarce among adoptive parents (mothers:
17.7%, fathers: 22.5%). Memorials of the biological mother
(such as photos, letters) were available to 69.4% of adoptive
mothers and to 60.0% of adoptive fathers, with letters being
by far the most commonly relayed memorial. Memorials of
the biological father, in turn, were rarely available (1.6% and
5.0%).
Differences between Adoptive Mothers and Fathers
As assessed by the BSI total score, there was no significant
difference (t(97) = 0.767, p= .445, d = 0.16) between adoptive
mothers’(M = 7.20, SD = 7.30) and fathers’(M = 6.05, SD =
8.26) psychopathology. When considering the subscales,
higher levels of anxiety were observed in adoptive mothers
as compared to adoptive fathers (t(100) = 2.330, p=.022,d=
0.48), all other subscales were non-significant. With regard to
dyadic coping, adoptive mothers and fathers showed similar
total DCI scores (t(96) = 1.328, p= .187, d = 0.27). Yet, sig-
nificantly higher levels of stress communicated by oneself
(t(97) = 3.273, p< .001, d = 0.67) and common dyadic coping
(t(97) = 2.225, p= .028, d = 0.46) were reported by adoptive
mothers as compared to adoptive fathers. No significant pa-
rental differences were observed for the total VASQ score, or
any of the subscales. See Table 3for more details.
Additionally, we compared all total scores to the according
clinical cut-offs to assess whether adoptive parents fell into the
clinical problem score range. Regarding parental psychopa-
thology, 3.3% of adoptive mothers 2.6% of adoptive fathers
showed clinically relevant scores (χ
2
(1) = 0.048, p= .827).
Regarding dyadic coping, below average scores were ob-
served in 18.6% of adoptive mothers and 20.5% of adoptive
fathers (χ
2
(1) = 0.052, p= .819). Vulnerable attachment in
terms of insecurity was found in 15.3% of adoptive mothers
and 10.3% of adoptive fathers (χ
2
(1) = 0.510, p=.475),while
vulnerable proximity seeking scores were observed in 40.7%
of adoptive mothers and 38.5% of adoptive fathers (χ
2
(1) =
0.048, p=.826).
Predictors of Dyadic Coping
Finally, we performed hierarchical linear regression models to
analyze whether the total number of known background fac-
tors, the adoptive child’s psychopathology, parental psycho-
pathology and parental attachment style predicted parental
dyadic coping when controlling for adoptive parents’and
child’s gender and age, as well as time since adoption.
Model fit parameters and regression coefficients of the final
models are shown in Table 4. A higher number of known
background factors was significantly associated with better
dyadic coping (β=.251, p= .013) when controlling for par-
ent’s and child’s gender and age, and time since adoption.
Furthermore, higher levels of a child’s psychopathology was
2723Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
significantly associated with worse dyadic coping (β=−334,
p= .002). There was a tendency for a similar relationship be-
tween parental psychopathology and dyadic coping, but this
association did not reach statistical significance (p= .067).
Moreover, the adoptive parents’and the adoptee’s age signif-
icantly predicted dyadic coping. The parents’gender was not
significantly associated with dyadic coping when controlling
for the other predictors in the model. All sets of predictors in
the model explained 34.6% of the variance in dyadic coping.
Discussion
Given the insufficient data on anonymously born children,
and in view of the particularities surrounding this type of
adoption (i.e., limited biographical information), the current
study had the goal of exploring the field. The main objectives
were to examine how much biographical information is
available to adoptive parents, to evaluate differences between
adoptive mothers and adoptive fathers, and to better under-
stand what affects their dyadic coping.
Biographical Knowledge
Generally, biographical knowledge was low in our adoptive
parent sample. On average, adoptive mothers and adoptive
fathers were able to name only 10 out of 40 biographical
factors. Among these, there was more information available
on the birth mother than on the birth father. Particularly, de-
mographic data, such as the birth mother’s age and education
were more accessible to adoptive parents than specifics of the
birth mother’s personal details (e.g. talents), or medical histo-
ries (e.g. genetic diseases). In comparison, no information at
all was available on the biological father’shealth.
The lack of knowledge about the birth parents’health and/
or pre-existing illnesses is particularly relevant, as past studies
Fig. 1 Participants’flow
2724 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
have shown that adoptees most frequently seek to learn more
about their birth parents’medical and health histories (Wrobel
& Grotevant, 2019). According to the Adoption Curiosity
Pathway (ACP, Wrobel & Dillon, 2009) this need becomes
particularly pressing with time, peaking during transition into
adulthood (see Skinner-Drawz et al., 2011). Apart from the
individual’s curiosity to learn more about one’s biography,
research on international adoption indicates that unknown
medical histories are associated with inherent risk factors to
the child’s development and welfare (Orliss et al., 2019). As
such, inaccessible medical records may also pose a stressor to
adoptive parents.
Generally, extant literature suggests that adoptive parents
seek ways of making biographical information available to
their adoptive child, and that they themselves are curious
about the child’s past (Shaw, 2011). Here, anonymous birth
–in contrast to placement in a baby hatch –provides the
advantage that the child’s birth (e.g. type of delivery) may
be documented by hospital staff (Galliez et al., 2019;Grylli
et al., 2016). This fact is also reflected in the current findings:
The majority of adoptive mothers and fathers reported to pos-
sess such information. In addition, anonymously delivering
women are encouraged to attend ante-natal care as early as
possible (Grylli et al., 2016). This not only ensures adequate
medical care, but also allows recording pregnancy related
health issues. The present findings suggests that there may
be room for improvement in informing and motivating anon-
ymously delivering women to make use of this offer.
In addition to medical histories, finding out more about the
birth parents’reason for giving the child up for adoption, or
learning about the birth parent’s personality and how she or he
is doing, may also drive adoptees’and adoptive parents’cu-
riosity (Wrobel & Dillon, 2009). In our sample, about 70% of
adoptive parents reported to possess a memorial of the biolog-
ical mothers, the most common form being a letter or a state-
ment of reasons for leaving the child behind. However, only
Table 1 Sample characteristics of adoptive mothers, adoptive fathers, and adopted children
Adoptive mothers
(N=62)
Adoptive fathers
(N=40)
Group difference
Test statistic (df) p
Age (mean, SD) 45.35 (6.30) 46.45 (6.52) t(98)= 0.829 .402
Highest educational degree
University degree (N, %) 34 (55.7%) 23 (57.5%) χ
2
(1)= 0.031 .861
Below university degree (N, %) 27 (44.3%) 17 (42.5%)
Missing (N, %) 1
Marital status
Marriedorlivinginpartnership(N,%) 62(100%) 39(97.5%) χ
2
(1) =1.565 .211
Divorced or widowed (N, %) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.5%)
Age at adoption (mean, SD) 38.39 (5.50) 36.91 (6.89) t(93) =1.148 .254
Years in relationship prior to adoption 13.46 (5.14) 12.56 (4.79) t(88) =0.810 .420
Time since adoption in years (mean, SD) 6.82 (3.27) 7.42 (4.02) t(92) =0.788 .433
Employment status χ
2
(2) =44.853 < .001
Full employment (N, %) 11 (17.7%) 34 (85.0%)
Part-time employment (N, %) 41 (66.1%) 4 (10.0%)
Other (N, %) 10 (16.1%) 2 (5.0%)
Size of residence
a
χ
2
(1) =0.367 .545
Urban (N, %) 35 (56.5%) 25 (62.5%)
Rural (N, %) 27 (43.5%) 15 (37.5%)
Gender - adoptive child χ
2
(1)= <0.001 .987
Female (N, %) 34 (54.8%) 22 (55.0%)
Male (N, %) 28 (45.2%) 18 (45.0%)
Age –adoptive child (mean, SD) 5.76 (3.38) 6.48 (3.73) t(100) =1.004 .318
CBCL total problems
T-score (mean, SD) 50.18 (12.16) 50.45 (12.36) t(100) =0.110 .913
z-score (mean, SD) 0.01 (0.95) -0.02 (1.06) t(100) =0.136 .892
Urban: > 10.000 inhabitants, Rural: ≤10.000 inhabitants
CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist
2725Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 2 Biographical knowledge regarding birth circumstances and biological parents
Adoptive mothers
(N= 62)
Adoptive fathers
(N=40)
Group difference
Test statistic (df) p
All background factors (sum) (Mean, SD) 10.42 (4.91) 10.00 (4.35) t(100)=0.440 .661
Birth circumstances (sum) (Mean, SD) 5.76 (2.12) 5.50 (2.03) t(100)= 0.661 .542
Birth circumstances (any) (%) 93.5% 95.0% χ
2
(1)= 0.093 .761
Place of birth of adoptive child (%) 91.9% 92.5%
Birth date of adoptive child (%) 90.3% 90.0%
Birth weight of adoptive child (%) 88.7% 85.0%
Type of delivery (%) 85.5% 85.0%
Medical newborn screening (%) 80.6% 72.5%
Duration of inpatients stay after delivery (%) 58.1% 60.0%
Place of residence before adoption (%) 43.5% 35.0%
Medical care during pregnancy (%) 16.1% 15.0%
Time when pregnancy detected (%) 12.9% 7.5%
Medical complications during pregnancy (%) 8.1% 7.5%
Personal info of biol. Mother (sum) (Mean, SD) 2.81 (2.86) 2.43 (2.07) t(100)= 0.728 .468
Personal info of biol. Mother (any) (%) 72.6% 77.5% χ
2
(1)= 0.310 .578
Age (%) 56.5% 50.0%
Country of origin (%) 41.9% 40.0%
Physical Appearance (%) 37.1% 32.5%
Citizenship (%) 32.3% 30.0%
Education / Occupation (%) 29.0% 32.5%
Marital status (%) 27.4% 20.0%
Personal preferences (%) 17.7% 12.5%
Medical information (%) 16.1% 10.0%
Personal talents (%) 8.1% 5.0%
Religious belief (%) 6.5% 7.5%
Genetic diseases (%) 4.8% 2.5%
Genetic link between biol. Parents (%) 3.2% 0.0%
Personal info of biol. Father (sum) (mean, SD) 0.47 (1.14) 0.50 (1.09) t(100)= 0.142 .887
Personal info of biol. Father (any) (%) 17.7% 22.5% χ
2
(1)= 0.349 .555
Country of origin (%) 11.3% 12.5%
Marital status (%) 8.1% 10.0%
Age (%) 8.1% 5.0%
Education / Occupation (%) 8.1% 5.0%
Physical Appearance (%) 4.8% 5.0%
Citizenship (%) 3.2% 5.0%
Medical information (%) 1.6% 2.5%
Personal talents (%) 1.6% 2.5%
Genetic link between biol. Parents (%) 0.0% 2.5%
Religious belief (%) 0.0% 0.0%
Genetic diseases (%) 0.0% 0.0%
Personal preferences (%) 0.0% 0.0%
Memorials of biol. Mother (sum) (Mean, SD) 0.95 (0.82) 0.90 (0.93) t(100)= 0.295 .769
Memorials of biol. Mother (any) (%) 69.4% 60.0% χ
2
(1)= 0.944 .331
Letter (%) 35.5% 35.0%
Photos (%) 9.7% 10.0%
Statement reasons for leaving child behind (%) 50.0% 45.0%
Memorials of biol. Father (sum) (Mean, SD) 0.02 (0.13) 0.05 (0.22) t(100)= 0.983 .328
2726 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
about 50% of women left information on why she was not
able to raise the child (Bonnet, 1999). This emphasizes the
need to rework the processes surrounding anonymous deliv-
ery. Medical staff should strive to gather as much medical
information as possible whilst maintaining the birth mother’s
anonymity.
Differences between Adoptive Mothers and Fathers
Only few differences emerged between adoptive parents in the
present study: Adoptive mothers reported to be more anxious
than adoptive fathers. Also, mothers rated their ability to com-
municate stress as better, and indicated the couple’scapacity
to conjointly cope with stress as higher than did adoptive
fathers.
Higher levels of anxiety in adoptive mothers correspond
with the consistently higher prevalence of anxiety disorders
among women (McLean et al., 2011). However, comparisons
of current and past results are complicated by the fact that only
few studies focus on anxiety in adoptive parents; and those
that do so, fail to analyze adoptive mothers and fathers sepa-
rately (Anthony et al., 2019). One of the few existing studies
(Mott et al., 2011) examined adoptive mothers and found their
anxiety levels to be lower than those of birth mothers. This
may be due to the fact that adoptive mothers –contrary to birth
mothers –do not go through hormonal changes and the expe-
rience of delivery. Instead, however, they are confronted with
other stressors such as infertility (Daniluk & Hurtig-Mitchell,
2003), the application for adoption, undergoing agency eval-
uations, as well as the fear that their application may be
contested, or that the birth parents may reclaim the child
(Anthony et al., 2019). As such, the role of anxiety in adoptive
mothers –particularly in comparison to adoptive fathers –
warrants further investigation.
Interestingly, while adoptive mothers reported more anxi-
ety in our study, they also rated their ability to communicate
stress and their common dyadic coping as higher than did
adoptive fathers. Hence, women raising an anonymously born
child reported to communicate their stress more often to their
partner and to more frequently ask for their according support
than did adoptive fathers. Additionally, they assessed their
conjoint coping strategies as more favorable than did adoptive
fathers, i.e., stating more often that they –as a couple –en-
gaged in mutual problem solving and emotion sharing.
Given that for women, in particular, both their own dyadic
coping and that of their partner has been found to impact
marital quality over time (Bodenmann et al., 2006), high cop-
ing scores for both the relationship dimension and themselves
may be regarded a positive sign. Also, our findings support
prior research on both non-adoptive couples (Bodenmann
et al., 2006) and adoptive couples (Canzi et al., 2019a), which
shows that the partner’s coping is more important for women
than vice versa. The current study for the first time not only
investigated dyadic coping in parents who already raised an
adopted child (in contrast to Canzi et al., 2019a,who
examined prospective adoptive parents), but also made an
effort to account for gender differences (Hock & Mooradian,
2012 only assessed adoptive mothers). As such, it sheds more
light on a hitherto under-investigated subject.
Predictors of Dyadic Coping
In the current study, adoptees’psychopathology and age, as
well as adoptive parents’age and biographical knowledge all
emerged as significant predictors of adoptive parents’dyadic
coping. Additionally, parents’mental health barely failed to
reach significance, indicating a trend that worse parental men-
tal health is associated with worse dyadic coping. Past data
show an impact of parental psychopathologies on relationship
quality and stress coping (Viana & Welsh, 2010), notably in
the context of raising an adoptee (Goldberg & Smith, 2014).
Yet, further research is needed to confirm this tendency.
The strongest predictor of parental dyadic coping was child
psychopathology. The more externalizing and internalizing
problems adoptive parents identified in their adoptive child,
the less positive dyadic coping abilities they reported for
themselves. It is known that health problems in children affect
parents’stress levels and parental coping –notonlyinbiolog-
ical, but also in adoptive parents (Canzi et al., 2019c; Smith
et al., 2018; Viana & Welsh, 2010). While this seems to be
Table 2 (continued)
Adoptive mothers
(N = 62)
Adoptive fathers
(N = 40)
Group difference
Test statistic (df) p
Memorials of biol. Father (any) (%) 1.6% 5.0% χ
2
(1)= 0.977 .323
Statement reasons for leaving child behind (%) 1.6% 2.5%
Letter (%) 0.0% 2.5%
Photos (%) 0.0% 0.0%
Biol.,Biological
2727Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
true also for our sample, it must be noted that, in general,
children’s psychopathology scores were largely rated as clin-
ically inconspicuous in our study (mean T-score around 50).
Yet, a restriction is that the effects between parental dyadic
coping and child psychopathology are likely bidirectional,
with recent findings suggesting an influence of negative dy-
adic coping on internalizing and externalizing symptoms in
children (Zemp et al., 2016). Longitudinal designs are needed
to take this interdependence of child and parental well-being
into account, and adoption services are called upon to imple-
ment interventions supporting not only adoptive parents but
the whole family system (Hock & Mooradian, 2012).
In addition to child psychopathology, older parents’age
and younger adoptees’age were both associated with better
dyadic coping. Consistent with prior research on non-adoptive
couples (Acquati & Kayser, 2019), older adoptive parents
reported more successful dyadic coping than younger ones
in our study. In general, coping abilities tend to increase with
age, and vulnerability to distress is documented to decrease
with age (e.g. Revenson, 2003). Additional determinants of a
couple’s dyadic coping are contextual factors like finances
and lifestyle (Acquati & Kayser, 2019). Adoptive parents rep-
resent a particular selection of couples, as they a priori tend to
be older, financially secure (Calvo et al., 2015; Smith et al.,
2018) and well-educated. Also, they have often been in a
relationship longer and are screened beforehand regarding
their fitness to become parents (Calvo et al., 2015; Lee et al.,
2018;Roberson,2006). Thus, they are likely to have a lengthy
period of transitioning into parenthood. All of the above may
act as protective factors with regard to the couple’srelation-
ship, as well as their ability to cope with parental demands.
With regard to the adoptive child’s age as a predictor of
dyadic coping, there are to our knowledge no definite accounts
in the extant literature. Both are assumed to vary over time (e.g.,
Neece et al., 2012), as development-specific challenges such as
the need to find out more about their biographies (see Skinner-
Drawz et al., 2011; Wrobel & Dillon, 2009) are likely to exert
an age-dependent influence on parental coping.
Table 3 Difference between adoptive mothers and adoptive fathers regarding mental health, dyadic coping and attachment styles
Outcome variable Adoptive mothers Adoptive fathers Test statistic Effect size
Mean SD Mean SD t(df) pCohen’sd95% CI
BSI –Total score 7.20 7.30 6.05 7.26 0.767 (97) .445 0.16 [−0.25; 0.56]
Somatization 0.87 1.21 0.51 1.00 1.517 (97) .132 0.31 [−0.09; 0.72]
Obsessive-Compulsive 1.32 1.80 1.03 1.55 0.830 (97) .409 0.17 [−0.23; 0.57]
Interpersonal Sensitivity 0.68 0.95 0.51 0.89 0.898 (97) .372 0.19 [−0.22; 0.59]
Depression 0.42 0.79 0.44 1.07 −0.103 (97) .918 −0.02 [−0.42; 0.38]
Anxiety 0.87 1.16 0.39 0.71 2.330 (97) .022 0.48 [0.07; 0.89]
Hostility 1.133 1.37 1.00 1.15 .503 (97) .616 0.10 [−0.30; 0.51]
Phobic Anxiety 0.22 0.61 0.41 0.72 −1.437 (97) .154 −0.30 [−0.70; 011]
Paranoid Ideation 0.90 1.40 0.77 1.27 0.472 (97) .638 0.10 [−0.31; 0.50]
Psychoticism 0.13 0.39 0.33 1.06 −1.333 (97) .186 −0.27 [−0.68; 0.13]
Total DCI Score 128.51 21.55 122.90 18.69 1.328 (96) .187 0.27 [−0.13; 0.68]
Stress communicated by oneself 14.92 2.593 12.85 3.70 3.273 (97) <.001 0.67 [0.26; 1.09]
Supportive dyadic coping by oneself 19.27 3.463 17.97 3.65 1.775 (96) .079 0.37 [−0.04; 0.77]
Delegated dyadic coping by oneself 7.63 1.790 7.87 1.32 −0.732 (96) .466 −0.15 [−0.56; 0.25]
Negative dyadic coping by oneself 17.29 2.901 16.51 2.99 1.279 (96) .204 0.26 [−0.14; 0.67]
Stress communication of the partner 13.03 3.667 14.10 2.89 −1.531 (96) .129 −0.32 [−0.72; 0.09]
Supportive dyadic coping of the partner 18.90 4.784 18.05 3.98 0.916 (96) .362 0.19 [−0.22; 0.59]
Delegated dyadic coping of the partner 7.48 1.951 6.85 2.20 1.485 (96) .141 0.31 [−0.10; 0.71]
Negative dyadic coping by the partner 16.88 3.691 16.97 2.69 −0.135 (96) .893 −0.03 [−0.43; 0.38]
Common dyadic coping 17.00 3.849 15.26 3.75 2.225 (97) .028 0.46 [0.05; 0.87]
Evaluation of dyadic coping 7.97 1.983 7.77 1.60 0.521 (97) .603 0.11 [−0.30; 0.51]
Total VASQ score 48.90 9.43 48.13 8.33 0.414 (96) .680 0.09 [−0.32; 0.49]
Insecurity 23.07 5.49 23.36 5.72 −0.253 (96) .801 −0.05 [−0.46; 0.35]
Proximity Seeking 25.83 5.70 24.77 5.01 0.945 (96) .347 0.20 [−0.21; 0.60]
Statistically significant differences (p< .05) are printed in bold
BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; DCI, Dyadic Coping Inventory; VASQ, Vulnerable Attachment Style Questionnaire
2728 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Finally, biographical knowledge emerged as a predictor of
dyadic coping. In other words, more biographical knowledge
–represented by the higher number of mentioned facts –was
significantly associated with better dyadic coping in adoptive
couples. As mentioned above, adoptive parents have a vested
interest in learning more about their child’spast–to satisfy
their own curiosity (Shaw, 2011) and to support their child in
developing an adoptive identity (Farr et al., 2018). Not know-
ing about the adoptee’s history may constitute a stressor (see
Bird et al., 2002), and the ability to fill these gaps in knowl-
edge may in turn reduce stress in adoptive couples.
Accordingly, openness in adoption has been shown to posi-
tively impact family communication and stress (Grotevant
et al., 2019). This study –to our knowledge –is the first to
show that this is also true for adoptive parents’dyadic coping.
Limitations and Conclusion
A strength of the present study lies in the fact that it considers
a previously understudied sample, i.e., adoptive mothers and
adoptive fathers of an anonymously born child. It focuses on
key variables which are known to shape parental ability to
cope with stress, and it accounts for possible mother-father-
differences. Apart from these assets, however, there are also
several limitations to this study.
Most importantly, a cross-sectional design is not fit to cap-
ture changes over time. Stressors are expected to vary over
time and hence, longitudinal studies are needed to better re-
flect the processual nature of adoptive parenting. Similarly,
causal relationships cannot be determined based on a single
assessment. Also, claims about influences of pre-existing
mental health issues or pre-adoption attachment styles are pre-
cluded with the current design. In a similar vein, this study
relied on independent samples. While these are valid for
assessing differences between mothers and fathers, dyadic
analyses would provide more insight into couple dynamics,
particularly with regard to dyadic coping (Bodenmann et al.,
2006). Also, they would allow for a more comprehensive
analysis of parental accounts of child psychopathology.
While in our study reports did not differ, past research (see
meta-analyses of Achenbach et al., 1987, and Duhig et al.,
2000) unanimously points at only moderate agreement be-
tween mothers and fathers. Additionally, self-report measures
pose several limitations: Using the same source for reporting
(e.g. on child psychopathology and one’s own mental health)
tends to inflate associations (Hails et al., 2019), and socially
Table 4 Hierarchical linear regression analysis predicting parental dyadic coping
Outcome: Parental dyadic coping (DCI total score)
Model summary R R
2
ΔR
2
Δp
Model 1
a
.241 .058 .058 .396
Model 2
b
.345 .119 .061 .018
Model 3
c
.543 .295 .177 <.001
Model 4
d
.588 .346 .051 .048
Regression coefficients (model 3) b (SE) Beta tp
Intercept 193.157 (22.50) 8.583 <.001
Gender (parent)
e
5.851 (3.96) .134 1.478 .143
Age (parent) −1.127 (0.42) −.319 −2.685 .009
Gender (child)
e
−1.404 (3.85) −.033 −0.365 .716
Age (child) 2.702 (1.23) .457 2.205 .030
Time since adoption −0.983 (1.23) −.168 −0.798 .427
Number of known background factors 1.143 (0.45) .251 2.531 .013
Adoptive child’s psychopathology −0.592 (0.18) −.334 −3.228 .002
Parental psychopathology −0.603 (0.33) −.200 −1.855 .067
Parental attachment styles −0.216 (0.23) −.093 −0.931 .355
Statistically significant results (p< .05) are printed in bold
a
Predictors included: Gender, age (adoptive parents and children), time since adoption;
b
Predictors included: Gender, age (adoptive parents and children), time since adoption, number of known background factors;
c
Predictors included: Gender, age (adoptive parents and children), time since adoption, number of known background factors, child’s psychopathology
(CBCL total score);
d
Predictors included: Gender, age (adoptive parents and children), time since adoption, number of known background factors, child’s psychopathology
(CBCL total score), parental psychopathology (BSI total score), Parental attachment style (VASQ total score)
e
1 = male, 2 = female
2729Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
desirable responses, poor self-reflection and misunderstand-
ing of items may limit generalizability. Correspondingly,
mailing questionnaires or using online tools limits the ability
to determine who participated. Reverting to different sources
and behavioral measures could counteract this problem in fu-
ture research. Also, with a mean age of 6 years, the current
sample of adoptees was quite young. This fact precludes con-
clusions about older adoptees (e.g. adolescents or those at the
verge of transition into adulthood) who may face other chal-
lenges than younger adoptees. Finally, adding a parallelized
control group of biological parents –instead of comparing
scores to the norm population –would undoubtedly strength-
en the study’s validity (see Caballo et al., 2001).
Despite these limitations, the current results are both
valuable in terms of guiding future research endeavors,
and for improving social service policies tailored to the par-
ticularities of safe surrender programs like anonymous
birth. Given the importance of biographical knowledge for
both, adoptive children and adoptive parents, policies
should include solutions for how to reach women who wish
to deliver anonymously. Above all, knowledge on the pos-
sibility to anonymously attend pre-natal care and awareness
of the significance of leaving biographical data or personal
memoires (letter, photographs) should be promoted.
Similarly, medical staff should be trained in how to sensibly
motivate anonymously delivering women to leave personal
information whilst giving them the security of remaining
anonymous. Furthermore, this underlines the need to strive
for replacing baby hatches by anonymous birth practices, as
the latter offer a greater chance of collecting biographical
information. This is also crucial given that there are many
countries which only have the option of placing a newborn
in a baby hatch and do not promote anonymous birth (see
http://anonymegeburt.at/en/anogeb-eur-map/).
To be able to develop and provide approaches which are
tailored to the needs of affected women, research should strive
to include these women in corresponding studies. At this
point, there is only very limited data on anonymously deliv-
ering women and there is a definite lack of knowledge on their
reasons for choosing anonymous birth and safe relinquish-
ment (Bonnet, 1993).
The present study paved the ground for further research on
the specific roles and needs of adoptive mothers and fathers.
Particularly, the increased level of anxiety in adoptive mothers
found in the current sample warrants further study with regard
to its causes. Specific predictors of parenting fears in the con-
text of adoption (e.g. the fear that the child may be reclaimed)
should be evaluated separately to determine their impact.
Also, these fears should be addressed by adoption services
and prospective adoptive parents should be educated about
the unique challenges linked to anonymous birth. Finally,
the reciprocity regarding parents’and children’swell-being
warrants interventions which target the whole family system.
Funding Open access funding provided by Medical University of
Vienna.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro-
vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were
made. The images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a
credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18
and 1991 profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/
adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of
cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.
Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.101.2.213.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA
Preschool Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research
Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Acquati, C., & Kayser, K. (2019). Dyadic coping across the lifespan: A
comparison between younger and middle-aged couples with breast
cancer. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,404.https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00404.
Alves, S., Fonseca, A., Canavarro, M. C., & Pereira, M. (2020). Does
dyadic coping predict couples’postpartum psychosocial adjust-
ment? A dyadic longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,
2401. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.561091.
Anthony, R. E., Paine, A. L., & Shelton, K. H. (2019). Depression and
anxiety symptoms of British adoptive parents: A prospective four-
wave longitudinal study. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(24), 5153. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ijerph16245153.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child
Development, 55,83–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129836.
Berg, C. A., & Upchurch, R. (2007). A developmental-contextual model
of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span.
Psychological Bulletin, 133(6), 920–954.
Bifulco, A., Mahon, J., Kwon, J. H., Moran, P. M., & Jacobs, C. (2003).
The vulnerable attachment style questionnaire (VASQ): An
interview-based measure of attachment styles that predict depressive
disorder. Psychological Medicine, 33(6), 1099–1110. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920.
Bird, G. W., Peterson, R., & Miller, S. H. (2002). Factors associated with
distress among support-seeking adoptive parents. Family Relations,
51(3), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00215.x.
Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic–transactional conceptualization of
stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54,34–
49.
2730 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Bodenmann, G. (2008). Dyadisches coping inventar: Testmanual. [dy-
adic coping inventory].Huber.
Bodenmann, G., Arista, L. J., Walsh, K. J., & Randall, A. K. (2018).
Dyadic coping inventory. In Encyclopedia of couple and family
therapy (pp. 1–5). Springer, Cham.
Bodenmann, G., Pihet,S., & Kayser, K. (2006).The relationship between
dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0893-3200.20.3.485.
Bonnet, C. (1993). Adoption at birth: Prevention against abandonment or
neonaticide. Child Abuse Negl, 17(4), 501-513. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0145-2134(93)90025-z.
Bonnet, C. (1999). Maternités impossibles et accouchement sous X. La
Lettre du gynécologue, 238,11–13.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety
and anger. In Attachment and loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety
and anger (pp. 1–429). The Hogarth press and the institute of psy-
cho-analysis.
Caballo,R.,Lansford,J.E.,Abbey,A.,&Stewart,A.J.(2001).
Theoretical perspectives on adoptive families' well-being: Which
comparison groups are most appropriate? Marriage & Family
Review, 33(4), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v33n04_07.
Caltabiano, M. L., & Thorpe, R. (2007). Attachment style of foster carers
and caregiving role performance. Child Care in Practice, 13(2),
137–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575270701201201.
Calvo, V., Palmieri, A., Codamo, A., Scampoli, M. R., & Bianco, F.
(2015). Perceptions of parental bonding, adult attachment, and mar-
ital adjustment in prospective adoptive parents. An empirical study
in the pre-adoptive period. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 30(4),
419–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2014.1001355.
Canzi, E., Donato, S., Ferrari, L., Parise, M., Pagani, A. F., Lopez, G.,
Rosnati, R., & Ranieri, S. (2019a). “What makes us strong?”:
Dyadic coping in Italian prospective adoptive couples. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10,399.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00399.
Canzi, E., Molgora, S., Fenaroli, V., Rosnati, R., Saita, E., & Ranieri, S.
(2019b). “Your stress is my stress”: A dyadic study on adoptive and
biological first-time parents. Couple and Family Psychology:
Research and Practice, 8(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cfp0000127.
Canzi, E., Ranieri, S., Barni, D., & Rosnati, R. (2019c). Predictors of
parenting stress during early adoptive parenthood. Current
Psychology, 38(3), 811–820.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-
9657-x.
Daniluk, J. C., & Hurtig-Mitchell, J. (2003). Themes of hope and healing:
Infertile couples’experiences of adoption. JournalofCounseling
and Development, 81(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2003.tb00265.x.
Duhig, A. M., Renk, K., Epstein, M. K., & Phares, V. (2000).
Interparental agreement on internalizing, externalizing, and Total
problems: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 7,435–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.7.4.435.
Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. B., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2015).
Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Clinical Psychology Review, 42,28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpr.2015.07.002.
Farr, R. H., Ravvina, Y., & Grotevant, H. D. (2018). Birth family contact
experiences among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents
with school-age children. Family Relations, 67(1), 132–146. https://
doi.org/10.1111/fare.12295.
Felnhofer, A., Bussek, T., Goreis, A., Kafka, J. X., König, D., Klier, C.,
Zesch, H., & Kothgassner, O. D. (2020). Mothers’and fathers’
perspectives on the causes of their Child’s disorder. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 45(7), 803–811. https://doi.org/10.1093/
jpepsy/jsaa056.
Felnhofer, A., Goreis, A., Bussek, T., Kafka, J. X., König, D., Klier, C.,
Zesch, H., & Kothgassner, O. D. (2019). Evaluating parents’and
Children’s assessments of competence, health related quality of life
and illness perception. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(10),
2690–2699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01449-x.
Ferrari, L., Ranieri, S., Barni, D., & Rosnati, R. (2015). Parent-child
relationship and adoptees’psychological well-being in adolescence
and emerging adulthood: Disentangling maternal and paternal con-
tribution. Family Science, 6(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19424620.2015.1081005.
Franke, G. H. (2000). Brief symptom inventory vonDerogatis (BSI).Beltz
Test.
Galliez, S., Klier, C., Felnhofer, A., & Kernreiter, J. (2019). Die Anonyme
Geburt in Österreich: Aktuelle Durchführungspraxis und
Optimierungspotential aus Anlass der Volljährigkeit der vom
Erlass vom 27. Juli 2001 über Babynest und anonyme Geburt
JMZ 4.600/42-I.1/2001betroffenen Personen, http://
anonymegeburt.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/REPORT_
ANOGEB_%C3%96_Version1.pdf Accessed 15 October 2020.
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2014). Predictors of parenting stress in
lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents during early parent-
hood. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 125–137. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0036007.
Grotevant, H. D., Wrobel, G. M., Fiorenzo, L., Lo, A. Y., & McRoy, R.
G. (2019). Trajectories of birth family contact in domestic adop-
tions. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/
10.1037/fam0000449.
Grylli, C., Brockington, I., Fiala, C., Huscsava, M., Waldhoer, T., &
Klier, C. M. (2016). Anonymous birth law saves babies—
Optimization, sustainability and public awareness. Archives of
Women's Mental Health, 19(2), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00737-015-0567-3.
Hails, K. A., Shaw, D. S., Leve, L. D., Ganiban, J. M., Reiss, D.,
Natsuaki, M. N., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2019). Interaction between
adoptive mothers’and fathers’depressive symptoms in risk for chil-
dren’s emerging problem behavior. Social Development, 28(3),
725–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12352.
Henze-Pedersen, S. (2019). Known and unknown identities: Openness
and identity as experienced by adult adoptees. Adoption Quarterly,
22(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2019.1625834.
Hilpert, P., Randall, A. K., Sorokowski, P., Atkins, D. C., Sorokowska,
A., Ahmadi,K., et al. (2016). The associations of dyadic coping and
relationship satisfaction vary between and within nations: A 35-
nation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1106. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2016.01106.
Hock, R. M., & Mooradian, J. K. (2012). Co-parenting quality among
adoptive mothers: Contributions of socioeconomic status, child de-
mands and adult relationship characteristics. Child & Family Social
Work, 17(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.
00775.x.
Judge, S. (2003). Determinants of parental stress in families adopting
children from Eastern Europe. Family Relations: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 52,241–248.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00241.x.
Kaniuk, J., Steele, M., & Hodges, J. (2004). Report on a longitudinal
research project, exploring the development of attachments between
older, hard-to-place children and their adopters over the first two
years of placement. Adoption & Fostering, 28(2), 61–67. https://
doi.org/10.1177/030857590402800208.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
Springer.
Lee, B. R., Kobulsky, J. M., Brodzinsky, D., & Barth, R. P. (2018).
Parent perspectives on adoption preparation: Findings from the
modern adoptive families project. Children and Youth Services
Review, 85,63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.12.
007.
McLean, C. P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2011).
Gender differences in anxiety disorders: Prevalence, course of
2731Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 45(8), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.
2011.03.006.
Meuwly, N., Bodenmann, G., Germann, J., Bradbury, T. N., Ditzen, B.,
& Heinrichs, M. (2012). Dyadic coping, insecure attachment, and
cortisol stress recovery following experimentally induced stress.
Journal of Family Psychology, 26(6), 937–947. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0030356.
Mott, S. L., Schiller, C. E., Richards, J. G., O’Hara, M. W., & Stuart, S.
(2011). Depression and anxiety among postpartum and adoptive
mothers. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 14(4), 335–343.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-011-0227-1.
Neece, C. L., Green, S. A., & Baker, B. L. (2012). Parenting stress and
child behavior problems: A transactional relationship across time.
American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,
117(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.48.
Orliss, M., Rogers, K., Rao, S., Deavenport-Saman, A., Imagawa, K. K.,
Roberts, S., Rafeedie, J., & Hudson, S. M. (2019). Safely surren-
dered infants in Los Angeles County: A medically vulnerable pop-
ulation. Child: Care, Health and Development, 45(6), 861–866.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12711.
Phares, V., Lopez, E., Fields, S., Kamboukos, D.,& Duhig, A. M. (2005).
Are fathers involved in pediatric psychology research and treat-
ment? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 30(8), 631–643. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsi050.
Ponnet, K., Mortelmans, D., Wouters, E., Van Leeuwen, K., Bastaits, K.,
& Pasteels, I. (2013). Parenting stress and marital relationship as
determinants of mothers' and fathers' parenting. Personal
Relationships, 20(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2012.01404.x.
Revenson, T. A. (2003). Scenes from a marriage: Examining support and
marital coping with chronic illness, in Social psychological founda-
tions of health and illness, eds. J. Suls and K. Wallston (Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing), 530–559.
Roberson, K. C. (2006). Attachment and caregiving behavioral systems
in intercountry adoption: A literature review. Children and Youth
Services Review, 28(7), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2005.07.008.
Rosnati, R., Ranieri, S., & Barni, D. (2013). Family and social relation-
ships and psychosocial well-being in Italian families with
internationally adopted and non-adopted children. Adoption
Quarterly, 16(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2012.
731030.
Shaw, J. (2011). (re) constructing the past: The role of memory and
imagination among transnationally adopted children and their adop-
tive parents. PlatForum, 12,93–93.
Skinner-Drawz, B. A., Wrobel, G. M., Grotevant, H. D., & Von Korff, L.
(2011). The role of adoption communicative openness in informa-
tion seeking among adoptees from adolescence to emerging adult-
hood. Journal of Family Communication, 11(3), 181–197. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15267431003656587.
Smith, C., Cossette, L., Melançon, F., Beauvais-Dubois, C., Smolla, N.,
Gagnon-Oosterwaal, N., et al. (2018). Behavior problems in adoles-
cence among international adoptees, pre-adoption adversity, and
parenting stress. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
57,53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.04.005.
Viana, A. G., & Welsh, J. A. (2010). Correlates and predictors of parent-
ing stress among internationally adopting mothers: A longitudinal
investigation. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
34(4), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409339403.
Von Korff, L., & Grotevant, H. D. (2011). Contact in adoption and adop-
tive identity formation: The mediating role of family conversation.
Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0023388.
Wrobel, G. M., & Dillon, K. (2009). Adopted adolescents: Who and what
are they curious about? In G. M. Wrobel & E. Neil (Eds.),
International advances in adoption research for practice (pp.
217–244). Wiley.
Wrobel, G. M., & Grotevant, H. D. (2019). Minding the (information)
gap: What do emerging adult adoptees want to know about their
birth parents? Adoption Quarterly, 22(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10926755.2018.1488332.
Zemp, M., Bodenmann, G., Backes, S., Sutter-Stickel, D., & Revenson,
T. A. (2016). The importance of parents' dyadic coping for children.
Family Relations, 65(2), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.
12189.
Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
2732 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:2719–2732
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
