Single Study on Collaborative and Proactive Solutions

Children Adopted by Same-Sex Couples: Identity-Related Issues From Preschool Years to Late Adolescence

Roberta Messina Free University of Brussels

David Brodzinsky Rutgers University

Little research has investigated the experience of same-sex adoption from children’s perspective. What does it feel like to be adopted by 2 dads or 2 moms? How do the challenges related to being adopted and the challenges related to growing up in a same-sex-parent family overlap in the identity construction of adoptees? This is the 1st European study giving voice to children adopted by same-sex couples focusing on their adoptive and family-related identities at four developmental stages: early childhood, middle childhood, preadolescence, and adolescence. In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of 44 adoptees (36 males and 8 females; ages 3�18 years) and 62 adoptive parents (16 lesbian women and 46 gay men). Thematic analysis revealed that adoptees deal with unique developmental challenges con- nected to the intersection of both their adoptive and familial minority statuses. They often reported being confronted with heteronormative assumptions of family, which led them to question themselves regard- ing the way their family is perceived by others, to idealize the heteronuclear family form, and to increase their curiosity about their birth parents. Findings shed light on the evolution of adoptees’ questions, feelings, and experiences related to their unique family arrangement from early childhood through adolescence, suggesting a better integration of their adoptive and minority group statuses at progressively more advanced developmental stages. Analyses underline the importance of open family communication for facilitating the integration of such complex elements in adoptees’ emerging identity. Practice implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords: same-sex adoption, adopted children, identity-related issues, developmental challenges

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000616.supp

The right of sexual minorities to adopt children has raised intense debates both among the public and in the scientific com- munity (Farr & Patterson, 2013). The American Psychological Association (2004), called upon to give an opinion on this issue, concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effec-

tiveness is related to parental sexual orientation and opposed any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption. However, controversy has continued on the subject in Europe, where professionals in the field of psychology were involved in heated debates (Lingiardi & Carone, 2016). If some specialists support the right of same-sex couples to adopt, emphasizing their strengths on the basis of existing research (Goldberg, 2016), others oppose same-sex adoption, underlining the im- portance of different-sex parents as a necessary element for the healthy development of children (Cigoli, 2016). In particular, the social and scientific debates have focused on a central issue: Is it in the best interest of the children, already marked by difficult life experiences, to be adopted by a family that is often a target of social stigma (Clarke, 2001; Herbrand, 2006)?

There is a well-accepted body of research showing that adopted children encounter a variety of issues connected with their adop- tive status during the developing years. Little attention, however, has been given to specific identity-related issues experienced by children adopted by same-sex-headed families. In particular, it is unknown how the overlap of both adoptive and family minority statuses is associated with identity construction in adopted children at different stages of development. Today, some years after the approval of same-sex adoption in a number of European countries, it is possible to address the existing questions on this topic, giving voice directly to the first generation of adopted children in such

This article was published Online First December 9, 2019. Roberta Messina, Unit of Developmental and Family Psychology, Free

University of Brussels; David Brodzinsky, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University.

Parts of this article were adapted from Roberta Messina’s doctoral thesis, “Same-Sex Adoptive Families: Parents and Children’s Experiences Across the Family Life Cycle” (2018), and her “Why Don’t I Have a Mum? Why Don’t I Have a Dad? The Identity Construction Process of Children Adopted by Same-Sex Parents” presentation at the 6th International Con- ference on Adoption Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 8 –12, 2018. This research was supported by the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research–FNRS through a doctoral fellowship (FRESH–Human Sciences Research Fund) awarded to Roberta Messina. The authors thank the fam- ilies for their willingness to participate in this research as well as the adoption services and the LGBT associations for their assistance recruiting participants.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Roberta Messina, who is now at the Departement of Human Sciences, University of Basilicata, Nazario Sauro, 85, 85100 Potenza, Italy. E-mail: roberta [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Journal of Family Psychology © 2019 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 34, No. 5, 509 –522 ISSN: 0893-3200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000616

509

households. To provide a theoretical framework for our study, we first analyze the specificities of adoptive identity and then review the existing literature on children adopted by same-sex parents.

Identity-Related Issues in Adopted Youth During the Developing Years

Identity involves people’s explicit or implicit responses to the question “Who am I?” (Vignoles, Schwartz, & Luyckx, 2011). For adoptees, identity formation is a critical and more complex devel- opmental task because of the absence of biological continuity between parents and children (Brodzinsky, 2011). For adoptees, identity is interwoven with specific questions about one’s lineage, such as “Who are my biological parents?” “What were my earliest days like?” and “What is my genetic heritage?” (Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011). For an adopted person, identity is defined, in part, as an understanding of what it means to be adopted, which involves an ongoing and multifaceted process of reflection and integration. In particular, children’s knowledge and feelings about adoption change over time, in relation to age, cognitive development, and family life cycle experiences (Brodzinsky, 2011).

During children’s preschool period (ages 3–5 years), adoptive parents begin to share adoption information and children learn the language of adoption; that is, they learn and repeat fragments of their adoptive story, although their capacity to understand the meaning and the implications of being adopted is still quite limited (Brodzinsky, Singer, & Braff, 1984).

During middle childhood (6 –12 years), cognitive and socioemo- tional development leads to a more realistic understanding of adoption (Pinderhughes & Brodzinsky, 2019). Adoptees realize that adoption means not only gaining a family but losing one as well and start to confront adoption-related loss (Neil, 2012). Their questions are typically focused on birth parents (especially their birth mother), on their country of origin (in the case of interna- tional adoption), and on the reasons for their separation from the birth family (Brodzinsky, 2011). Birth parents often become very present in the adoptees’ imagination and assume more importance for the developing child than is often recognized by adoptive parents (Brodzinsky, 2014). Curiosity about birth parents is some- times manifested as a “family romance,” which consists of fre- quent thoughts and even dreams about the lost birth family and life before adoption (Rosenberg & Horner, 1991, p. 82). For others, it may involve fantasies about returning to live with birth relatives and questions about loss of genealogical continuity (Brodzinsky, 2011).

A deeper comprehension of adoption forms during adolescence (13–18 years). At this stage, teenagers begin to understand the legal permanence associated with adoption and the role of adop- tion within a societal perspective (Brodzinsky, 2011). On the positive side, adoption is understood to be a societal institution providing children facing difficult life circumstances with family stability and care. On the negative side, teenagers understand that others often view adoption as a “second best route” to parenthood and a “lesser” family status. Such views can lead adoptees to question their families and the ways they are perceived by others, as well as undermine self-esteem. In addition, curiosity about origins is often very strong during this time and leads to thoughts and even plans for searching for the birth family (Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011; Pinderhughes & Brodzinsky, 2019). A typical chal-

lenge consists in finding a healthy balance between the “debt” toward their birth parents who gave them life, and the “debt” toward their adoptive parents who provided love and care (Rosen- feld, Burton, De Coster, & Duret, 2006, p.160).

Research has indicated that one of the strongest predictors of adoptees’ adjustment is the way family members talk about adop- tion. Openness in adoption communication strengthens the parent– child relationship, enhances self-esteem, and facilitates the inte- gration of adoption-related losses (Brodzinsky, 2006). In contrast, when adoptive parents are not at ease in exploring their children’s feelings about their past, adoptees can develop “loyalty conflicts” (Le Run, 2012, p. 39), which increases their risk for adjustment difficulties.

To date, adoptive identity formation has been studied only among children adopted by opposite-sex-headed families. There are no data on how adoption-related challenges influence identity construction of children raised by same-sex parents. Do they experience questions and identity-related challenges that are sim- ilar to those experienced by children raised by heterosexual par- ents? Does having lesbian or gay parents complicate their identity construction, and, if so, how? These are questions that form the focus of the current study.

Children’s Adjustment in Same-Sex-Headed Families

The development of children raised in same-sex-parent families has attracted growing research interest. Studies have indicated that youth with sexual minority parents have similar adjustment out- comes compared with youth raised by opposite-sex parents (for a review, see Fedewa, Black, & Ahn, 2015). However, they do encounter specific challenges related to their family’s sexual mi- nority status, such as teasing and bullying episodes (Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2012; Patterson, 2009), although these experiences do not generally lead to adjustment problems. To date, most research has focused on biological children of same-sex parents, with fewer studies specifically addressing development of adopted children in same-sex households. Those that have been published have sug- gested that same-sex-parent families represent an appropriate placement option for children in need of adoption, finding no differences in their adjustment compared to children placed in heterosexual families (Farr & Patterson, 2013; Patterson, 2017) in areas related to internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Farr, Forssell, & Patterson, 2010; Golombok et al., 2014), gender- typed play (Farr, Bruun, Doss, & Patterson, 2018), attachment (Erich, Hall, Kanenberg, & Case, 2009), and cognitive develop- ment (Lavner, Waterman, & Peplau, 2012). Although these quan- titative studies provide a precise measurement of the above- mentioned variables, they have a significant limitation: In many cases children’s adjustment is assessed through questionnaires completed by parents, whereas only a few studies include chil- dren’s direct participation through qualitative methods. Conse- quently, there is little information available on how placement with same-sex couples is experienced by the children themselves.

Youth Perspectives on Being Adopted by Same-Sex-Parent Families

To our knowledge, only three studies, all conducted in the United States, have examined the viewpoints of children adopted

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

510 MESSINA AND BRODZINSKY

by sexual minority parents. Gianino, Goldberg, and Lewis (2009) interviewed a group of 14 multicultural adolescents (from ages 13 to 20) adopted by lesbian and gay parents regarding the way they disclosed their parents’ sexual orientation and their adoptive status with friends and at school. Several disclosure practices were re- ported: Some preferred not telling anyone about their parents’ sexual orientation; others felt forced to come out, but still others showed a more open pattern of disclosure. Participants demon- strated anxiety and apprehension when “coming out” about their family structure, even when they received positive reactions from their environment. In particular, early adolescence presented the greatest challenges in telling people about their parents’ sexual orientation. At this stage, several participants experienced the wish to have a “normal family,” which was often associated with an attempt to hide their family structure. By later adolescence, how- ever, these feelings appeared less intense, and adoptees were more able to select and maintain a group of supportive friends.

Another study, by Farr, Crain, Oakley, Cashen, and Garber (2016), examined the experiences of 49 adopted children varying in age from 6 to 11 years (M � 8.1) with sexual minority parents. The majority of children experienced feelings of difference regard- ing their same-sex-parent families related to discomfort in telling others about having same-sex parents, the need to feel secure before sharing their family structure with peers, and internalized stigma which sometimes resulted in negative feelings about their family on the basis of their parents’ sexual orientation, as well as the fear of being rejected. Furthermore, more than half of the children reported microaggressions related to their parents’ sexual orientation, including teasing and bullying experiences. Despite the numerous challenges, the children were found to be capable of navigating through these experiences and maintaining positive conceptualizations of the family, with older children reporting higher levels of resilience and positive feelings regarding their family than younger children.

Finally, Cody, Farr, McRoy, Ayers-Lopez, and Ledesma (2017) analyzed the experiences of 24 adoptees between 13 and 28 years of age (M � 16.13) through focus groups. Consistent with previ- ous literature, this study revealed that the most difficult aspect of being adopted by same-sex parents was being teased and bullied by peers and the experience of feeling “different” because of their parents’ sexual orientation. Some participants also indicated dif- ficulty talking about gender-specific concerns because of a lack of a same-gender role model in the family. In contrast, the positive aspects of being adopted by same-sex parents consisted of being more compassionate, accepting, and tolerant.

The Current Study

Despite the contribution of the reviewed studies, there is still a dearth of research exploring the perspectives of adoptees regarding what it is like for them to grow up with sexual minority parents. Furthermore, whereas identity formation has been widely explored in children adopted by opposite-sex families, no research has explored this theme in children adopted by same-sex parents. More specifically, the adoption-related issues and the minority status– related challenges have often been analyzed as two separate ele- ments in previous studies, which reduces the possibilities of un- derstanding the specificities of the intersecting identities in children adopted by same-sex parents. To fill this gap in literature,

our study aimed to shed light on the specific overlap of these two identity elements from the perspectives of both adoptees and their same-sex parents.

The following research questions guided our study: How does being adopted by same-sex parents impact children’s adoptive and family-related identities? How do children feel about having par- ents who are lesbian or gay? What type of questions do children ask themselves and their parents while growing up?

From a theoretical perspective, this research was guided by several theories. In line with adoptive family life cycle theory (Pinderhughes & Brodzinsky, 2019), we hypothesized that, like all adoptees, children adopted by same-sex couples encounter specific stressors and developmental tasks connected with their adoptive family status. In addition, we expected to find that children ad- opted by same-sex parents would be confronted with unique and specific issues related to their family’s being part of a sexual minority group. Indeed, in line with the minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003), we postulated that adoptees, as part of a sexual minority family, would report dealing with prejudice, microag- gressions, and feelings of difference and that all these elements would play an important role in their psychological experience. Furthermore, based on the developmental model proposed by Brodzinsky et al. (1984) and the work by Grotevant and his colleagues (e.g., Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011), we assumed that identity formation is an ongoing process and that adoptees would display a more complex and integrated understanding of their adoptive and minority group statuses at progressively more ad- vanced developmental levels, from early childhood through ado- lescence.

Method

Participants

The participants were 31 same-sex-parent families (62 gay and lesbian parents and 44 adoptees), living in France (13 families), Belgium (six families), and Spain (11 families). These countries were chosen because same-sex adoption is legal in these regions (respectively, since 2013, 2006, and 2005) and, in the cases of Belgium and Spain, are considered two of the most gay-friendly European countries. In contrast, the right of same-sex couples to adopt children has raised greater social debate in France (for more details on the sociolegal context of same-sex adoption in these countries see Messina & D’Amore, 2018). In addition to the legal and societal support for same-sex adoption, Roberta Messina also had existing connections with a number of adoption agencies in these countries, facilitating the process of participant recruitment. Parents (46 gay men and 16 lesbian women) were between 33 and 56 years of age (M � 43.2, SD � 5.3). The adoptees ranged from 3 to 18 years (M � 7.5, SD � 4.2); 36% (n � 16) were in early childhood, 36% (n � 16) in middle childhood, 14% (n � 6) in preadolescence, and 14% (n � 6) in adolescence (see Table 1). There was a prevalence of boys at each developmental level.

Furthermore, preadolescents and adolescents in the sample were primarily late-placed adoptees (adopted when they were age 4 or older) compared to children in early and middle childhood, who were placed at younger ages. The inclusion criteria for participa- tion consisted of being a same-sex adoptive family with the fol- lowing characteristics: married or cohabitant parents with one or

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

511CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES

more adopted children in a stable placement, with children’s having had no postplacement contact with their birth family. Exclusion of families whose children had contact with birth family was done to reduce potential confounding variables, given that having contact with birth families could be relevant to children’s feelings about adoption (Grotevant, McRoy, Wrobel, & Ayers- Lopez, 2013).

Recruitment

We contacted three adoption agencies and three well-known lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) organizations, and all agreed to collaborate, sending an invitation to the families with the description of the study. The study was also publicized through Instagram and Facebook posts. We have no information on how many people were notified about the study, because the adoption agencies and LGBT associations did not provide us details of their recruitment efforts, due to privacy reasons. Participants were di- rected to a Survey Monkey website where they could download a preenrollment form. In total, 42 same-sex-headed families con- tacted us, but we selected only 31 families who matched our research criteria. Data were collected from 2013 to 2017.

Procedure

A semistructured interview was created for this study, inspired by the interview format used in previous research (Brodzinsky et al., 1984; Greco, 2006) investigating adoptive identity�related issues and children’s experiences connected to their family minority status (Farr et al., 2016; Gianino et al., 2009). In adopting a narrative approach

(McAdams, 2001), we considered adoptive identity formation to be a process of coconstruction of coherent stories that create a sense of meaning, linking one’s past, present, and future. For this reason, we conducted two interviews for each family, one with parents and one with the child. We conducted interviews with parents jointly but considered each parent as a separate unit of analysis when analyzing the themes emerging from their discourses, thereby identifying the number of gay and lesbian parents reporting each theme. If one parent reported a theme and the other one did not agree, we calculated that this theme was reported by only one parent. If there was more than one child in a family, we interviewed each child separately. The parents, however, were interviewed about all their children during the same interview, asking them the same questions about each child. Data emerging from parents’ discourse were then analyzed consider- ing each child as a unit of analysis. Parent and child interviews were conducted separately to allow participants to feel completely free to talk about their own feelings and experiences. All interviews were videotaped and conducted in person at the participants’ home by Roberta Messina. The interviews with the parents lasted approxi- mately 2.5 hr, and the interviews with the children lasted on average 50 min, depending on the amount of information provided by the participants. Participation was voluntary, and no compensation was offered for it. Interviews were guided by a series of questions noted below that were used to introduce discussion about different topics, with additional probing questions used based upon the participants’ initial responses. Although the same interview format was used with all children in the four considered developmental stages, the questions were asked in a flexible way and at times reformulated to support children’s ability to understand different topics, to address their emo-

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics by Adoptees’ Age Period

Variable

Early childhood (3–5 years)

Middle childhood (6 –9 years)

Preadolescence (10 –13 years)

Adolescence (14 –18 years)

n (%) M (SD) n (%) M (SD) n (%) M (SD) n (%) M (SD)

Adoptees (n � 44)

Total 16 (36) 16 (36) 6 (14) 6 (14) Child age at visit (years) 3.6 (0.6) 7.1 (1.3) 11.2 (0.7) 15.5 (2.2) Child age at adoption (years) 0.11 (0.10) 2.5 (1.4) 5.4 (2.2) 5.5 (4.3) Female child (n � 8) 2 (12) 3 (20) 2 (33) 1 (17)

Adopted by gay fathers (n � 5) 2 2 1 Adopted by lesbian mothers (n � 3) 1 1 1

Male child (n � 36) 14 (39) 13 (36) 4 (11) 5 (14) Adopted by gay fathers (n � 27) 11 9 3 4 Adopted by lesbian mothers (n � 9) 3 4 1 1

Type of adoption National 9 (56) 5 (31) 1 (17) 1 (17) International 7 (44) 11 (69) 5 (83) 5 (83)

Parents (n � 62)

Lesbians (n � 16; 26%) 6 (19) 10 (31) 4 (33) 4 (33) Gays (n � 46; 74%) 14 (81) 22 (69) 8 (67) 8 (76)a

Age at visit (years) 40.3 (4.1) 43.5 (5.1) 43.6 (2.7) 48.4 (4.1) Relational status (%)

Married (64) (77) (80) (100) Cohabitant (27) (15) Civil union (9) (8) (20)

a The discrepancy between the n’s sum and the sum of the columns is because some parents are counted in several categories because they have children in different age groups.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

512 MESSINA AND BRODZINSKY

tional reactions to initial questions, and to support their willingness to continue the interview (e.g., if they didn’t understand a question, we repeated or simplified it, or provided some examples; we also asked questions about their drawings to be sure of their meaning for the child).

Interviews With the Parents

During interviews with the parents, we asked them about their children’s questions and feelings related to the following areas: (a) adoption: What are your child’s questions about adoption? What are her1 feelings about being adopted? Does she ever express these themes in her drawings or play? If so, how? (b) same-sex adoption: What are your child’s feelings about growing up in a same-sex- couple family? What are the main questions asked by your child about this topic? Does she ever express these themes in her drawings or play? If so, how? When your child expresses feelings and/or questions connected to your sexual minority status, how does that make you feel? And how do you respond to her? (c) relationships with peers: What about your child’s relationships with friends and schoolmates? Has your child experienced any episodes of teasing or bulling related to having sexual minority parents? (d) birth family loss: Does your child ask questions about her birth family? If so, what are her primary questions and feelings raised about it? Does she ever express this theme in her drawings or play? If so, how? When your child expresses feelings and/or questions connected to her birth family, how does that make you feel? And how do you respond to her?

Interviews With the Children

Questions that guided the interviews with children were the following: (a) the family today: How do you feel today about being part of your family? How would you describe your relationships with your adoptive parents and brothers/sisters (if any)? (b) rela- tionships with friends and schoolmates: How is school going for you? Tell me about your friends. What do you like to do with them? And what do you not like doing? Do they ever make comments about your adoption or about having two dads/two moms? Have you ever been bullied or treated unfairly because you are adopted or because your parents’ sexual orientation? (c) feel- ings about growing up in a same-sex-headed family: How do you feel about having two dads/moms? What does it mean to be gay or lesbian? How does having same-sex parents affect you? What are the most positive and the most negative aspects of having two same-sex parents? (d) feelings about adoption and birth family loss: How do you feel about being adopted? Do you sometimes think of your life before you joined your adoptive family? If so, what do you remember about it? Who do you think of the most, and what are your feelings about him/her?

The Double Moon Test

To expand upon the information gathered from the interviews, children completed the Double Moon Test (Greco, 1999), a graph- ic�projective instrument that enables the exploration of the adopt- ees’ feelings related to their adoptive status. This test is particu- larly useful for studying both current family relations and the role of the absent family member(s; e.g., family of origin) in the

adoptees’ imagination, providing insight on the way adoptees deal with the dimension of loss. The test’s material consists of a sheet of paper (presented horizontally) on which a rectangular shape is drawn. Before the participant starts, the following explanation is given: “This rectangle represents your own world, the people that are important to you, and the things that interest you the most. What lies outside the rectangle represents everything else.” Then the follow instructions are provided: (a) “Draw a symbol that represents yourself”; (b) “Draw the people who are important to you and place them wherever you wish”; (c) “Enclose within a circle the people who, in your opinion, belong to the same family”; (d) “Is there anything you remember, you have heard, or you have imagined about your past that you would like to add to this drawing?” (If not reported spontaneously by the participant, the following is asked: “Where do you think [he or she] could be placed [child’s birth family]?”); (e) “If you had a magic wand, would you change anything in your drawing?” In addition to these instructions, if needed, the researcher used probing questions to better understand the participants’ report (e.g., “Who/where are these persons?” “Why did you put him/her here?” “What do you mean by this?”).

Data Analysis

Given the paucity of studies on identity-related issues in chil- dren adopted by same-sex parents, the analysis of parents’ and children’s interviews, as well as children’s drawings from the Double Moon Test, was guided by an inductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which allowed for the elicitation of key themes from the data and the creation of new theories. Considering the impact of social attitudes connected to sexual minorities, coders and Roberta Messina discussed their personal thoughts and feel- ings concerning same-sex adoption before analyzing data. They read and discussed a number of articles about children raised in same-sex-parent families, as well as about adoption-related issues, to address their own assumptions about this topic. Data analysis consisted of three phases. Initially the interviews with both parents and children, as well as the drawings and reports of the adoptees during the Double Moon Test, were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by Roberta Messina. A line-by-line analysis of each participant’s transcript was conducted, which allowed for an initial identification of primary emergent themes. Furthermore, a the- matic analysis of the Double Moon Test was conducted to identify the recurrent themes in the drawings and their relations with the themes emerging from the interviews. In this phase, we created an initial data-coding system consisting of main themes and sub- themes that were reviewed multiple times to ensure that they constituted coherent thematic patterns. This review process in- volved a phase of “cutting” and reorganization of the themes, until a coherent map of themes and subthemes was obtained. The second phase of the analysis was performed by seven master’s- level graduate students trained in qualitative methods, who cate- gorized a random selection of interviews and projective tests. Each coder was involved in a process of independent analysis on the same data to verify the effectiveness and the accuracy of the coding scheme. In total, 24 cases out of 31 were analyzed both by

1 For the sake of simplicity, unless we are referring to a specific child, we use the feminine pronoun when referring to children.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

513CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES

Roberta Messina and by independent judges. Finally, in a third step, all themes were reviewed and discussed until consensus was reached among coders. This last discussion allowed us to refine, name, and specify the final themes that emerged from the analysis (in total we identified 33 main themes). Although initially we anticipated examining the data in the context of three developmen- tal stages (preschool, middle childhood, adolescence), we ulti- mately separated out those youth in the preadolescent stage be- cause of some unique themes emerging during this period. For the purpose of this article, we focus on only themes that shed light on the interrelation of adoption-related issues and the challenges connected with family minority status during the four develop- mental phases highlighted in our study. Furthermore, although some themes cut across different developmental phases, we chose to group themes from interviews and drawings according to the stage where they most often appeared.

Results

Early Childhood (3–5 Years)

Understanding the difference between biological and affec- tive functions of parenting. The analysis of parents’ and chil- dren’s reports during early childhood highlighted several themes related to a central issue: the mystery of origins. More precisely, 33% of lesbian mothers2 (n � 2) and 85% of the gay fathers (n � 22) with preschool-age children indicated that children expressed considerable curiosity in exploring their birth, origins, and arrival in the adoptive family. This curiosity is likely the result of the communication process about adoption, which typically begins during this period (Brodzinsky, 2011). The story about origins construed by same-sex parents in particular includes two main elements: an explication of the impossibility for them, as a same- sex couple, to biologically procreate, together with the revelation of the existence of two opposite-sex parents who gave birth to the child. According to parents, this information leads children to ask questions related to understanding the difference between the biological and affective sides of parenting, such as “Was I in your belly?” “Why are babies in the womb of a woman?” “Was she/he my mom?” “Do I have a mom?” Through repeated questions, adoptees progressively explore and integrate the lack of a biolog- ical connection with their adoptive parents in their emerging sense of self. At the same time, they start to develop considerable curiosity regarding the mystery of being born from their birth mother’s womb. During the interviews with the adopted children, the theme of the belly appeared as a central and recurring one. In particular, 12 children (75%) drew swollen bellies in different ways: as the belly of their birth mother, their own belly, the belly of their adoptive parents, or the belly of other people. This ele- ment, even though not completely understandable, can be inter- preted as a means for adoptees to symbolize the integration of the theme of origins in their emerging identity. To deepen the under- standing of this theme, a few examples are provided. For instance, consider Nicolas,3 a 3.5-year-old boy adopted domestically by a gay male couple when he was 1.5. Nicolas spent a few months with his birth family (of which he did not have memories) and was placed in an institution before being adopted. During the interview, his parents explained that they were in the middle of sharing the adoption story with their son. They stated:

Ever since the first days we explained to him: It takes a woman and a man to have a child . . . a woman’s belly and a seed that is brought by a man. Because we are two men, we can’t have babies together, but we really wanted to have one. You were in the belly of a woman who carried you for 9 months, but after that, she couldn’t take care of you. So, because we wanted a child but we couldn’t have one together, we asked whether we could adopt you, because we wanted to take care of you.

As can be seen, the parents’ story about Nicolas’s origins pointed out two main elements: the biological conception and the adoption. They noted that Nicolas asked many questions about his story and made many drawings in which he depicted scenes of his past, mixed with his present situation and with elements of fantasy. During the interview with Nicolas, after a brief exchange in which he had difficulty answering questions, we presented him the Dou- ble Moon Test (see his drawing in Figure 1 in the online supple- mental materials). Initially he drew his birth mother and father in two separated beds and himself in the orphanage. Afterward, he added a big belly on each person. We then asked him several questions:

Researcher: What are these bellies?

Nicholas: This is to stay inside . . . when you born.

Researcher: So, this is the belly of your birth mother?

Nicholas: Yes it is . . . and of my daddies too.

Researcher: Okay. . . . But I can’t see them on this sheet. Where are they [the adoptive parents]?

Nicholas: They are not here . . . because I can’t stay in Daddy’s belly.

Researcher: Why?

Nicholas: I don’t know.

This excerpt highlights Nicholas’s exploration of the theme of origins and integrating the information of his conception and his adoption. He was also beginning to understand the impossibility for his adoptive parents, as a gay couple, to have conceived him biologically. He did not have a complete understanding of this matter, but he was acquiring a progressive awareness of the dif- ference between the biological and affective functions of parentage (fulfilled, respectively, by the birth family and the adoptive one).

The theme of the belly was also raised by several parents: 16 gay fathers (62%), and two lesbian mothers (33%) reported that their children used to play a symbolic game, simulating their birth from their adoptive parents’ belly. For instance, Ricardo, age 45, reported that Ulrick, his 5-year-old son (adopted when he was 2), took great pleasure in staging such a ritual with him. He stated:

This theme of the origins, of the pregnancy, is very present in his imagination. . . . He used to ask me, “Was I in your belly?” I explained to him that it is not possible because I am a man. . . . He loves so much to pretend to be born from my womb. So every day, we stage his birth

2 Percentages are calculated on the number of parents with children at each stage of age.

3 All names have been changed to protect the confidentiality of partic- ipants.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

514 MESSINA AND BRODZINSKY

from my womb. It is like a ritual. . . . He says, “It is a pity that babies can’t born from daddies’ belly. I would like to stay in your belly! . . .” It is very funny!

In this example one can see the coexistence of two elements: the progressive understanding of gay fathers’ impossibility to conceive a child, together with the desire to have a biological connection with them. In this sense the fantasies and games connected to being born from an adoptive parent’s belly could be interpreted as a sign of the “mythical graft” (Neuburger, 2015) in the adoptive family. In other words, these rituals could represent a way for the children to develop a feeling of belonging to the adoptive family, by simulating a “second, symbolical birth” into a new life: the one with their adoptive parents.

Curiosity about the maternal body and functions. During the interviews with gay men, another theme, strongly connected with the previous one, emerged: Children were extremely curious about the feminine body and maternal functions. Most of the gay parents (77%; n � 20) reported that during this developmental phase, their children were both fascinated by and attracted by a woman’s body, as well as by the idea of pregnancy. This theme did not emerge in the interviews with lesbian mothers. Frederick, age 38, told of his experience with Cedric, his 4.5-year-old son, adopted when he was 3 months of age. Frederick explained that in the early period of the telling process about adoption (around 3), his son manifested an intense curiosity about the women around him. He stated:

I remember that the first time we went to the sea, he was fascinated by a friend who was pregnant. He touched her belly, and he asked her, “Was I here, in your belly?” And after, he crouched on her body and put his head on her chest for a long time. . . . After this event, he began doing similar acts whenever he met a woman. . . . When he encoun- tered a woman in the street, no matter what woman, even a stranger, he would call her “Mom.” We didn’t understand why. . . . We thought that maybe he was looking for his mother. I do not know.

According to Frederick, this issue was a central one in the imagination of his son, who also used to stage it in his play. For instance, Frederick explained that his son loved to play with stuffed animals that resembled maternal bodies:

In that period, he used to play with a cow with big and visible teats. It seemed to be very important to him. He looked at this cow like it was something precious. . . . He was fascinated by the maternal function of this cow. He asked me whether he could drink her milk. . . . I was very touched by this.

Through such behavior, Cedric was acquiring awareness of the biological functions connected to the feminine body (pregnancy, nurturing), which was novel and a source of curiosity for him. The example also suggests that he was integrating another, painful, reality: the loss of his birth mother (Brodzinsky, 2014). In fact, through his play Cedric seemed to express a curiosity about this lost maternal figure, showing a vague hope to reconcile with her again. This example suggests that the curiosity about the maternal figure could be connected to both curiosity about what is novel and/or about the lost maternal figure.

Middle Childhood (6 –9 Years)

Beginning to be confronted about minority status. During middle childhood, when going to school and engaging in activities beyond the family, adoptees were confronted with new challenges.

Comparison with peers, for example, resulted in increasing aware- ness of both their adoptive and minority statuses. Cecile, a 7-year- old girl adopted by two gay fathers, was able to give a detailed explication of the meaning and implications of being adopted by same-sex parents. She stated:

A same-sex-parent family is when you have two dads. . . . We are a little bit different . . . because my dads don’t love women . . . so I can’t have a mom, but I have two dads. . . . Because there are a lot of different families, with one mom, one dad, two dads, or a mom and a dad.

As illustrated, Cecile clearly understood the concept of family diversity. In our sample, many children in this developmental stage (81%; n � 13) were capable of identifying such a concept, de- scribing being “different” from others as a result of having two same-sex parents. The feelings connected to their family diversity were described in three main ways: as negative, as positive, or as both positive and negative. According to these children, the most challenging aspect of being adopted by same-sex parents was being a target of questions, curiosity, and negative comments in relation to their parents’ sexual minority status. The positive as- pects of being adopted by same-sex parents included the high quality of relationship with their parents, together with the feeling of being “a new,” “original,” or “special” family. For instance, André, an 8-year-old boy, told with sadness and frustration that he was the object of questions and teasing by some of his school- mates. On the other hand, he was also able to identify the positive aspects of his family experience in the following dialogue:

André: They [some schoolmates] are mean to me. . . . They say that it is strange that I don’t have a mom. . . . They laugh at me. . . . I don’t like it when they do this.

Researcher: And what do you like the most about having two dads?

André: Well . . . that I like to spend my time with them . . . we have fun . . . and that there are not a lot of families like us.

During the Double Moon Test (see his drawing in Figure 2 in the online supplemental materials), André drew his “bad schoolmates” outside the frame and expressed the wish to make them disappear with a magic wand.

Being adopted and not having a mom or dad: A double grieving process? Another issue that emerged from the inter- views, strongly interconnected with the previous one, was the feeling children had about not having a mother or father in their adoptive family. “Why don’t I have a mom?” “Why don’t I have a dad?” “Will I have a mom or dad in the future?” According to many parents (91% of gay men, n � 20; 70% of lesbian women, n � 7), these are some of the most commonly asked questions by children during this developmental stage. In fact, by living in a heterosexist society, children are often confronted with the tradi- tional idea of the family, which includes both maternal and pater- nal figures. In this regard, many parents explained that the school environment often conveys an idea of “lack” to children of same- sex parents. For instance, celebrations like Mother’s or Father’s Day can lead children to raise questions about the legitimacy of

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

515CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES

their family and to see the absence of a maternal or parental figure as an element of deficiency in their family structure. Furthermore, according to the parents, being confronted with such an idea can increase children’s fantasies about the loss of their birth family, which causes pain. Vincent, age 39, explained the experiences of German, his 8-year-old son:

On Mother’s Day at school he was asked to draw a picture for his mother, and we proposed to him that he offer it to his aunt . . . but he was very sad, and finally he asked us whether he could make the drawing for his mother in Haiti, because he missed her so much. . . . We said yes. He made it, colored and did not stop adding flowers. . . . Then we put it on the fridge. He was happy and relieved because he had had the possibility to make a drawing for his mother like everyone else . . . and he asked us, “So, do I have a mom too?”

As shown by this report, a school environment that does not take family diversity into account can negatively impact a child’s well-being. German, in particular, was dealing with two difficult experiences: understanding not only that he had lost his birth mother but also that he would never have a mom in his adoptive family, being, in this way, “different” from others. Similar expe- riences were reported by David, age 38, who illustrated the feel- ings of his 7-year-old daughter on this topic:

She asks, “Why don’t I have a mom?” But also, “Where is my birth mom? Will I see her again?” . . . I can’t say whether what she is missing now is her birth mother or a mother in general. I think both. . . . These two things are strongly interconnected in her discourse.

As observed in these examples, the loss of the birth parents and the absence of a maternal or paternal figure are often interrelated in children’s imagination. Many parents also reported that their chil- dren idealize this absent parental figure and that this issue is a central one at this time. In this regard, David additionally reported:

She has a lot of fantasies of her birth mother but also general ones of what it would be like to have a mom. . . . I clearly explained to her that we are two dads. She has understood that we like men and not women, but I think that in her heart she continues to hope. Sometimes she asks me, “But Daddy, if one day you meet a woman, maybe she will agree to become my mom?! . . . I think she needs time to come to terms with this, to accept . . . to understand that she will not have a mom anymore. . . . It is painful for her. It is like she has to deal with two losses.

This example highlights that children can be confronted with a double grieving process: loss of their birth parents and loss of the fantasized, or idealized, mother or father they do not have but would like to have. These two elements are connected to feelings of loss, which begin to become integrated in children’s psychody- namics during this developmental stage.

Preadolescence (10 –13 Years)

Increased curiosity about birth parents and the need to find gender role models. Preadolescence is characterized by numer- ous changes in one’s body, identity, experiences, and emotions. Such changes lead to new issues, often connected with the acqui- sition of gender social roles, the relationships with the peers, and the search of self. During the interviews, 75% of lesbian mothers (n � 3) and 50% of gay fathers (n � 4) with preadolescents reported that in this period their children’s interest in birth parents

increased and they often needed to have a surrogate paternal or maternal figure with whom they could identify. The main ques- tions asked by adoptees were related to both their birth parents (“What was she/he like?” “Do I look like him/her?”) and their curiosity about paternal and maternal roles (“How does it feel to have a mother or a father?”). For instance, Sandrine, mother of Lucas, a 12-year-old boy, explained:

He asks to do certain activities with a friend of ours. He is a godfather to him. He loves to play sports or go out for a football match with him. This is a weekly date that he awaits anxiously. He doesn’t want to do it with me or my wife. He says that these are guys’ affairs.

As shown by Sandrine’s report, this godfather represented a gender role model for Lucas who allowed him to experience feelings of connection and belonging to the “group of men.” Sandrine and her wife also emphasized that Lucas manifested a strong curiosity about his birth father and that the relationship with his godfather helped him to cope with this loss. She stated:

He asks a lot of questions about his birth father. . . . He would like to know what his father is like, to know whether he resembles him physically, but also to know what it is like to have a father . . . and spending time with his godfather can fill this void a little bit.

Sandrine’s report sheds light on the important role of the god- father: He represents a sort of mirror in which Lucas can reflect his feelings about his birth father but also experience a new, positive relationship.

Opposition toward parents because of their sexual orienta- tion: Invisible loyalty? During this period, parents reported high levels of conflict in the relationship with their children: 75% of lesbian mothers (n � 3) and 50% of gay fathers (n � 4) with preadolescents noted that their children manifested oppositional behavior toward them connected with their sexual orientation. For example, Carla and Sara, mothers of Pablo, a 10-year-old adopted boy from Honduras, reported that their son was often offensive toward them and seemed unhappy because of their family struc- ture. They were quite hurt by their son’s attitude and reported feelings of powerlessness, sadness, and worry. Carla stated:

It’s very hard in this period. . . . He never misses an opportunity to argue with us. He is very insulting. . . . He says, “I didn’t choose to have two mothers. I don’t like it! I want a dad! . . . and this is very difficult. We don’t know how to handle such a situation.

During the interview, Pablo, on a number of occasions, ex- pressed the desire to have a dad, with an attitude of opposition and defiance, as seen here:

Pablo: I want a dad because it’s better, because I miss having a dad. . . . I don’t like having two mothers!

Researcher: What do you mean you don’t like it?

Pablo: Because I want a daaaad! I don’t like two mothers!

During the Double Moon Test (see his drawing in Figure 3 in the online supplemental materials), at first he did not want to represent his mothers, and instead he drew himself surrounded by a group of boys (some friends and members of his birth family).

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

516 MESSINA AND BRODZINSKY

During a second try, he accepted representing his adoptive mothers but only outside the frame. Furthermore, he used a magic wand to delete one of them and turn her into a father. He explained this in the following dialogue:

Pablo: With my magic wand I want to delete her and add a dad, because I want a mom and a dad. . . . It is better!

Researcher: What do you mean that “it is better”?

Pablo: Because it is better . . .

Pablo did not represent his birth parents in his drawing. How- ever, his interview ended this way:

Pablo: I would like to stay in Honduras. . . . I imagine how it would be to stay there with them, with a true family.

Researcher: A true family?

Pablo: I want to say . . . with a mother, a father, my brothers . . .

This example suggests that Pablo, while expressing a strong opposition toward his mothers, was manifesting an “invisible loyalty” (Ducommun-Nagy, 2008, p. 115–128) toward his birth family and toward his birth country. Indeed, Pablo was probably rejecting his mothers not only because they were his adoptive (and not biological) parents but also because they were lesbians. In this way he was identifying with the system of values of his birth country (which does not consider same-sex relationships as legit- imate). An important element to highlight is that Pablo was ad- opted through a single-parent adoption procedure, in which his legal mother pretended to be heterosexual. Thus, at the time of the interview, his mothers were worried about the legal consequences for the family in case Pablo decided to visit his birth relatives and consequently tried to discourage him from having contact with them. It is possible that all these elements increased Pablo’s fantasies about his birth family, which was idealized and consid- ered as “a true family,” in opposition to the adoptive one.

To tell, or not to tell? Revealing the family structure to peers. Preadolescence is a time in which many adoptees (83%; n � 5) reported negative feelings related to their family diversity, together with the desire to hide and change their family structure. A typical challenge during the preadolescent years involves find- ing the appropriate balance between openness and reticence when talking about their status of being an adoptee with same-sex parents. All the preadolescents participating in this study (100%; n � 6) reported that sharing their parents’ sexual orientation was a source of anxiety, because of fear of being teased and bullied. They showed two primary strategies for dealing with such negative feelings: In some cases, they preferred not to share their family structure at all; in other cases they made a careful selection of who to inform about their family background. For instance, Lucas, 12 years old, adopted by two fathers, stated the following during his interview:

Lucas: It depends. Sometimes I talk about my fathers, sometimes I don’t . . . because it is not some- thing to share with everyone.

Researcher: And how do you decide whether you tell or do not tell someone about your family?

Lucas: I reflect: Is it better to tell, or not to tell? If I trust a person, if I am sure that he or she will not judge me . . . then, I talk about my family. . . . If not, I don’t talk about it at all.

Adolescence (14 –18 Years)

“I am proud of them!” Integrating family diversity as a positive aspect of identity. During adolescence, the degree of opposition and conflict between teenagers and their parents was lower than in the previous stage. This is partially related to the fact that teenagers have a deeper understanding of their adoptive status and begin to recognize the humanitarian value of adoption (Brodz- insky, 2011), leading them to develop feelings of “debt” (Rosen- feld et al., 2006, p. 160), as well as a sense of gratitude and loyalty toward their adoptive parents for having raised them. These pos- itive feelings help adoptees to deal with the challenges connected to their minority status. Aurelio for example, age 18 and adopted by lesbian mothers, reported:

For a long time I didn’t want to talk about my family. Today I realize that it is not good to hide yourself, you have to accept your family. . . . Even if it can be difficult growing up in a same-sex-parent family, we are lucky because we have a family. In Brazil, where I was adopted, there were a lot of children who would have spent the rest of their life in the orphanage. . . . So, anyway, it is fortunate to have a family.

As shown in this example, Aurelio was able to identify both the positive and the negative aspects of his adoptive experience: On the one hand, he described the difficulty regarding living in an heterosexist context in which he felt obliged to hide his family identity; on the other hand, he was able to emphasize the value of being adopted because, despite such difficulties, it allowed him to find himself surrounded by love. Almost all the adolescents (83%; n � 5) in the sample reported similar feelings. Several adolescents (50%; n � 3) also highlighted the many challenges that their parents, as same-sex couples, have faced in order to adopt them. This awareness makes adolescents value their family experience as something to be proud of. Same-sex parents can become “heroes” in the eyes of adoptees, an example of societal evolution. François, for example, age 18, stated: “I am proud of my parents. They are an emblem of courage to make changes in society. They have faced many barriers to build a family. . . . We are an example for all minorities. . . . The world can change!”

“Everything is fine!”: Risks connected to feelings of loyalty. As a result of feeling grateful and loyal toward adoptive parents, adolescents sometimes adopt a hyperprotective attitude in relation to them, denying or minimizing all the challenges connected with growing up in a same-sex-parent family. Jesus, for instance, 13 years old and adopted by two men, manifested a certain reticence in identifying the challenges he experienced during the interview. With a defensive attitude, he tried to minimize all the feelings related to his family’s minority status. He stated:

Honestly, everything is fine! There are no problems. Besides the fact that people ask me a lot of questions, I am fine. For me there are no differences in being adopted by same-sex parents. . . . It is the same. It is like having a mother and a father, exactly the same.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

517CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES

Later in the interview, Jesus shared more details of his experience, saying:

Jesus: Sometimes I think of my mother. . . . I ask myself what it would have been like to have a mother.

Researcher: To have a mother in general, or to have your birth mother?

Jesus: Mmm, both . . . Of course, I would have liked to have known my birth mother, but also in general I’d like to know what it feels like to have a mom. . . . I suppose that having a mom is different because she’s a woman. She takes care of you like a mother

Researcher: Did you ever speak about this with your dads?

Jesus: No . . . a little bit about my birth mother. . . . I don’t want them to think that I am not happy, that I necessarily need a mother . . . In the end, it is the same. Having a mother and a father or two fathers . . . it’s the same.

In Jesus’s narrative, one can see a great hesitation in expressing his curiosity about having a mother, because he feared he might hurt his adoptive parents and transmit a message of not being happy with them. For Jesus, sharing such curiosity meant not only that he was ungrateful toward his parents but that it would also indirectly confirm the heterosexist stereotype according to which “every child needs a mother and a father” (Clarke, 2001). Indeed, after having shared his curiosity about this maternal figure, he

suddenly went back to a defensive attitude, by minimizing his feelings. Several adolescents (83%; n � 5) in the sample mani- fested difficulties in talking openly about their feelings of living with same-sex parents, which seemed to be a taboo topic, during their interviews. In such situations, family communication about this issue appears blocked, with the result that it continues to float silently in familial dynamics, hidden behind the appearance that “everything is fine.”

Discussion

No research has directly considered the overlap of both the adoptive status and parents’ sexual minority status in studying the identity construction process of adopted children. This research is the first study giving voice to all members of same-sex adoptive families in order to explore identity-related issues of children growing up in such households. Our study sheds light on the developmental challenges of adoptees at four age periods: early childhood, childhood, preadolescence, and adolescence. One of the main contributions of this study con- sists in having shown that the identity construction process of children adopted by same-sex parents is the result of the inter- section of two main elements: their adoptive status and their family’s sexual minority status. Our study has shown that these two elements cannot easily be divided, given that children are confronted by a double layer of identity complexity, which forms the “two faces of the same coin.” The combination of these two elements gives rise to unique issues and challenges at each stage of development (see Table 2).

Table 2 Identity Construction Process in Children Adopted by Same-Sex Parents

Age group Questions Behaviors, feelings Developmental tasks

Early childhood (3–5 years) • Was I in your belly? • Can I stay in your belly? • Was she my mom? • Do I have a mom?

• Play-acting to be born from adoptive parent’s body

• Drawing bellies • Curiosity about women’s

bodies

• Understanding the difference between the biological and the affective side of parenting

• Starting to feel part of the adoptive family

Middle childhood (6–9 years) • Why don’t I have a mom/dad? • Might I have a mom/dad one day? • Will I see her/him (birth mother/

father) again?

• Idealization of the imaginary mother or father

• Idealization of birth mother or father

• Understanding the family diversity • Double grieving process: of birth parents

and of a fantasized mom or dad

Preadolescence (10–13 years) • What does it feel like to have a mom/dad?

• What was he/she (birth mother/ father) like?

• Do I look like him/her (birth mother/father)?

• Idealization of the birth parents

• Need to have social gender role models

• Opposition to adoptive parents and desire to change the family structure

• Need to fit in

• Dealing with adoption-related losses • Building social gender role • Dealing with heterosexism, bullying, and

teasing • Managing disclosure practices

Adolescence (14–18 years) • What does it feel like to have a mom/dad?

• What was he/she (birth mother/ father) like?

• Do I look like him/her (birth mother/father)?

• Gratitude toward adoptive parents

• Interest in and curiosity about birth parents

• Feelings of loyalty toward adoptive parents

• Proud of being part of lesbian–gay community and wish to support other children raised by same-sex parents

• Integrating the diversity in their identity as a positive element

• Dealing with heterosexism, bullying, and teasing

• Managing disclosure practices

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

518 MESSINA AND BRODZINSKY

During early childhood, children begin to integrate informa- tion about their adoption story and are fascinated by the mys- tery of their origins. They deal with two main developmental tasks: understanding the differences between biological and affective sides of parenting and progressively feeling part of their new family. The questions asked most frequently by children at this stage include these: “Was I in your belly?” “Why are babies in the womb of a woman?” “Was she my mom?” and “Do I have a mom [for children of gay men]?” Our findings revealed that the theme of origins was a very relevant one and manifested by children in several ways: by playing or drawing, and/or in daily rituals. An interesting finding is that children were able to provide detailed information about this topic at a young age. This finding suggests that even if the interest for the themes of birth and conception is common in children (Caron & Ahlgrim, 2012), being part of a same-sex- parent family potentially could accelerate the typical develop- mental trajectory with respect to understanding conception, in part because same-sex parents may feel compelled to offer explanations for how children are created in response to the lack of gender diversity in their own family. Children adopted by gay men were particularly attracted by the theme of pregnancy and by the functions of the maternal body. Some children role-played their birth from their adoptive father’s body or enacted other rituals to find some “maternal functions” in their adoptive fathers, thereby symbolizing their “mythical graft (Neuburger, 2015) in the adoptive family and acquiring a rudi- mental understanding of their status of being adopted by same- sex parents. The reasons why the emphasis on the feminine or maternal theme did not appear for preschool children with lesbian mothers are unclear. One possibility is that many of these children had previous experiences of being nurtured by women, either in orphanages or by their birth mothers, which could have affected their associations and expectations of care- giving with women after adoption. Also, the emphasis on the maternal theme could reflect heteronormative assumptions con- sidering the maternal figure as necessary for the healthy devel- opment of children. This is consistent with previous literature (Messina & D’Amore, 2018) showing that gay men reported a higher level of concerns about the “absence of the maternal figure”, compared to lesbian mothers, who were much less concerned about the absence of the paternal figure for their children’s well-being. Thus, it is possible that gay fathers in our sample emphasized the maternal theme in their discussions with children, which led to a greater representation of this theme in children’s discourse too.

During middle childhood, children have a better awareness of the meaning and implications of being adopted, as well as of their adoptive family’s minority status. At this stage, they also develop a realistic understanding of the irreversibility of adop- tion (Brodzinsky, 2011). This realization sensitizes them to the gains and losses related to their family status. Results from this sample suggest that being adopted by same-sex parents pro- vides children with a permanent, loving, and nurturing family but often at the expense of the loss of their birth parents and the reality of not having a mother (in gay-male-headed households) or a father (in lesbian-headed-households) in their life. In the context of living in a heterosexist society, this awareness can be

confusing for children when they compare themselves to their peers. As a consequence, a recurring, central question asked by these children is “Why don’t I have a mom/dad?” Our results show that this mom or dad, absent physically, can be very present in the adopted children’s imaginary life (see also Brodz- insky, 2014). In particular, children often idealize this “fanta- sised”, as someone they do not have but would like to have, as do other children. Moreover, like all adoptees, they start to develop a progressive curiosity about the birth parents, which causes them to confront painful feelings of loss and abandon- ment. These two elements—the loss of the birth parents and the absence of a mother or father in the adoptive family— coexist in children’s psychodynamics, resulting in the emergence of new and specific identity-related issues. According to psychody- namic theories, such feelings could be interpreted as an expres- sion of the “family romance” (Rosenberg & Horner, 1991, p. 82), common to all children, which consists of an unconscious feeling of rejection toward their parents while fantasizing about another set of parents. In particular, our findings suggest that children adopted by same-sex parents can develop their family romance by experiencing a strong curiosity about the birth parent whose gender is absent in their adoptive family (the birth mother for children of gay men; the birth father for children of lesbian women) or, alternatively, idealizing a generic maternal or paternal figure that they do not have in their adoptive family.

The results also suggest that the preadolescence period was especially critical for both adoptees and parents. Consistent with results in previous research (Farr et al., 2016), our findings show that preadolescents often face episodes of teasing and bullying, which can be deeply painful. More specifically, and in line with findings in other studies (Cody et al., 2017; Gianino et al., 2009), adoptees in our sample reported that revealing their family structure to peers was a difficult task. For this reason, they often preferred to hide their parents’ sexual minority status from their peers until they felt confident of their reactions. Thematic analysis also revealed that in this period adoptees often manifest oppositional attitudes toward their parents and sometimes even desire to change their family structure to be “like the others.”

During adolescence the attitude of defiance toward parents seen in the previous developmental phase gradually gives way to a more mature reflection on their family circumstances. In particular, adolescents reported feelings of gratitude and loyalty toward their adoptive parents, as well as feelings of pride regarding their parents’ sexual orientation. In doing so, they are able to integrate their family “diversity” as a positive and distinctive element in their identity. Consistent with the results of existing literature, all these elements suggest that despite the challenges encountered, adoptees draw upon their own difficult life experiences, developing high levels of resilience and pos- itive conceptualization of family (Farr et al., 2016). Further- more, adolescents seemed sensitive to social causes and em- phasized the importance of defending minority rights. These findings are consistent with those in the previous studies in which tolerance and openness to diversity were emphasized as strengths of children raised by same-sex parents. (Patterson, 2009).

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

519CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES

Strengths, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

This research has several strengths. First, it highlights the voices of adopted children and their parents in relation to the integration of adoption and sexual minority statuses into the identity construc- tion process. Our qualitative method also provides for a deeper exploration of children’s and parents’ views about how adoption and sexual minority status are internalized in the emerging identity of children and youth than is typically found using quantitative methods. In addition, the study includes children adopted by both lesbian women and gay men in three European countries and examines adoptees’ experiences during four developmental stages, from early childhood to late adolescence.

Despite these strengths, the study also has a number of limitations. The small sample size limits our ability to gener- alize the findings to the larger population of adoptees living with sexual minority parents. In addition, the sample is more heavily weighted with younger children, most likely because same-sex adoption has only recently been legalized in many European countries. As a result, these families are more likely to have younger than older children. More families headed by gay men than lesbian women were included in the sample, making it difficult to understand similarities and differences for children raised in these two different family types. It is unclear why more men volunteered for the study than did lesbian women. Given the growing acceptance of same-sex-parent fam- ilies in Europe and the relatively few studies that have focused on gay men compared to lesbian women, it is possible that the former were particularly interested in having their voices heard. In our sample there was an uneven number of boys and girls, which limits our ability to compare gender similarities and differences in adoptees’ experiences. One possible reason for this gender disparity is that gay men often prefer to adopt boys rather than girls (see Goldberg, 2009). Our small sample size also made it impossible to compare the experiences of transra- cially adopted children with those adopted by same-race par- ents; similarly, we could not compare the experiences of chil- dren adopted domestically versus those adopted internationally. Future research should examine the impact of adoption type, especially those involving transracial placements, as another potential factor impacting the identity status of adoptive chil- dren raised by sexual minority families. Future research should also examine the intersection of children’s gender- and parents’ gender related to feelings about adoption and the family’s sexual minority status. In addition, our study was unable to determine the impact of being adopted as part of a sibling group compared to being adopted as an individual child. Sharing the adoption experience with a sibling could be a protective factor in coping with minority status stress. The cross-sectional design of the study also limits our ability to determine whether the age-related patterns observed would be confirmed longitudi- nally, and the qualitative methods used also raises questions about the possibility of self-report and interpretative bias. Fi- nally, the laws, regulations, adoption practices, and societal values related to same-sex adoption are different from one country to another. Although our sample is drawn from three different countries, it was too small to determine whether children’s experiences in relation to being adopted by sexual

minority parents varied as a function of where they lived. Cross-national comparisons of adoption experiences are rela- tively uncommon in the literature, but future research should examine the issues raised in this study in different societal contexts.

Social Implications and Conclusions

The purpose of this qualitative research was to study the identity construction process of children adopted by same-sex parents. Given ongoing concerns in some segments of society regarding adoption by same-sex couples, including the potential risk of exposing children to additional stressors related to parental sexual orientation, what conclusions can be drawn from the current study? Our findings provide a clear and con- sistent message: Children adopted by same-sex couples are confronted with unique and additional developmental tasks related to the intersection of their adoptive and minority sta- tuses. These challenges are incorporated into the children’s developing sense of self and family in different ways at differ- ent developmental phases. However, the existence of such challenges does not in itself mean that children are likely to manifest adjustment difficulties. What matters in circumstances such as those faced by youth in our study is to find a way of transforming the life challenges related to their family situation into an element of personal richness.

Our study sheds light on two elements that could influence the extent of negative feelings encountered by adoptees in same-sex headed families during their developing years. First, encountering heterosexist attitudes in school contexts does ap- pear to be a risk factor that can increase children’s minority stress (Meyer, 2003) and feelings of being different (Cody et al., 2017; Farr et al., 2016; Gianino et al., 2009). For these reasons, it is important that teachers and school administrators create an accepting and inclusive school environment for all children. The school context, in particular, should play a pivotal role in conveying a positive image of diverse family life, especially those headed by sexual minority adoptive parents, so as to help children in coping with their developmental chal- lenges.

Second, our findings highlight the importance of open familial communication (Brodzinsky, 2006), in which children feel free to discuss the contrasting feelings connected with both their adoptive and minority statuses. Same-sex parents, in particular, have the role of understanding, legitimatizing, and validating children’s questions to help them cope with the complexities that are inherent in their personal and family circumstances, as well as with heter- onormative attitudes that are experienced beyond the family.

This study provides a rich foundation for future research, as well as underscores the point that adopted children who also have other special identities (e.g., by virtue of ethnic or cultural differences from their adoptive parents or by virtue of their family structure) need to be understood in the context of their intersecting identities. Considering that same-sex adoption is a rapidly growing phenom- enon around the world, the results of our study can be particularly useful for adoption agencies, psychologists, therapists, social workers, and teachers, who need to be informed about the unique challenges faced by these new families.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

520 MESSINA AND BRODZINSKY

References

American Psychological Association. (2004). Resolution on sexual orien- tation and marriage. Retrieved November 14, 2017, from https://www .apa.org/about/policy/same-sex

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brodzinsky, D. M. (2006). Family structural openness and communication openness as predictors in the adjustment of adopted children. Adoption Quarterly, 9, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J145v09n04_01

Brodzinsky, D. M. (2011). Children understanding of adoption: Develop- mental and clinical implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 200 –207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022415

Brodzinsky, D. M. (2014). The role of birthparents in the life of the adoptive family: Real versus symbolic presence. In E. Scabini & G. Rossi (Eds.), Allargare lo spazio familiare: Adozione e affido [Expand- ing the family space: Adoption and fostering] (pp. 223–241). Milan, Italy: Vita e Pensiero.

Brodzinsky, D. M., Singer, L. M., & Braff, A. M. (1984). Children’s understanding of adoption. Child Development, 55, 869 – 878. http://dx .doi.org/10.2307/1130138

Caron, S. L., & Ahlgrim, C. J. (2012). Children’s understanding and knowledge of conception and birth: Comparing children from England, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 7, 16 –36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15546128 .2012.650970

Cigoli, V. (2016). Adattamento o generatività? Una questione di orizzonte e di metodo [Adaptation or generativity? A question of horizon and method]. Giornale italiano di psicologia, 43, 107–112. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1421/83624

Clarke, V. (2001). What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24, 555–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(01)00193-5

Cody, P. A., Farr, R. H., McRoy, R. G., Ayers-Lopez, S. J., & Ledesma, K. J. (2017). Youth perspectives on being adopted from foster care by lesbian and gay parents: Implications for families and adoption profes- sionals. Adoption Quarterly, 20, 98 –118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10926755.2016.1200702

Ducommun-Nagy, C. (2008). La loyauté familiale, une ressource relation- nelle [Family loyalty, a relational resource]. Gérontologie et société, 4, 115–128.

Erich, S., Hall, S. K., Kanenberg, H., & Case, K. (2009). Early and late stage adolescence: Adopted adolescents’ attachment to their heterosex- ual and lesbian/gay parents. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 152–170. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/10926750903330462

Farr, R. H., Bruun, S. T., Doss, K. M., & Patterson, C. J. (2018). Children’s gender-typed behavior from early to middle childhood in adoptive families with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 78, 528 –541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0812-5

Farr, R. H., Crain, E. E., Oakley, M. K., Cashen, K. K., & Garber, K. J. (2016). Microaggressions, feelings of difference, and resilience among adopted children with sexual minority parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 85–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0353-6

Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14, 164 –178. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10888691.2010.500958

Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013). Lesbian and gay adoptive parents and their children. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 39 –55). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_3

Fedewa, A. L., Black, W. W., & Ahn, S. (2015). Children and adolescents with same-gender parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing out-

comes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1080/1550428X.2013.869486

Gianino, M., Goldberg, A., & Lewis, T. (2009). Family outings: Disclosure practices among adopted youth with gay and lesbian parents. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 205–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926750903313344

Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay pre-adoptive par- ents’ preferences about child gender. Sex Roles, 61, 55–71. http://dx.doi .org/10.1007/s11199-009-9598-4

Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Oltre il binarismo: Concettualizzare il genere nelle ricerche sui bambini con genitori gay e lesbiche [Beyond binarism: conceptualizing gender in research on children with gay and lesbian parents]. Giornale italiano di psicologia, 43, 143–146. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1421/83631

Goldberg, A. E., & Kuvalanka, K. A. (2012). Marriage (in)equality: The perspectives of adolescents and emerging adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 34 –52. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00876.x

Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. (2014). Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment. Child Development, 85, 456 – 468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12155

Greco, O. (1999). La doppia luna: Test dei confini e delle appartenenze familiari [The Double Moon: Testing of boundaries and family mem- berships]. Milan, Italy: Vita e Pensiero.

Greco, O. (2006). Il lavoro clinico con le famiglie complesse: Il test La doppia Luna nella ricerca e nella terapia [Clinical work with complex families: The Double Moon Test in research and therapy]. Milan, Italy: FrancoAngeli.

Grotevant, H. D., McRoy, R. G., Wrobel, G. M., & Ayers-Lopez, S. (2013). Contact between adoptive and birth families: Perspectives from the Minnesota Texas Adoption Research Project. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 193–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12039

Grotevant, H. D., & Von Korff, L. (2011). The adoptive identity. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyck, & V. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 585– 601). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419- 7988-9_24

Herbrand, C. (2006). L’adoption par les couples de même sexe [Adoption by same-sex couples]. Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP, 6 –7, 5–72.

Lavner, J. A., Waterman, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2012). Can gay and lesbian parents promote healthy development in high-risk children adopted from foster care? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 465– 472. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01176.x

Le Run, J. L. (2012). Des loyautés de l’enfance aux conflits de loyauté: Un concept pertinent en clinique? L’exemple de l’adoption [From loyalties of childhood to conflicts of loyalty: A clinically relevant concept? The example of adoption]. Enfances & Psy, 56, 35– 45. http://dx.doi.org/10 .3917/ep.056.0035

Lingiardi, V., & Carone, N. (2016). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers: An inconceivable conception? Giornale italiano di psicologia, 43, 57– 80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1421/83618

McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5, 100 –122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100

Messina, R., & D’Amore, S. (2018). Adoption by lesbians and gay men in Europe: Challenges and barriers on the journey to adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 21, 59 – 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2018 .1427641

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.129.5.674

Neil, E. (2012). Making sense of adoption: Integration and differentiation from the perspective of adopted children in middle childhood. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 409 – 416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .childyouth.2011.11.011

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

521CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES

Neuburger, R. (2015). Le mythe familial [The family myth] (6th ed.). Paris, France: Esf.

Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist, 64, 727–736. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.727

Patterson, C. J. (2017). Parents’ sexual orientation and children’s devel- opment. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 45– 49. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/cdep.12207

Pinderhughes, E., & Brodzinsky, D. (2019). Parenting in adoptive families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (3rd ed., pp. 322–367). http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780 429440847-10

Rosenberg, E. B., & Horner, T. M. (1991). Birthparent romances and identity formation in adopted children. American Journal of Orthopsy- chiatry, 61, 70 –77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0079220

Rosenfeld, Z., Burton, J., De Coster, L., & Duret, I. (2006). Adoption et construction identitaire [Adoption and identity construction]. Cahiers critiques de thérapie familiale et de pratiques de réseaux, 37, 157–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/ctf.037.0157

Vignoles, V. L., Schwartz, S. J., & Luyckx, K. (2011). Introduction: Toward an integrative view of identity. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 1–27). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_1

Received August 19, 2018 Revision received October 8, 2019

Accepted October 27, 2019 �

Correction to Stocker et al. (2020)

In the article “Sibling Relationships in Older Adulthood: Links With Loneliness and Well-Being,” by Clare M. Stocker, Megan Gilligan, Eric T. Klopack, Katherine J. Conger, Richard P. Lanthier, Tricia K. Neppl, Catherine Walker O’Neal, and K. A. S. Wickrama (Journal of Family Psychology, 2020, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 175–185, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000586), the df value is incorrect in the following sentence in the first paragraph of the Predictors of Individual Differences in Older Adults’ Sibling Relationships section of the Results: “The global F-statistic for warmth was significant (F � 16.55, df � 3, 632, p � .001).” The correct value is “df � 3, 601.”

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000668

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

522 MESSINA AND BRODZINSKY