Behavior problems in adolescence among international adoptees, pre-adoption adversity, and parenting stress

Cumulative Risk and Substance Use in Adoptees: Moderation by Adoptive Parent Stress

“…This suggests that demographic (i.e., current age) or postadoption environmental variables (i.e., parenting stress, postadoption adversity) were more substantive predictors of substance use, above the role of cumulative risk. These findings align with prior research indicating that facets of the adoptive family environment, including parenting stress, exert a greater effect on adoptees' psychological adjustment than prenatal and postnatal risk factors occurring before adoption (Ji et al, 2010; Smith et al, 2018).…”

“…However, to our knowledge, no such research has examined parenting stress as a buffer of postnatal environmental risk or investigated whether low parenting stress in the adoptive family buffers the effect of preadoptive risk factors on adoptive child maladjustment. Importantly, although it is possible also that parenting stress mediates the association between adoptee risk factors and later adjustment (Smith et al, 2018), mediation would require that parenting stress affects adoptees similarly at all levels of adoptee risk (Fairchild & Mackinnon, 2009). Instead, we propose that parenting stress may act as a source of family protection or vulnerability only in the context of preexisting risk (i.e., greater child cumulative risk), necessitating a moderation model.…”

“…Parenting stress may be heightened among foster-adoptive parents due to the unique challenges they face. Contributors to parenting stress in these families may include child characteristics, such as developmental delays, medical problems, preadoptive risk factors, and behavior problems (Canzi et al, 2017;Judge, 2003;McGlone et al, 2002;Smith et al, 2018). In relation to parent characteristics, contributors to parenting stress include parent perceptions of the adoption experience and parenting alliance (Lionetti et al, 2015;Sánchez-Sandoval & Palacios, 2012), and systemic issues (e.g., long adoption process, issues related to transracial adoption; Goldberg, 2010).…”

Remarkable cognitive catch-up in Chinese Adoptees nine years after adoption

“…The few other studies that have examined associations between type of pre-adoption care and cognitive development have yielded mixed evidence, with some studies finding significant effects of type of pre-adoption care on various domains of cognitive development such as intellectual functioning (Miller, Chan, Comfort, & Tirella, 2005;van Londen, Juffer, & Van IJzendoorn, 2007;Wilson, Weaver, Cradock, & Kuebli, 2008), school achievement (Loman, Wiik, Frenn, Pollak, & Gunnar, 2009) and executive functioning (Bruce, Tarullo, & Gunnar, 2009), and other studies not finding effects (e.g., Katzenstein, LeJeune, & Johnson, 2016;Pollak et al, 2010;Welsh & Viana, 2012). In line with research on the effects of other adverse experiences, these inconsistent findings regarding the impact of type of pre-adoption care may suggest that its effects are not deterministic (Sroufe, Coffino, & Carlson, 2010) nor permanent (Smith et al, 2018). One possible explanation which may explain why some children are more affected by adverse experiences prior to adoption than other children, comes from risk and resilience theory (Masten, 2001;Rutter, 1987).…”

Mother–Child Interaction in Families With Internationally Adopted Children and Families With Biological Children at Age 2: Similarities and Differences

“…adoption may constitute a beneficial alternative ; however, it has been well-documented that both domestically placed and internationally placed children are at greater risk for developing adjustment difficulties compared to their nonadopted peers Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010;Sonuga-Barke et al, 2017;Smith et al, 2018).…”