1. Shared Fate & Adopted Adolescent Adjustment: Implications for Acknowledging Racial & Ethnic Difference Kayla N. Anderson, M.A. Martha A. Rueter, Ph.D. Richard M. Lee, Ph.D. Oh Myo Kim, Ph.D. University of Minnesota, USA

2. Overview This Study! Shared Fate Overview Study Goals

3. What is the Goal? Shared Fate Race & Ethnicity Child Adjustment

4. Shared Fate Theory (Kirk, 1964) Acknowledging > rejecting differences for adoptee adjustment Shared Fate = empathy & creating mutual bonds

5. Shared Fate: Racial & Ethnic Differences (Kirk, 1984; Kim et al., 2013; Shiao & Tuan, 2008) Shared Fate ≠ Cultural Socialization Family identity -> multiracial and/or multicultural AcknowledgeRejectionDiscrepant

6. Study Improvements Where’s Shared Fate? Where’s the Family? What happens when family members don’t agree?

7. What We Did…. Shared fate (racial & ethnic differences) -> adolescent adjustment Where’s the …. ??Our Solution Shared Fate?- Acknowledging differences = Shared Fate Family?- Family observational measure - Multiple children in family Ability to disagree?- Coded for discrepancies within families

8. Study Participants Subset of Sibling Interaction & Behavior Study: 111 families with 222 adolescents Both parents White Answered race/ethnicity ??? ≥ 1 Korean adoptee in family

9. Study Procedures Observational Measures Self-Report Measures Shared FateAdolescent adjustment ?? About Race & Ethnicity Coded transcripts Adolescent self-report

10. Study Measures Shared Fate Adolescent adjustment Adoption Status AcknowledgeDelinquent Behavior Inventory (Gibson, 1967) Control variable Rejectionα =.891 = not adopted Discrepant2 = adopted

11. Data Analysis Nested ANCOVAs Nested data  Shared Family Variance Adolescents = individual cases

12. % of Families by Shared Fate Category 62 families: 56% 26 families: 23%

13. Differences in Delinquency by Shared Fate Category

14. Nested ANCOVA Results Comparisons between groups: Acknowledging differences < discrepant delinquent behaviors, η p 2 = -3.92, p =.004. Rejection of differences < discrepant delinquent behaviors, η p 2 = -2.28, p =.039. Acknowledging = rejection of differences. Shared Fate  adolescent delinquent behavior, F(2, 100) = 4.45, p =.014.

15. Conclusions Adoption status < important than family context? Discrepant views of differences = poorer adjustment (other two groups) Shared fate (race & ethnicity)  adolescent externalizing behavior

16. Future Directions replication Include discrepancies Other adoptee populations Shared fate  non-adoptive members How to reach shared fate?

17. Acknowledgements & Funding: Data provided by: Minnesota Center for Twin & Family Research Funding provided by: National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [AA11886] National Institute of Mental Health [MH066140, MH070740] Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Contact: Kayla Anderson: and02584@umn.edu

18. References Gibson, H.B. (1967). Self-reported delinquency among schoolboys and their attitudes to the police. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 168-173. Kim, O.M., Reichwald, R., & Lee, R.M. (2013). Cultural socialization in families with adopted Korean adolescents: A mixed-method, multi- informant study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(1), 69-95. Kirk, H.D. (1964). Shared fate: A theory of adoption and mental health. London: Free Press. Kirk, H.D. (1984). Shared fate (Rev. ed.). WA: Ben-Simon. Shiao, J. L. & Tuan, M. H. (2008). Shared fates in Asian transracial adoption. In A. Grant-Thomas & G. Orfield (Eds), Twenty-first Century Color Lines: Multiracial Change in Contemporary America (pp. 178-197), Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.