when children are not genetically related to their parents, what do we really know

When children are not genetically related to their parents,

What do we really know about parent-child communication?

Martha A. Rueter

Department of Family Social Science

University of Minnesota

Presentation overview

Introduction:What we know about family communication

Foundation:Data source: SIBS

Guiding theory: Family Communication Patterns

Findings:Communication, genetic relatedness,

adjustment

Communication, genetic relatedness, agreementFuture Directions

Appropriate parental controlClear, positive or neutral messages

Listening to one anotherWarmth

Control Messages Listening Warmth

Family Communication

ChildAdjustment

Some things we know:

Introduction

When children are not genetically related to their parents,

What do we know about parent-child communication?

Martha A. Rueter

Department of Family Social Science

Ascan F. Koerner

Department of Communication Studies

University of Minnesota

Foundation

Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS)

Research Team

Matt McGue, PI

Bill Iacano

Irene Elkins

Meg Keyes

Martha Rueter

SIBS is funded by grants for the US government: NIMH, NIDA, NIAAA

Foundation

N = 617 families, each with two participating children.

Elder child, M age = 16.01 years.

Younger child, M age = 13.69 years.

N = 409 families: Child(ren) not genetically related to parents.

N = 285 families: Both children adopted.

N = 124 families: 1 child adopted, 1 child not adopted.

N = 208 families: Children genetically related to parents.

Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS)

Participants

Foundation

Family Adoption Status(Adoptive or Non-adoptive family)

Family communication and adoption status directly associated?

ChildAdjustment



Family communication and adoption status interact.

Rueter et al, JFP, in pressRueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008

Foundation

Family Communication Patterns Theory

(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004)

Optimal family functioning requires that members achieve a

Shared social reality exists when family members

(A) Agree.

(B) Accurately perceive their agreement.

shared social reality

Foundation


ChildAdjustment


Foundation

Parent-childgenetic

relatedness

ChildAdjustment

Family SharedSocial Reality



(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004)

Conversation Orientation: Emphasizes discussion to achieve shared social reality.

Conformity Orientation: Emphasizes looking to an authority to achieve shared social reality.

Shared Social Reality Achieved through reliance on a combination of 2 orientations.

Foundation

Conversation Orientation

Co

nfo

rmit

y O

rien

tati

on

ConsensualProtective

Family Communication Patterns (FCP)

PluralisticLaissez-Faire

Low High

High

Foundation

M F O Y M F O Y M F O Y M F O Y


Patterns

(4 Latent Classes)

Observed Control

Observed Communication

ObservedListening

ObservedWarmth

Measuring Family Communication Patterns

Rueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008

Older Sex

Younger Sex

Findings: Adjustment

Laissez Faire


Control Communication Listening Warmth


Pattern

Parent-child genetic relatedness(Adoptive or Non-adoptive family)

Family Communication Pattern

and adoption status directly associated?


Dark Bars: Adoptive

Light Bars: Non-adoptive



Family communication and genetic relatedness directly associated?



Pattern

ChildAdjustment

Family communication and genetic relatedness interact.





Pattern

ChildExternalizing

Behavior

Family communication and genetic relatedness interact.


ObservedDefiance to Mother

Self-Reported

Delinquency

TeacherReported

Externalizing

Diagnosed Symptoms

Externalizing

ObservedDefiance to Father

Older childExternalizing Behavior

(2 Latent Classes)

Measuring child externalizing behavior


Older Sex

Older Age


Control Communication Listening WarmthHS

to M DBIExt

(Teacher)HS

to FExt

(Symptoms)


Pattern

ChildExternalizing

Behavior

Estimate the proportion of

children placed in the high externalizing subgroup

for each Family Communication Pattern


Hypothesized externalizing levels by Hypothesized externalizing levels by Family Communication PatternFamily Communication Pattern

Consensual

Pluralistic

Protective

Laissez-Faire


Co

nfo

rmit

y O

rien

tati

on

Lowest externalizing

Moderate externalizing

Moderate externalizing

Highest externalizing



ChildExternalizing

Behavior



Pattern

Family Communication Pattern and

genetic relatedness interact.



Co

nfo

rmit

y O

rien

tati

on

Consensual

Pluralistic

Protective

Laissez-Faire

Hypothesized externalizing levels by Hypothesized externalizing levels by Family Communication Pattern and genetic Family Communication Pattern and genetic

relatednessrelatedness

Adopted similarto non-adopted

Adopted similarto non-adopted

Adopted higher than non-adopted

Adopted higherthan non-adopted


18.5%

4.1% 2.6%

16.7%

26.9%

0.0%

12.3%

7.8%

Proportion of Children placed in theHigh Externalizing Subgroup

across Family Communication Patterns by Adoption Status



Pattern

ChildAdjustment

Parent-childgenetic

relatedness



and parent-child genetic relatedness


Pattern


Parent-childgenetic

relatedness

The Role of Shared Social Reality

Findings: Agreement

Q1. Drinking is a good way to celebrate special occasions.

Q2. Drinking can help you feel less shy.

Q3. Drinking can make you feel more confident.

Q4. Drinking with others is a good way to have fun.

Q5. Drinking makes parties more fun.

Q6. Drinking makes it easier to talk to people at parties.

Sibling Shared Social Alcohol ExpectanciesSibling Shared Social Alcohol Expectancies

Older and younger sibling responses to 6 questions:

Items from the Alcohol Expectancies Questionnaire (Brown et al., 1987).

Measuring Shared Social Reality

Rueter & Koerner, ISSBD, 2008

Findings: Agreement

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Statistical Model of Sibling Shared Social Reality

OlderSocial AlcoholExpectancies

YoungerSocial AlcoholExpectancies

Older Sex

Older Age

Younger Sex

Younger Age


Findings: Agreement


Pattern

Sibling SharedSocial Reality

Siblinggenetic

relatedness


Findings: Agreement



Adoptive siblings (N = 409)

.07

(t = 1.32)

Non-adoptive siblings (N = 208)

.44

(t = 3.64)



2 (df = 1) = 8.81, P < .05

Direct effect of genetic relatedness


Findings: Agreement

Direct effect of Family Communication Pattern



Family emphasizes conversation (N = 230)

.42

(t = 4.27)

Family does not emphasize conversation (N = 386)

.02

(t = .44)



2 (df = 1) = 13.92, P < .05


Findings: Agreement




.36

(t = 3.64)


-.04

(t = -.71)



2 (df = 1) = 13.26, P < .05

Interaction between FCP and genetic relatedness:Adoptive siblings


Findings: Agreement




.71

(t = 2.55)


.35

(t = 2.34)



2 (df = 1) = 1.77, P > .05)

Interaction between FCP and genetic relatedness:Non-adoptive siblings


Findings: Agreement


Pattern

Sibling SharedSocial Reality

Siblinggenetic

relatedness


Findings: Agreement


Pattern


Parent-childgenetic

relatedness

ChildAdjustment

Future Directions

when children are not genetically related to their parents, what do we really know

Documents

parentchild communication

family communicationfoundation

family membersa

younger child

elder child

introductionwhen children

participating children

optimal family functioning