|   This outcome 
              study, conducted during the 1960s, followed up on 100 adoptions 
              arranged by four New York agencies decades earlier, between 1931 
              and 1940. The study is interesting not only because it surveyed 
              very long-term outcomes, but because thinking about adoption had 
              changed so much in the intervening period. For example, the researchers 
              were preoccupied with factors such as infertility 
              and the unique struggles that adopters faced in feeling entitled 
              to their children. This understandably incorporated the emphasis 
              on difference that was featured in recent works of adoption theory, 
              like Shared Fate, 
              and in therapeutic perspectives on adoption that reached their peak 
              after midcentury. Yet when the adoptions studied here were initially 
              arranged, during the 1930s, infertility and its 
              psychological consequences had been minor considerations, if they 
              had been considerations at all. 
            Jaffee and Fanshel nevertheless set out to explore and measure 
              adults’ “ability to undertake parental role obligations 
              without neurotic conflict.” They hypothesized that attitudes 
              toward child-rearing were a sensitive barometer of parental psychology 
              and would be strongly correlated with outcomes. Stricter parents 
              (who resorted to spanking, for instance, and rarely left their children 
              alone) were less able to handle separation. This illustrated that 
              they had not overcome the handicaps of adoptive parenthood. On the 
              other hand, parents who took more risks and allowed their children 
              more freedom (by hiring more babysitters, for instance) had vanquished 
              “the psychological insult” of infertility. 
              They had achieved authentic parenthood. 
             Contrary to their hypothesis, the data that Fanshel and Jaffee 
              gathered suggested that the degree of strictness had little to do 
              with adoption outcomes. Money rather than psychology determined 
              the extent of substitute care. The study utilized extensive tape-recorded 
              interviews that were then coded and manipulated electronically. 
              The researchers also examined original case records and devised 
              an instrument that interviewers used to evaluate parents’ 
              overall feelings about adoption and infertility. 
              The study focused on school performance, quality of past and present 
              child-parent relationships, health, vocational history, heterosexual 
              adjustment, and parental satisfaction. Outcomes were summarized, 
              an Overall Adjustment Score was calculated, and the 100 adoptees 
              were divided into three groups: “low-problem,” “middle-range,” 
              and “high-problem.” 
             The researchers assumed that difference in adoption made all the 
              difference, so it astonished them that most of the parents they 
              interviewed (73 percent) insisted that the problems they had encountered 
              had nothing to do with adoption. Even parents of “high-problem” 
              children were unlikely to blame adoption itself for whatever had 
              gone wrong. 
            There were other surprises too. Age at placement, which had declined 
              steadily during the previous four decades because of studies like 
               How Foster Children Turn Out 
              and adopters’ demand for babies, did not influence outcomes 
              as the researchers expected. In fact, “high-problem” 
              children in the sample had been placed younger than “low-problem” 
              children. 
            Jaffee and Fanshel were also perplexed to discover that telling 
              did not emerge as a significant variable (Marshall Schechter’s 
              “ Observations on Adopted Children” 
              predicted that it would.) While the vast majority of parents had 
              told the children about their adoptive status, they varied widely 
              in when they told, how they told, and how often (if ever) they returned 
              to the topic. Few parents had given children full and honest information 
              about illegitimacy, for 
              example, and many deliberately withheld embarrassing details. Seven 
              tables that presented statistical correlations related to telling 
              revealed that none of this mattered. Only one thing appeared to 
              influence outcomes. Adoptees who expressed more curiosity about 
              their natal backgrounds were more highly clustered in the “high-problem” 
              group. This finding confirmed a view that was widespread at the 
              time. Indifference to genealogy was a sign of success. Adoptees 
              who gave little or no thought to the facts of their birth had turned 
              out well. 
             How They Fared in Adoption demonstrated a paradox in 
              the evolution of outcome studies over time. As researchers utilized 
              more sophisticated design and statistical methodology to control 
              for variance, they also became more reluctant to make causal claims 
              and less confident that knowledge would translate into progress. 
              Studies that set out to banish uncertainty from family-formation 
              were more and more likely to conclude that little could be known 
              for sure. 
             
             |