|   Marshall Schechter, a psychiatrist 
              in private practice in Beverly Hills, California, reported in 1960 
              that adoptees were 100 times more likely than non-adoptees to present 
              a range of serious emotional problems. Like a number of other contributions 
              to the psychopathology literature, Schechter’s report was 
              based on a tiny number of cases. He presented information about 
              120 children seen in his practice between 1948 and 1953, of whom 
              exactly sixteen (or 13.3 percent) were adopted. Since adoptees numbered 
              less than one-tenth of one percent in the general population, adopted 
              children were greatly over-represented in his practice. Schechter’s 
              friend, Povl Toussieng, a child psychiatrist at the famous Menninger 
              Clinic, had also told him that up to one-third of all children seen 
              as outpatients at the clinic were adopted. Schechter’s own 
              observations, confirmed by a trusted colleague, were the basis for 
              his conclusion. Adoption had an emotionally damaging impact on child 
              development. 
             What exactly was it about adoption that caused problems? According 
              to Schechter, the answer could be found in the psychoanalytic theory 
              that “object relations” (the first and closest ties 
              formed between infants and the adults who care for them) were crucial 
              determinants of personhood. Children could not cope with the knowledge 
              that they had been rejected by birth 
              parents and no amount of reassurance that their adoptive parents 
              loved and wanted them could make up for the “severe narcissistic 
              injury” that adoption inflicted. Each and every one of his 
              sixteen cases illustrated “how the idea of adoption had woven 
              itself into the framework of the child’s personality configuration.” 
              Telling children they were adopted 
              was mandatory, Schechter agreed, but it also precipitated psychological 
              difficulties. Carefully timing and managing the details of telling 
              could help mitigate the resulting problems. (Later studies challenged 
              this view. See, for example, the excerpt from Benson 
              Jaffee and David Fanshel, How They Fared in Adoption.) 
             
             Schechter was not the first person to suggest that adoption posed 
              intrinsic psychological risks. As early as 1937, psychiatrist David 
              Levy presented case histories showing that adoptees suffered from 
              “primary affect hunger,” a term he used to describe 
              what is now called attachment disorder. A number of other clinicians 
              in the U.S. and Britain published reports in the 1940s and 1950s 
              about the deleterious consequences of growing up “without 
              genealogy.” It was the boldness of Schechter’s claim 
              that adopted children were much more likely to become neurotic and 
              psychotic that galvanized helping professionals and therapeutic 
              approaches to adoption. It also generated a great deal of controversy. 
              H. David Kirk, author of Shared 
              Fate, called Schechter’s study “spurious.” 
              Many other researchers were equally skeptical that adoption was 
              the sort of risk factor Schechter maintained it was. 
            Schechter’s methodology drew the most fire. Small numbers 
              of detailed case histories had long been standard features of medical 
              research and psychiatrists renowned for their contributions to developmental 
              theory, including Sigmund Freud 
              and Anna Freud, relied on 
              them extensively. But psychologists and social workers with training 
              in scientific research methods insisted that Schechter’s sample 
              was far too small to be representative and disparaged his crude 
              and inaccurate statistical calculations. His research design was 
              so flawed as to be hopelessly unreliable. 
             Schechter responded by sending a questionnaire to members of the 
              Southern California Psychiatric Society and various regional institutions. 
              A follow-up report presented empirical data showing that adoptees 
              showed up in clinical populations everywhere at much higher than 
              average rates. 
             Schechter’s account of the damage that adoption did to children 
              was vigorously contested during the 1960s. Today, it is widely accepted 
              by parents and professionals who agree that attachment and loss 
              are at the heart of what makes adoption a distinctive and difficult 
              experience. This consensus was efficiently summarized in a book 
              that Schechter co-edited with developmental psychologist David Brodzinsky: 
              The Psychology of Adoption (1990).  
             |