Predictors of race, adoption, and sexual orientation related socialization of adoptive parents of young children.

Abstract

Using a sample of 125 lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parent couples with young children (M = 6.32 years), this study examined predictors of direct socialization (preparation for adoptism, racism, and heterosexism) and indirect socialization (modeling interactions by responding to outsiders' inquiries about their child's adoptive status, racial background, or family structure). In terms of direct socialization, parents of older children tended to engage in more socialization around adoptism and heterosexism, and parents of daughters tended to engage in more socialization around racism and heterosexism. Greater perceived child interest in adoption was related to more direct socialization around adoptism. Parents of color reported more direct socialization around racism. Having a child of color was related to more direct socialization around heterosexism. Regarding indirect socialization, sexual minority parents reported more socialization around adoption and race. Greater perceived child interest in adoption was related to more indirect adoption socialization. Being more "out" was related to more indirect socialization around parent sexual orientation.

Community Characteristics, Victimization, and Psychological Adjustment Among School-Aged Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents

“…LG parents may feel more empowered and/or well-positioned to approach school personnel to advocate for their children than youth with LG parents-a stance that may be enhanced by parents' high levels of education and income, which can represent important sources of social capital, particularly in light of other marginalized status(es) (Goldberg et al, 2018). We also found that among parents who reported victimization, LG parents were more likely to talk to their children about such victimization than heterosexual parents, echoing prior work showing that LG adoptive parents are often highly aware of their children's potential for victimization surrounding multiple marginalized identities, and may engage in socialization around how to handle and respond to bias (Goldberg and Smith, 2016). Finally, LG parents were more likely to report talking to the bully-which is a concern given evidence that this is an undesired response by youth (Mishna et al, 2006) and may be especially upsetting to youth with LG parents, who may, because of their family structure, realistically fear backlash to this type of intervention.…”

Hegemonic Heteronormativity: Toward a New Era of Queer Family Theory

“…Most of these scholarly works (78%) cited Oswald et al (2005) only to define key constructs (e.g., heteronormativity, queering; Dietert & Dentice, 2013;Goldberg & Scheib, 2015;Kuvalanka, Weiner, & Russell, 2013;Lynch & Maree, 2013;Richardson & Goldberg, 2010;Suter & Daas, 2007) or to describe characteristics of the environment in which the study was conducted (e.g., heteronormativity in U.S. society ;Cao, Mills-Koonce, Wood, & Fine, 2016;Sharp & Ganong, 2011;Suter & Toller, 2006;Toomey, Card, & Casper, 2014) or the field of family science more broadly (Allen, 2016;Few-Demo, 2014;Sharp, Zvonkovic, Humble, & Radina, 2014). Importantly, many of these pieces provide empirical evidence supporting the queering processes proposed by Oswald and colleagues (e.g., Berkowitz, 2013;Cohen & Kuvalanka, 2011;Goldberg, 2007b;Goldberg & Allen, 2007;Goldberg, Downing, & Sauck, 2008;Goldberg & Smith, 2015;Hickey & Grafsky, 2016;Oswald & Masciadrelli, 2008;Toomey, McGuire, & Russell, 2012). For example, Cohen and Kuvalanka (2010) described complex sexualities in White, educated, lesbian parent families, who strive to teach their children "diverse notions of sexuality but without labels" (p. 303).…”

“…Background and Critique Oswald et al's (2005) definition of heteronormativity as an "ideological composite" (p. 142) has been instrumental in studying lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans 1 , and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in the fields of family science (Allen, 2016), communication (e.g., Chevrette, 2013), and psychology (e.g., Goldberg & Smith, 2015;Goldberg, Sweeney, Black, & Moyer, 2016;Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, Card, & Russell, 2010), among other fields (e.g., media studies; Dhaenens, 2013). As background to our proposed model, we felt it prudent to review the body of literature that has engaged with and/or referenced Oswald et al's (2005) chapter.…”

Family conflict observations and outcomes among adopted school-age children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents.

“…Some studies have directly attended to the perspectives of children and adolescents adopted by LG parents, which have indicated positive feelings about adoption as well as about having LG parents (Cody, Farr, McRoy, Ayers-Lopez, & Ledesma, 2017;Farr, Crain, Oakley, Cashen, & Garber, 2016;Gianino, Goldberg, & Lewis, 2009) including those with adopted children, suggests that these families may embody unique strengths in terms of family communication (e.g., as related to preparation for bias related to heterosexism, racism, adoptism, etc. ; Gianino et al, 2009;Goldberg & Smith, 2016) as well as resilience in individual outcomes in the context of adversity (i.e., facing stigma and discrimination ;Farr, Crain et al, 2016;van Gelderen, Gartrell, Bos, & Hermanns, 2013). Thus, it is vital to understand more, employing a broader and more rigorous array of assessments (i.e., child and parent reports, observational data) about how these families navigate difficult conversations together and whether these interaction dynamics relate to young children's adjustment.…”