WCU Family and Gender Roles Questions

Read the pdf file listed below.  Write a paper in that answers the questions that follow. Be sure to incorporate concepts learned from this week’s materials into your assignment. Cite your textbook as a source

1. What different interpretations of family and gender roles are voiced in the materials you reviewed? Draw connections between the materials above and your textbook readings.2. To what extent do these differing viewpoints correspond or clash with Western notions of family? Child Development, March/April 2014, Volume 85, Number 2, Pages 456–468
Adoptive Gay Father Families: Parent–Child Relationships and Children’s
Psychological Adjustment
Susan Golombok, Laura Mellish,
Sarah Jennings, and Polly Casey
Fiona Tasker
Birkbeck University of London
University of Cambridge
Michael E. Lamb
University of Cambridge
Findings are presented on a U.K. study of 41 gay father families, 40 lesbian mother families, and 49 heterosexual parent families with an adopted child aged 3–9 years. Standardized interview and observational and questionnaire measures of parental well-being, quality of parent–child relationships, child adjustment, and child
sex-typed behavior were administered to parents, children, and teachers. The findings indicated more positive
parental well-being and parenting in gay father families compared to heterosexual parent families. Child
externalizing problems were greater among children in heterosexual families. Family process variables, particularly parenting stress, rather than family type were found to be predictive of child externalizing problems.
The findings contribute to theoretical understanding of the role of parental gender and parental sexual
orientation in child development.
Research on the psychological development and
well-being of children raised by same-sex parents
has focused almost exclusively on families headed by
lesbian mothers rather than gay fathers. Although
it has consistently been shown that children with
lesbian mothers do not differ from children in
traditional families with respect to psychological
adjustment or sex-typed behavior (Goldberg, 2010;
Patterson, 2006, 2009), the circumstances of children
with gay fathers are somewhat different. Not only
are they raised by same-sex parents but also it is rare
for fathers, whether heterosexual or gay, to be primary caregivers.
Research on fathering has shown that heterosexual
fathers influence their children in similar ways to
mothers (Lamb, 2010), but it remains the case that
mothers are widely believed to be fundamentally
more suited to parenting, for example, more nurturing, than are fathers (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). Moreover, the wider social environment can have a
This project was supported by a grant awarded by the United
Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council. We would like
to thank the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, all
the participating adoption agencies, New Family Social, Gabriela
Roman, and all the families who took part in the study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Susan Golombok, Centre for Family Research, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3RQ, UK. Electronic mail may be
sent to seg42@cam.ac.uk.
The copyright line for this article was changed on June 26,
2015 after original online publication.
marked impact on children’s psychological
well-being, and children with gay fathers may be
exposed to greater prejudice and discrimination than
children with lesbian mothers because gay father
families possess the additional nontraditional feature
of being headed by men (Golombok & Tasker, 2010).
Regarding children’s gender development, it is now
generally agreed that sex-typed behavior results from
an interplay among biological, psychological, and
social mechanisms (Hines, 2010), with parents playing a minor, and possibly insignificant, role (Golombok & Tasker, 1996). Nevertheless, it has been
suggested that the gender development of children
with gay fathers may differ from that of children
with lesbian mothers or heterosexual parents due to
the presence of two male parents and the absence of
a female parent from the home. Goldberg, Kashy,
and Smith (2012) have postulated that children with
gay fathers may show less sex-typed behavior than
children with heterosexual parents resulting from a
less sex-typed family environment, and girls in gay
father families may show less sex-typed behavior
© 2013 The Authors
Child Development © 2013 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/8502-0009
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12155
Adoptive Gay Father Families
than girls in lesbian mother families due to the
absence of a female role model from the home.
In recent years, a growing number of gay father
families have been created through adoption (Brodzinsky & Pertman, 2011). It has been estimated from
the 2010 American Community Survey that around
7,100 adopted children are living with male couples
(G. Gates, personal communication). Although
adoption is associated with increased rates of adjustment problems for children in heterosexual families
(Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010), these appear to be largely related to factors that precede the adoption,
such as abusive or neglectful parenting and multiple
caretakers in the years before the adoption took
place (Dozier & Rutter, 2008; Palacios & Brodzinsky,
2010). Nevertheless, adoption presents specific challenges for families (Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011)
with poor communication about the adoption by
adoptive parents, including the circumstances that
led to the adoption and acknowledgment of the
child’s feelings about being adopted, associated with
more negative psychological outcomes for children
(Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002). In addition to
the stressors experienced by adoptive parents generally, gay adoptive fathers may be exposed to
stigma regarding their sexual identity (Goldberg,
2010). Those who are sensitive to such stigma have
been found to show elevated levels of parenting
stress (Tornello, Farr, & Patterson, 2011).
Initial investigations of adoptive gay father families have reported positive family functioning with
respect to quality of parenting and children’s
psychological well-being (Averett, Nalavany, &
Ryan, 2009; Erich, Kanenberg, Case, Allen, &
Bogdanos, 2009; Erich, Leung, & Kindle, 2005;
Leung, Erich, & Kanenberg, 2005; Ryan, 2007).
However, reliance on self-report questionnaires
administered to convenience samples, and either
the absence of a comparison group of heterosexual
adoptive families or the wide age range of children
studied, limit the conclusions that may be drawn.
The first systematic study was carried out by Farr,
Forsell, and Patterson (2010a, 2010b). Using parent
and teacher questionnaires, preschool children
adopted in infancy by gay fathers in the United
States were found to be as well adjusted as those
adopted by lesbian or heterosexual parents, with no
differences in parenting stress, parental discipline,
or parental relationship satisfaction according to
family type. In terms of gender development, no
differences were identified in the sex-typed behavior of either boys or girls between gay father,
lesbian mother, and heterosexual parent families. In
contrast, Goldberg et al. (2012) found that children
457
in adoptive same-sex parent families showed less
sex-typed behavior than children in heterosexual
parent families. This appeared to reflect less masculine play by boys in lesbian mother families rather
than less feminine play by girls with gay fathers. This
study contributes to this emerging body of research
by investigating larger samples of gay, lesbian, and
heterosexual adoptive families in the United Kingdom using standardized interview and observational
and questionnaire measures of parental well-being,
quality of parent–child relationships, child adjustment, and child sex-typed behavior, administered to
parents, children, and teachers.
From a theoretical perspective, the study is
founded upon a developmental systems approach
(Lerner, Lewin-Bizan, & Warren, 2011), whereby
bidirectional relations between individuals, the
family, and the wider social world, including historical time and place, are viewed as influential in development. More specifically, the study was guided by
the theoretical and research literature on parenting
that shows that the quality of children’s relationships
with their parents, including warmth, sensitivity, and
appropriate discipline and control, as well as parental
psychological well-being, is associated with positive
child adjustment (Bornstein, 2002; Collins, Maccoby,
Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Lamb,
2012). Despite the commonly held assumption that
gay fathers may be less nurturing than lesbian or heterosexual mothers, and the possibility that they may
be exposed to greater prejudice, existing research
suggests that gay father families would not differ
from lesbian or heterosexual families with respect to
parenting processes such as warmth and sensitivity
that are associated with children’s psychological
adjustment. However, studies in the United States
provide some indication that adoption agencies tend
to place children from the most difficult backgrounds
and with the most challenging behaviors with samesex parents (Brodzinsky & Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2011; Brooks & Goldberg, 2001; Matthews & Cramer, 2006). If this is similarly the case in
the United Kingdom, less positive parenting and
child adjustment may be predicted for gay father
families. It was also hypothesized, based on the
growing body of research showing that family structure is less predictive of child adjustment than the
quality of parent–child relationships (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Golombok, 2000, 2013; Lansford, Ceballo,
Abbey, & Stewart, 2001; Patterson, 2006, 2009), that
parenting processes would be more strongly associated with child adjustment than family type.
This is the first study of adoptive gay and lesbian families to be conducted outside the United
458
Golombok et al.
States and is of particular interest as a change in
legislation in the United Kingdom that came into
force in 2005 has enabled gay and lesbian couples
to become joint legal parents of their adopted
children. Unlike the United States, where intercountry adoption and interracial adoption are common
(Russett, 2012), more than 95% of children adopted
in the United Kingdom are adopted from the child
welfare system and interracial adoption is strongly
discouraged. Furthermore, private adoption is not
allowed. The average time between a child entering
public care and being placed with an adoptive family
is 21 months (Department for Education, 2012).
Method
Participants
Forty-one two-parent gay adoptive families, 40
two-parent lesbian adoptive families, and 49
two-parent heterosexual adoptive families participated in the study. With the aid of the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, adoption
agencies that had placed children with same-sex
parents assisted with recruitment by contacting
gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents
who had adopted children through their agency. In
addition, two support groups for gay and lesbian
adoptive families sent information about the
research to their members. The inclusion criteria
were that the target child was aged between 4 and
8 years and had been placed with the adoptive
family for at least 12 months. Two children within
1 month of reaching age 4 years and two children
who had just passed their 9th birthday were
included to maximize sample size. Not all the agencies involved in recruitment kept systematic records
of the families they had contacted. However, for
those that did so, a participation rate of 71% was
obtained.
As shown in Table 1, there was no difference
between family types in the age of the target child,
with the average age being 6 years. However, a
significant difference was found with respect to the
children’s gender, v2(2) = 12.74, p = .002. Whereas
the heterosexual families had an equal number of
boys and girls, there was a preponderance of boys
adopted by gay fathers and a preponderance of
girls adopted by lesbian mothers. There was also a
difference between family types in the age of the
child at adoption, F(2, 127) = 4.82, p = .01, and the
length of placement with the adoptive family, F(2,
127) = 4.08, p = .02, with children in gay father
families being older at the time of adoption and
placed for a shorter period of time. The number of
siblings in the adoptive families did not differ
according to family type, with the large majority of
children having a maximum of one sibling. All but
one child was attending nursery or school. There
was no difference between family types in the
number of hours per week children spent in nonparental care.
It was not possible to collect comprehensive data
on the children’s preadoption history as not all the
parents had accurate information on their child’s
early experiences. For gay, lesbian, and heterosexual families, respectively, where information was
available, the proportion of birth mothers with
mental health problems was 34.1%, 32.5%, and
38.8% (19.2% not known); the proportion who had
experienced domestic violence was 31.7%, 45.0%,
and 40.8% (21.5% not known); the proportion who
had abused alcohol was 36.6%, 55.0%, and 36.7%
(20% not known); and the proportion of birth
fathers who had been convicted of criminal
behavior was 39.0%, 35.0%, and 32.7% (36.2% not
known). For children in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive families, respectively, where
information was available, the proportion who had
experienced neglect was 78.0%, 62.5%, and 59.2%
(3.1% not known); the proportion who had experienced emotional abuse was 46.3%, 45.0%, and
30.6% (8.2% not known); and the proportion who
had experienced physical abuse was 14.6%, 20.0%,
and 14.3% (10.2% not known). There were no
significant differences between family types in the
proportion of children who had experienced each
of these adversities. Regarding contact with the
birth family, 59.5%, 52.9%, and 50.0% of children in
gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parent families,
respectively, had no contact, with no significant difference between family types, and the large majority of those with contact exchanged letters only,
once or twice per year.
For presenting demographic data for each parent
individually, the parent who was most involved
with the child on a day-to-day basis according to
parent reports, and agreed by two interviewers
(LM and SJ), was labeled Parent A and the coparent
was labeled Parent B, in the lesbian and gay families. Although the parents generally shared child
care, Parent B usually spent more time in employment and slightly less time with the child. In the
small number of families where parents shared
child care evenly, Parent A and Parent B were
assigned randomly. In the heterosexual families the
mother was Parent A and the father was Parent B.
There was no difference between family types in
Adoptive Gay Father Families
459
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviation, F, p, and d Values for Sociodemographic Information by Family Type
Gay (G)
Age of child (months)
Age of child at adoption
Length of placement
Nonparental care (hours per week)
Age of Parent A
Age of Parent B
Child’s sex
Male
Female
No. of preadoptive placements
None/one
Two
Three or more
Siblings
None
One
Two or more
Parent A working status
Not working
Part time
Full time
Parent B working status
Not working
Part time
Full time
Parent A occupation
Professional/managerial
Skilled/partly skilled
Parent B occupation
Professional/managerial
Skilled/partly skilled
Parent A ethnic identity
White
Other
Parent B ethnic identity
White
Other
Relationship status
Married/civil partnership
Unmarried/no civil partnership
Lesbian (L)
Heterosexual
(H)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F
p
G vs. L
d
G vs. H
d
73.12
39.88
32.98
6.83
40.37
40.07
17.52
19.93
18.34
4.74
5.73
4.72
75.82
35.85
40.03
5.94
42.43
43.15
21.35
23.49
21.63
6.90
7.28
6.97
72.00
26.71
45.27
5.05
43.16
43.67
16.60
18.87
20.77
3.88
5.32
5.56
0.48
4.82
4.08
2.70
2.44
4.81
.61
.01
.02
.11
.09
.01
.14
.19
.35
.15
.31
.52
.07
.68
.62
.41
.05
.69
N
%
N
%
N
%
v2
p
Kramer’s V
32
9
78.0
22.0
16
24
40.0
60.0
25
24
51.0
49.0
12.74
.002
.39
.28
25
12
4
61.0
29.2
9.8
22
11
7
55.0
27.5
17.5
35
12
2
71.4
24.5
4.1
5.14
.27
.11
.14
12
20
9
29.2
48.8
22.0
13
22
5
32.5
55.0
12.5
10
33
6
20.4
67.3
12.2
4.40
.35
.13
.19
11
15
15
26.8
36.6
36.6
8
19
13
20.0
47.5
32.5
16
27
6
32.7
55.1
12.2
8.89
.06
.11
.29
1
4
36
2.4
9.8
87.8
2
10
28
5.0
25.0
70.0
43
4
2
4.1
8.2
87.8
6.65
.15
.22
.05
26
4
86.7
13.3
26
6
81.2
22
11
66.7
3.96
.14
.07
.23
35
4
89.7
10.3
32
7
82.1
17.9
33
14
70.2
29.8
5.23
.07
.11
.24
39
2
95.1
4.9
35
5
87.5
12.5
49
0
100
0
6.78
.03
.14
.16
38
3
92.2
7.3
38
2
95.0
5.0
45
4
91.8
8.2
.35
.83
.05
.02
30
11
73.2
26.8
31
9
77.5
22.5
46
3
93.9
6.1
7.49
.02
.05
.28
the age of Parent A. However, the age of Parent B
differed significantly between groups, F(2, 127) =
4.81, p = .01, reflecting the younger age of Parent B
in gay father families. The working status of Parent
A and Parent B did not differ according to family
type. Social class was assessed according to a modi-
fied version of the U.K. Registrar General’s classification (OPCS & Employment Department Group,
1991). Each parent’s occupation was classified as
either professional/managerial or skilled/partly
skilled. The family types did not differ with respect
to parental occupation, with the majority of parents
460
Golombok et al.
employed in professional or managerial positions.
Whereas there was no group difference in the ethnic identity of Parent B, there was greater diversity
in the ethnic identity of Parent A in lesbian and
gay families, v2(2) = 6.78, p = .03. There was also a
difference in relationship status between family
types, v2(2) = 7.49, p = .02, reflecting a lower proportion of gay and lesbian parents in civil partnerships than of heterosexual parents who were
married.
Procedure
The families were assessed at home. Written
informed consent to participate in the investigation
was obtained from each parent and verbal assent
was obtained from the child. Ethical approval was
granted by the University of Cambridge Psychology
Research Ethics Committee. Each parent was
administered an audio-recorded standardized
interview that lasted approximately 1.5 hr and standardized questionnaires, and participated in a
video-recorded observational task with the child
that lasted 5–10 min. Teachers completed a questionnaire designed to assess the children’s psychological adjustment. Written informed consent was
obtained from teachers. To provide interrater
reliability ratings for the interview and observational measures, data from 40 randomly selected
families were coded by a second interviewer who
was blind to family type.
Measures
Parenting
Questionnaires of parental well-being. The Trait
Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1983), the Edinburgh Depression Scale (Thorpe, 1993), and the
short form of the Parenting Stress Index (PSI/SF;
Abidin, 1990) were completed by each parent to
assess anxiety, depression, and stress associated
with parenting, respectively. Each of these instruments, for which higher scores represent greater
difficulties, has been shown to have good reliability
and to discriminate well between clinical and nonclinical groups. Cronbach’s alpha for the Trait
Anxiety Inventory, the Edinburgh Depression Scale,
and the PSI, respectively, in this study was 0.91,
0.81, and 0.92.
Interview with parents. Each parent was
interviewed separately using an adaptation of a
semistructured interview designed to assess quality
of parenting that has been validated against
observational ratings of mother–child relationships
in the home (Quinton & Rutter, 1988). Detailed
accounts are obtained of the child’s behavior and
the parent’s response to it, with particular reference
to interactions relating to warmth and control. A
flexible style of questioning is used to elicit sufficient information for each variable to be rated by
the researcher using a standardized coding scheme.
The following variables were coded: (a) expressed
warmth from 0 (none) to 5 (high) took account of the
parent’s tone of voice, facial expressions, and
gestures, in addition to what the parent said about
the child; (b) sensitive responding from 0 (none) to 4
(high) represented the parent’s ability to recognize
and respond appropriately to the child’s needs; (c)
enjoyment of play from 1 (little or none) to 4 (a great
deal) assessed the extent to which the parent and
child engaged in joint activities and enjoyed each
other’s company; (d) amount of interaction from 1
(a little) to 3 (high) assessed the amount of time the
parent and child spent in shared activities; (e) quality of interaction from 1 (poor) to 4 (very good) was
based on the extent to which the parent and child
wanted to be with each other and showed each
other affection; (f) frequency of battle from 0 (never/
rarely) to 5 (few times daily) assessed the frequency
of parent–child conflict; (g) level of battle from 0
(none) to 3 (major) assessed the severity of parent–
child conflict; (h) disciplinary indulgence from 0
(none) to 4 (somewhat indulgent) was based on the
extent to which the parent let the child get away
with things; and (i) disciplinary aggression from 0
(none) to 3 (somewhat aggressive) was based on the
level of anger shown by the parent toward the
child. The interrater reliabilities (intraclass correlation coefficients) were as follows: expressed warmth
(.75), sensitive responding (.71), enjoyment of play
(.87), amount of interaction (.82), quality of interaction (.77), frequency of battles (.95), level of
battles (.85), disciplinary indulgence (.74), and
disciplinary aggression (.76).
Parent–child observations. The Etch-A-Sketch task
(Stevenson-Hinde & Shouldice, 1995) was used to
obtain an observational assessment of interaction
between the primary parent and the child. The
Etch-A-Sketch is a drawing tool with two dials that
allow one person to draw vertically and the other
to draw horizontally. The parent and child were
asked to copy a picture of a house, each using one
dial only, with clear instructions not to use the
other dial. The Coconstruction task (Steele et al.,
2007) was used to obtain an observational assessment of parent–child interaction with the coparent.
The parent and child were given a set of wooden
Adoptive Gay Father Families
building blocks and instructed to build something
together using as many blocks as possible. The
sessions were video recorded and coded using the
Parent–Child Interaction System (Deater-Deckard &
Petrill, 2004) to assess the construct of mutuality,
that is, the extent to which the parent and
child engaged in positive dyadic interaction characterized by warmth, mutual responsiveness, and
cooperation. The following variables were rated on
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (no instances) to 7
(constant, throughout interaction): (a) child’s responsiveness to parent assessed the extent to which the
child responded immediately and contingently to
the parent’s comments, questions, or behaviors; (b)
parent’s responsiveness to child assessed the extent to
which the parent responded immediately and contingently to the child’s comments, questions, or
behaviors; (c) dyadic reciprocity assessed the degree
to which the dyad showed shared positive affect,
eye contact, and a “turn-taking” (conversation like)
quality of interaction; and (d) dyadic cooperation
assessed the degree of agreement about whether
and how to proceed with the task. The interrater
reliabilities (intraclass correlation coefficients) were
as follows: .65 for child responsiveness, .52 for parent responsiveness, .83 for dyadic reciprocity, and
.75 for dyadic cooperation.
Child Adjustment
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The presence of child psychological problems was assessed
with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ; Goodman, 1994, 1997) administered to the
primary parent and the child’s teacher to produce
scores of externalizing problems and internalizing
problems (Goodman, Lamping, & Ploubidis, 2010),
with higher scores indicating greater problems. The
SDQ has been shown to have good internal consistency, test–retest and interrater reliability, and
concurrent and discriminative validity (Goodman,
1994, 1997, 2001; Stone, Otten, Engels, Vermulst, &
Janssens, 2010). The number of children obtaining a
parent-rated total SDQ score above cutoff for psychiatric disorder was also calculated.
Sex-typed behavior. Sex-typed behavior was
assessed using the Preschool Activities Inventory
(PSAI), a psychometrically constructed questionnaire designed to differentiate within as well as
between the sexes, with higher scores representing
more male-typical behavior (Golombok et al., 2008).
This questionnaire was mailed to parents for
completion following the home visit. The PSAI has
been standardized on more than 2,000 children in
461
the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the
United States (Golombok & Rust, 1993a). Split-half
reliability is .66 for boys and .80 for girls, and test–
retest reliability over a 1-year period is .62 for boys
and .66 for girls. The inventory has been validated
on boys and girls attending day care in five different centers. Significant correlations were found
between mothers and teachers’ ratings of gendertyped behavior, showing the inventory to be a valid
measure of gender role (Golombok & Rust, 1993a,
1993b).
Results
Analysis Plan
As data on parenting were collected from both
parents, which produces a clustered data structure,
multilevel regression models were estimated to
compare family types on the following constructs:
parents’ psychological well-being (Trait Anxiety
Inventory, Edinburgh Depression Scale, and PSI),
warmth (expressed warmth and sensitive responding), interaction (enjoyment of play, amount of
interaction, and quality of interaction), conflict (frequency of battle, level of battle, disciplinary indulgence, and disciplinary aggression), and the
observational variables relating to mutuality (child
responsiveness, parent responsiveness, dyadic reciprocity, and dyadic cooperation). Family-level covariates included the child’s age at adoption and
length of placement with the adoptive family. A
robust maximum likelihood estimator was used to
address the nonnormality in the data. The measure
of child adjustment, the SDQ, was administered to
one parent only and to the child’s teacher. Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs), with
the child’s age at adoption and length of placement
with the adoptive family entered as covariates,
were conducted separately for externalizing problems and internalizing problems for both parents’
and teachers’ data. Similarly, the PSAI was administered to one parent, and a MANCOVA was conducted with family type and gender of the child as
between-subjects factors, and the child’s age at
adoption and length of placement with the adoptive family entered as covariates. The analyses
focused on the following comparisons to address
specific questions: (a) gay versus lesbian to examine
whether families headed by male same-sex parents
differed from families headed by female same-sex
parents controlling for adoption and (b) gay versus
heterosexual to examine whether families headed by
male same-sex parents differed from traditional
462
Golombok et al.
gay than heterosexual parents (b = .26, p = .04). In
addition, gay parents were found to interact more
with their children than did heterosexual parents
(b = .20, p = .01). For the observational assessment
of parent–child interaction, a significant difference
between gay and heterosexual parent families was
found for parent responsiveness (b = .22, p = .007),
reflecting greater responsiveness by gay than heterosexual parents. Disciplinary aggression also differed
significantly between family types, with lower levels
of disciplinary aggression shown by gay than heterosexual parents (b = .30, p = .005). The comparisons between gay and lesbian families showed no
significant differences between family types.
heterosexual families controlling for adoption. To
examine whether family structure or the family process variables played a more important role in the
prediction of child adjustment, a single-level multiple regression model was estimated for the parenting variables that differed between family types,
the child variables that differed between family
types, and family type. As only one parent completed the child adjustment questionnaire, parenting
data from that parent only was used in the analysis. Standardized results based on robust maximum
likelihood estimation are presented.
Parenting
As shown in Table 2, significant differences
between gay and heterosexual families were found
for parents’ psychological well-being. Specifically,
gay fathers showed lower levels of both depression
(b = 1.57, p = .008) and parenting stress (b = 10.62,
p = .003) in comparison to heterosexual mothers and
fathers. With respect to parenting quality, a difference between family types was found for warmth,
with higher levels of expressed warmth shown by
Child Adjustment
MANCOVAs were carried out separately for the
subscales of the SDQ relating to externalizing problems (conduct problems and hyperactivity) and
internalizing problems (emotional problems and
peer problems). Wilks’s lambda was significant for
externalizing problems, F(4, 246) = 2.74, p = .03.
One-way ANCOVAs identified a significant
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviation (M), b, p, and d Values for Parents’ Psychological Well-Being, Warmth, Interaction, Conflict, and Mutuality by Family
Type
Psychological well-being
Trait Anxiety Inventory
Edinburgh Depression Scale
Parenting Stress Index
Warmth
Expressed warmth
Sensitive responding
Interaction
Enjoyment of play
Amount of interaction
Quality of interaction
Conflict
Frequency of battle
Level of battle
Disciplinary indulgence
Disciplinary aggression
Mutuality
Child responsiveness
Parent responsiveness
Dyadic reciprocity
Dyadic cooperation
Gay (G)
Lesbian (L)
Heterosexual
(H)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
b
SE
p
da
b
SE
p
db
34.20
4.46
66.81
8.00
3.08
17.21
35.68
5.68
69.68
8.95
3.93
18.55
36.70
5.94
75.86
8.98
4.10
19.85
1.12
1.16
2.80
1.51
.63
3.36
.45
.06
.40
.17
.35
.16
2.23
1.57
10.62
1.50
.59
3.62
.13
.008
.003
.29
.40
.49
3.88
2.91
.78
.63
3.79
2.83
.92
.76
3.66
2.69
.76
.66
.08
.08
.14
.12
.56
.48
.11
.11
.26
.21
.13
.11
.04
.06
.28
.34
3.33
2.56
3.32
.63
.50
.59
3.25
2.53
3.28
.85
.59
.66
3.14
2.35
3.13
.77
.58
.62
.04
.01
.02
.12
.08
.10
.75
.95
.83
.11
.05
.06
.16
.20
.19
.11
.08
.10
.13
.01
.07
.27
.38
.31
3.12
1.56
1.39
1.09
1.19
.74
.78
.63
3.01
1.80
1.38
1.34
1.13
.79
.66
.69
3.48
1.65
1.64
1.38
1.21
.77
.66
.63
.15
.21
.04
.22
.21
.14
.13
.12
.48
.13
.75
.06
.09
.31
.01
.38
.15
.09
.16
.30
.21
.14
.13
.10
.32
.52
.20
.005
.30
.12
.35
.46
5.74
6.47
2.14
2.66
.64
.58
.90
.95
5.76
6.34
2.29
2.80
.74
.66
.99
.97
5.65
6.28
2.24
2.65
.95
.64
.93
1.02
.01
.12
.14
.16
.11
.08
.14
.15
.91
.17
.35
.28
.03
.21
.16
.15
.07
.22
.11
.07
.13
.08
.82
.15
.54
.007
.41
.63
.11
.31
.11
.01
G vs. L
G vs. H
a
Positive d values represent more positive outcome for gay father than lesbian mother families. bPositive d values represent more positive outcome for gay father than heterosexual parent families.
Adoptive Gay Father Families
463
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviation, F, p, and d Values for Child Adjustment by Family Type
Gay (G)
M
SD
Lesbian (L)
Heterosexual
(H)
M
SD
M
SD
2.08
2.50
2.90
5.18
1.80
2.79
1.91
1.70
1.98
1.51
1.77
1.68
1.62
2.97
1.82
4.95
2.38
3.31
2.08
1.48
2.05
2.12
2.36
1.76
Parent Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
Externalizing problems
Conduct problems
2.12
2.10
2.33
Hyperactivity
4.61
2.40
4.05
Internalizing problems
Emotional problems
1.83
2.49
1.62
Peer problems
1.61
1.73
1.92
Teacher SDQ
Externalizing problems
Conduct problems
1.62
2.26
1.33
Hyperactivity
4.75
2.79
4.37
Internalizing problems
Emotional problems
1.34
1.53
1.83
Peer problems
1.78
2.53
1.17
F
p
2.74
2.66
4.20
1.02
.74
.57
.03
.07
.02
.40
.47
.57
.41
.45
.70
1.55
1.01
2.12
.79
.64
.50
.19
.37
.12
G vs. L
da
G vs. H
db
.10
.23
.40
.22
.09
.18
.07
.06
.15
.13
.08
.06
.27
.29
.34
.16
a
Positive d values represent more positive outcome for gay father than lesbian mother families. bPositive d values represent more
positive outcome for gay father than heterosexual parent families.
difference between groups for hyperactivity, F(2,
124) = 4.20, p = .02. Children in heterosexual families
showed the highest levels of hyperactivity (see
Table 3). Teachers’ externalizing and internalizing
subscale scores were entered into separate
MANCOVAs. Wilks’s lambda was not significant.
There was no difference between family types in
the proportion of children who obtained parentrated total SDQ scores above cutoff for psychiatric
disorder (14.6%, 12.8%, and 18.4% of children in
gay father, lesbian mother, and heterosexual parent
families, respectively).
With respect to sex-typed behavior, a MANCOVA
with family type and gender of the child as
between-subjects factors was conducted for PSAI
scores. Although, as expected, there was a significant difference according to child’s gender,
F(1, 115) = 202.72, p < .0001, there was no significant difference for family type or for the interaction between family type and child’s gender. Parenting, Family Type, and Child Adjustment To examine the relative importance of the family process variables and family type in predicting child adjustment, the parenting variables (depression, parenting stress, expressed warmth, amount of interaction, disciplinary aggression, and parent responsiveness) and the child variables (age at adoption and length of placement) that differed between family types, as well as family type, were entered into a multiple regression analysis. The dependent variable was child externalizing problems as assessed by parents, as this variable differed according to family type. Parenting stress was found to predict child externalizing problems (b = .58, p < .001), with higher levels of parenting stress associated with higher levels of child externalizing problems. In addition, disciplinary aggression was marginally predictive of child externalizing problems (b = .12, p = .07). Family type did not predict child externalizing problems. Discussion Where differences were identified between the gay father adoptive families and the heterosexual parent adoptive families, these reflected more positive functioning in the gay father families. Regarding the psychological well-being of the parents, the gay fathers showed lower levels of depression and stress associated with parenting than the heterosexual parents. There were no differences in psychological well-being between the gay fathers and the lesbian mothers. The positive findings for psychological well-being are consistent with those of Goldberg and colleagues (Goldberg & Smith, 2011; Goldberg, Smith, & Kashy, 2010) in relation to gay and lesbian couples across the 1st year of adoptive parenthood, and Farr et al. (2010b) and Tornello et al. (2011) with respect to gay and lesbian 464 Golombok et al. adoptive parents with a preschool or early schoolage child, who found similar parental mental health outcomes across lesbian mother, gay father, and heterosexual parent families. In terms of parenting, gay fathers showed higher levels of warmth, greater amounts of interaction, and lower levels of disciplinary aggression as assessed by interview, as well as higher levels of responsiveness as assessed by direct observation, than the heterosexual parents. No differences in parenting were identified between gay fathers and lesbian mothers. With respect to child adjustment, externalizing problems as rated by parents were greater among children in heterosexual than in gay and lesbian families. As expected with an adoptive sample, 15.5% of children obtained parent-rated total SDQ scores above cutoff for psychiatric disorder in comparison to the 8% reported in U.K. general population norms (Meltzer, Gatward, Goodman, & Ford, 2000). There was no difference in the proportion of children obtaining scores above cutoff between family types. The more positive outcomes for gay father families in terms of parental well-being and parent– child relationships may be associated with characteristics of the parents or of the children. Adoption by gay couples is a relatively new phenomenon in the United Kingdom that has attracted much controversy (Hill, 2009). It seems likely, therefore, that the screening process is especially stringent for gay couples who wish to adopt, resulting in even higher levels of psychological well-being and commitment to parenting among adoptive gay fathers than adoptive lesbian or heterosexual parents. Moreover, unlike heterosexual couples, it may be relevant that gay fathers have not experienced the stress of infertility and failed fertility treatments, and have not turned to adoption as a second choice in their quest for a child. It is also conceivable, due to concerns regarding adoption by gay men, that children with higher levels of psychological problems were least likely to be placed with gay couples. The lower levels of child externalizing problems among children with gay fathers suggest that this may be the case. However, children adopted by gay fathers had been adopted at an older age and placed with the adoptive family for a shorter time, both of which have been associated with greater adjustment problems (Dozier & Rutter, 2008; Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010). Moreover, from the available data on children’s preadoption history, it appeared that those placed with gay fathers were no less likely to have experienced serious adversity such as neglect, or emotional or physical abuse, than children placed with lesbian mothers or heterosexual parents. Neither were their birth mothers less likely to have experienced mental health problems, domestic violence, or alcohol abuse, nor were their fathers less likely to have been convicted of criminal behavior. Although research in the United States provides some indication that the most difficult children may be placed with same-sex parents (Brodzinsky & Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2011; Brooks & Goldberg, 2001; Matthews & Cramer, 2006), this does not currently appear to be the case in the United Kingdom, perhaps because almost all adoptions involve children who have experienced adversity in their early years. It appears, therefore, that rather than adopting less difficult children, gay fathers provide a highly positive parenting environment for their adopted children, although, given the bidirectional nature of parent–child relationships, both factors are likely to be at play. The findings of this study, conducted in the United Kingdom, contribute to the small amount of existing data on parenting and child development in adoptive gay father families, and support the conclusions of Farr et al. (2010a) in the United States that gay men make capable adoptive parents. Whereas Farr et al. (2010a) reported no differences in parenting or child adjustment between adoptive gay fathers and either adoptive lesbian mothers or adoptive heterosexual parents, the differences identified in this study reflected more positive parenting and child adjustment in gay father families. This discrepancy may result from the larger sample in this study, or the use of more in-depth measures of the quality of parent–child relationships such as standardized interviews involving detailed questioning and the assessment of nonverbal aspects of the parents’ responses, as well as observational assessments of the quality of interactions between parents and their children. This study focused on an older sample of children who had experienced early adversity before being placed with their adoptive parents, showing that gay fathers cope well with the challenges posed by children from difficult backgrounds. It is interesting to note that this study, as well as the earlier studies by both Farr et al. (2010a) and Brodzinsky (2011), found that gay fathers were more likely to have adopted boys, whereas lesbian mothers were more likely to have adopted girls. It is not known whether this resulted from a tendency for adoption agencies to gender-match children to same-sex parents, or from same-sex parents’ preference for a child of the same gender as themselves. Anecdotal evidence from the Adoptive Gay Father Families present investigation suggests that same-sex parents tended not to express a preference regarding the gender of the child. The findings are also of more general theoretical interest regarding the influence of parenting on child development. Much of the limited previous research on fathers as primary parents has focused on single fathers (e.g., Santrock, Warshak, & Elliott, 1982) or on fathers who assume primary responsibility for limited periods of time (Russell, 1999). Comparisons between gay and lesbian families enable the influence of parental gender on child development to be examined in a novel way by controlling for the presence of two parents. Although such “natural experiments” are not free of methodological problems, they are informative in that they allow the separation of factors that in traditional families occur together (Rutter, 2007; Rutter, Pickles, Murray, & Eaves, 2001). The findings of this study suggest that men can be just as competent at parenting as women, and that the absence of a female parent does not necessarily have adverse consequences for child adjustment. Moreover, the finding that externalizing problems in children are associated with high levels of parenting stress but not family type, replicates that of Farr et al. (2010a, 2010b) with a sample from a different geographical area, and adds weight to the growing body of evidence that family processes are more influential in child adjustment than is family structure (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Golombok, 2000, 2013; Lansford et al., 2001; Patterson, 2006, 2009). The lack of difference in sex-typed behavior between children with gay fathers and children with lesbian or heterosexual parents for either boys or girls is consistent with previous research on young children with same-sex parents, and supports the conclusion that parental sexual orientation has little influence on the gender development of young children (Golombok et al., 2003; Patterson, 2006, 2009). Two studies have specifically investigated the sex-typed behavior of children adopted by gay fathers. The findings of Farr et al. (2010a) were similar to those of the present investigation in that no differences were identified according to family type for either boys or girls. However, Goldberg et al. (2012) found less sex-typed behavior among children of same-sex parents. This appeared to reflect less masculine play behavior among the sons of lesbian mothers rather than less feminine play behavior among the daughters of gay fathers, and may result from the younger age of the children under study. This issue warrants further investigation. 465 The study had a number of limitations. Differences between family types may not have been detected due to the modest sample sizes. For the comparisons between the gay father and heterosexual parent families, and between the gay father and lesbian mother families, the smallest d (standardized difference between means) that could be detected as statistically significant was around 0.30 and .32, respectively, for a power of 0.80. Thus, to the extent that significant differences between family types were not identified due to insufficient power, these differences would have been small. Moreover, Type II errors may have resulted from the moderate interrater reliability of some variables. However, the coding of the interview variables involved the use of nonverbal cues such as facial expression and gestures that were not available to the second rater. Thus, the interrater reliabilities of the interview variables were may be underestimated. For the observational assessment, the reliability of the parent responsiveness variable was low. Inspection of the data showed that this was due to ceiling effects in these highly functioning families; most families obtained a score in the top 2 points of the scale. This variable has been shown to be reliable in studies of more diverse samples (Deater-Deckard & Petrill, 2004), including studies conducted by our own research group (Ensor & Hughes, 2009; Golombok et al., 2011). Thus, rather than being unreliable in terms of detecting low parent responsiveness, this rating appears to be less reliable when discriminating between scores at the upper (high responsiveness) end of the scale. As the SDQ and the PSAI were administered to one parent only, it was not possible to conduct multilevel analyses with these variables. A further limitation was that not all the adoption agencies involved in recruitment kept systematic records of the families they had contacted. However, for those that did so, a participation rate of 71% was obtained. National statistics show that approximately 60 children are adopted by gay couples and 60 by lesbian couples in the United Kingdom each year (Department for Education, 2010). As these figures apply to children of all ages, it appears that our samples of 41 gay father and 40 lesbian mother families comprise a large proportion of the eligible gay father and lesbian mother families in the United Kingdom with an adopted child aged 4–8 years. An advantage of the study was the multimethod (interview, observation, and questionnaire), multiinformant (both parents, child, and teacher) design, as gay parents, in particular, may tend to present their families as high functioning, either in response 466 Golombok et al. to the stigma they experience in the outside world or because they feel they must live up to high expectations of themselves as parents given the difficulties they faced in adopting children. The observational measures are especially useful in this regard as it is difficult to “fake good” with observational measures (Kerig, 2001) that provide an assessment of the quality of dynamic interactions between parents and their children that cannot be captured by interview or self-report (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Bakeman & Gottman, 1997; Hartmann & Wood, 1990). Although not all the teachers participated, completed questionnaires were returned by 78%, with no difference in the proportion of missing teachers’ questionnaires between family types. In addition, there was no difference in parents’ SDQ scores between families with and without teacher questionnaires. The findings of this study have implications for the development of policy and legislation in relation to the creation of gay father families through adoption. At a time when there are many children waiting to be adopted, but a shortage of suitable adopters, the positive findings regarding the gay adoptive families in this study suggest that there exists a largely untapped pool of potential adoptive parents. The challenges faced by gay couples who wish to adopt are even greater than those experienced by lesbian and heterosexual couples. It seems that those who successfully complete the adoption process become particularly committed parents. References Abidin, R. (1990). Parenting Stress Index test manual. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press. Aspland, H., & Gardner, F. (2003). Observational measures of parent child interaction. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8, 136–144. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Biblarz, T., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3–22. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of parenting (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brodzinsky, D., & Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2011). Expanding resources for children: Research-based best practices in adoption by gays and lesbians. New York: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Brodzinsky, D., & Pertman, A. (2011). Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family diversity. New York: Oxford University Press. Brodzinsky, D., & Pinderhughes, E. (2002). Parenting and child development in adoptive families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 1, pp. 279–312). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brooks, D., & Goldberg, A. (2001). Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: Can they meet the needs of waiting children? Social Work, 46, 147–158. Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232. doi:10.1037//0003066X.55.2.218 Deater-Deckard, K., & Petrill, S. A. (2004). Parent-child dyadic mutuality and child behavior problems: An investigation of gene-environment processes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1171–1179. Department for Education. (2010). Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2010. London: Department for Education. Department for Education. (2012). Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2012. London: Department for Education. Dozier, M., & Rutter, M. (Eds.). (2008). Challenges to the development of attachment relationships faced by young children in foster and adoptive care. In J. Cassidy & J. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 698–717). New York: Guilford Press. Ensor, R., & Hughes, C. (2009). With a little help from my friends: Maternal social support, via parenting, promotes willingness to share in preschoolers born to young mothers. Infant and Child Development, 19, 127–141. doi:10.1002/icd.643 Erich, S., Kanenberg, H., Case, K., Allen, T., & Bogdanos, T. (2009). An empirical analysis of factors affecting adolescent attachment in adoptive families with homosexual and straight parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 398–404. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.004 Erich, S., Leung, P., & Kindle, P. (2005). A comparative analysis of adoptive family functioning with gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parents and their children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1, 43–60. doi:10.1300/J461v01n04 Farr, R., Forsell, S., & Patterson, C. (2010a). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14, 164–178. doi:10.1080/10888691.2010.500958 Farr, R., Forsell, S., & Patterson, C. (2010b). Gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents: Couple and relationship issues. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 199–213. Goldberg, A. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Goldberg, A., Kashy, D., & Smith, J. Z. (2012). Gendertyped play behavior in early childhood: Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 67, 503–515. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0198-3 Goldberg, A., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the Adoptive Gay Father Families transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 139–150. doi:10.1037/a0021684 Goldberg, A., Smith, J., & Kashy, D. (2010). Pre-adoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples’ relationship quality across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 221–232. doi:10.1037/a0019615 Golombok, S. (2000). Parenting: What really counts? London: Routledge. Golombok, S. (2013). Families created by reproductive donation: Issues and research. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 61–65. Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., et al. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 20–33. Golombok, S., Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Mellish, L., Marks, A., et al. (2011). Children conceived by gamete donation: The impact of openness about donor conception on psychological adjustment and parent-child relationships at age 7. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 230–239. Golombok, S., & Rust, J. (1993a). The measurement of gender role behavior in pre-school behavior. A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 805–811. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.20 Golombok, S., & Rust, J. (1993b). The Pre-School Activities Inventory: A standardised assessment of gender role in children. Psychological Assessment, 5, 131–136. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.5.2.131 Golombok, S., Rust, J., Zervoulis, K., Croudace, T., Golding, J., & Hines, M. (2008). Developmental trajectories of sextyped behavior in boys and girls: A longitudinal general population study of children aged 2.5–8 years. Child Development, 79, 1583–1593. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008. 01207.x Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 3–11. Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (2010). Gay fathers. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 319–340). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Goodman, R. (1994). A modified version of the Rutter Parent Questionnaire including extra items on children’s strengths: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1483–1494. doi:10.1111/j. 1469-7610.1994.tb01289.x Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345. Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2010). When to use broader internalizing and externalizing subscales instead of the hypothesized five subscales on 467 the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 1179–1191. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x Grotevant, H. D., & Von Korff, L. (2011). Adoptive identity. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 585–601). New York: Springer. Hartmann, D., & Wood, D. (1990). Observational methods. In A. Bellack, M. Hersen, & A. Kazdin (Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and therapy (pp. 107–138). New York: Plenum. Hill, N. (2009). The pink guide to adoption. London: British Association for Adoption and Fostering. Hines, M. (2010). Gendered behavior across the lifespan. In M. Lamb & A. Freund (Eds.), Handbook of life-span development: Vol. 2. Social and emotional development (pp. 341–378). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kerig, P. K. (Ed.). (2001). Introduction and overviews: Conceptual issues in family observational research. London: Erlbaum. Lamb, M. E. (2010) How do fathers influence children’s development? Let me count the ways. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 1–26). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting children’s adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16, 98–111. doi:10.1080/ 10888691.2012.667344 Lansford, J., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A., & Stewart, A. (2001). Does family structure matter? A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather, and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 840–851. Lerner, R., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Warren, A. (2011). Concepts and theories of human development. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (6th ed., pp. 3–50). New York: Taylor & Francis. Leung, P., Erich, S., & Kanenberg, P. (2005). A comparison of family functioning in gay/lesbian, heterosexual and special needs adoptions. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 1031–1044. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.12.030 Matthews, J. D., & Cramer, E. P. (2006). Envisaging the adoption process to strengthen gay- and lesbian-headed families: Recommendations for adoption professionals. Child Welfare, 85, 317–340. Meltzer, H., Gatward, R., Goodman, R., & Ford, F. (2000). Mental health of children and adults in Britain. London: The Stationery Office. OPCS & Employment Department Group. (1991). Standard classification of occupations. London: HMSO. Palacios, J., & Brodzinsky, D. (2010). Adoption research: Trends, topics, outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 270–284. doi:10.1177/0165025410 362837 Patterson, C. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 241–244. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00444.x 468 Golombok et al. Patterson, C. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist, 64, 727–736. Quinton, D., & Rutter, M. (1988). Parenting breakdown: The making and breaking of intergenerational links. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Gower. Russell, G. (1999). Primary caregiving fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in “nontraditional” families (pp. 57–81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Russett, C. (2012). American adoption: A brief history. In D. M. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by lesbians and gay men (pp. 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press. Rutter, M. (2007). Proceeding from observed correlation to causal inference: The use of natural experiments. Psychological Science, 2, 377–395. doi:10.1111/j.17456916.2007.00050.x Rutter, M., Pickles, A., Murray, & Eaves, L. (2001). Testing hypotheses on specific environmental causal effects on behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 291–324. doi:10. 1037//0033-2909.127.3.291 Ryan, S. (2007). Parent-child interaction styles between gay and lesbian parents and their adopted children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 105–132. doi:10.1300/ J461v03n02_05105 Santrock, J. W., Warshak, R. A., & Elliott, G. L. (1982). Social development and parent-child interaction in father-custody and stepmother families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 289–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spielberger, C. (1983). The handbook of the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Steele, M., Hodges, J., Kaniuk, J., Steele, H., D’Agostino, D., Blom, I., et al. (2007). Intervening with maltreated children and their adoptive families: Identifying attachment facilitative behaviors. In D. Oppenheim & D. F. Goldsmith (Eds.), Attachment theory in clinical work with children: Bridging the gap between research and practice (pp. 58–89). New York: Guilford Press. Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Shouldice, A. (1995). Maternal interactions and self reports related to attachment classifications at 4.5 years. Child Development, 66, 583–596. Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Engels, R., Vermulst, A., & Janssens, J. (2010). Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Clinical Child Family Psychology Review, 13, 254–274. doi:10.1007/s10567-010-0071-2 Thorpe, K. (1993). A study of the use of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale with parent groups outside the postpartum period. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11, 119–125. doi:10.1080/02646839308403204 Tornello, S., Farr, R., & Patterson, C. (2011). Predictors of parenting stress among gay adoptive fathers in the United States. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 591–600. doi:10.1037/a0024480