Welcome to parenthood!? An examination of the far-reaching effects of perceived adoption stigma in the workplace

Abstract

While there may be no difference in terms of the love, care, and bond shared between parent and child, relationships created through adoption are often viewed less favorably in our society compared with those that possess a biological tie. Integrating minority stress and family systems theories, we seek to better understand working adoptive parents’ experiences and how the perceived stigma of being an adoptive parent negatively impacts a variety of work and family outcomes. Using a sample of 501 couples that adopted a child, we find that work–family conflict mediates the relationship between perceived adoption stigma and primary effects (i.e. job satisfaction and depression) as well as spillover effects (i.e. family satisfaction and parent–child bonding) for the job incumbent. Further, we find that the employee’s perceived adoption stigma also has crossover effects to their spouse, negatively impacting the spouse’s depression, family satisfaction, and parent–child bonding. Implications for theory and practice, limitations, and future research are discussed.

Keywords

stigma stress well-being work and family work/family

Adoptive Mom? I am Mom. I need no other label or prefix. (Joanne Greco, Blogger)

What is a family? The ideal nuclear family is often defined as one made up of a “mother and father, romantically involved, and their genetically related children that they have conceived naturally” (Cutas and Chan, 2012: 1). This ideology of the “perfect” family has implications for the social institution of adoption and the individuals most intimately involved (e.g. adoptive parents and adoptees; Goldberg et al., 2011). In fact, family structures that depart from this ideal often carry social stigmas, one of which is the stigma of being an adoptive parent. Adoption stigma arises because building one’s family through adoption deviates from society’s definition of the “perfect” family. Although there is not a singular or normal type of adoption, with many varied types and processes, all adoptions are forms of non-traditional family-building and each type or process leaves the adoptive parent(s) in a potentially stigmatized position. Indeed, adoptive parents have reported that people hold stigmatizing beliefs about adoption such as it being a “second-best” option, adopted children being “second-rate” because of their unknown genetic history, and adoptive parents not being “real parents” because of their lack of biological ties (Miall, 1987, 1996).

Adoption is a path to building one’s family that involves a significant portion of the workforce. In fact, in 2020, over 57,000 children were adopted from foster care in the United States and over 21,000 non-stepparent private adoptions occurred as well (US Department of Health and Human Services et al., 2021; Koh et al., 2022). Yet very little is known about the experiences of adoptive parents at work and its implication for the workplace. We aim to examine the stigmatizing experiences of adoptive parents, which have implications for their experiences in the work and family domains as well as their families’ experiences, attitudes, and well-being (Kline et al., 2006). In his discussion on stigma, Goffman (1963) asserted that certain individuals are discredited for possessing unusual social traits. Furthermore, research has shown that experiencing or possessing some form of stigma (such as owing to race, gender, pregnancy, etc.) can have tremendous consequences for the individual, both in their workplace as well as their personal lives (Fox and Quinn, 2015; Triana et al., 2015, 2019). This study provides a foundational step to shed light on how stigma that can be attached to adoptive parents affects their professional relationships and personal well-being.

In this study, we build on research related to the stigma associated with pregnancy in the workplace (Hackney et al., 2021; Jones, 2017; Jones et al., 2016) by extending both the stigma and work–family literatures through examining a unique population – working adoptive parents. Integrating minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) and family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982), we conceptualize perceived adoption stigma (PAS) as a work-domain social stressor that contributes to work–family conflict (WFC). Further, we demonstrate that employees’ PAS has a primary impact on their work and personal life, spilling over to impact their family domain and crossing over to their spouse, negatively impacting the spouse’s personal and family outcomes. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model guiding this study.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of the primary, spillover, and crossover effects of adoption stigma.

This study makes several contributions. First, we answer Colella et al.’s (2017) call to provide a broader perspective of the workplace stigmas that individuals may experience. This study goes beyond extant research on family-related stigmas (e.g. Dickson, 2008; Hackney et al., 2021; Jones, 2017; Trzebiatowski and del Carmen Triana, 2020) to focus specifically on employees who are building their families through adoption and examines the far-reaching implications of PAS by incorporating the job incumbent, spouse, and their relationship with their adopted child. This is not just another source of work stress to add to a growing list, but rather a stigma that has a unique combination of characteristics such as occurring over an indefinite time, being taken on voluntarily by the adoptive parents, and going against cultural norms and preferences for biological families (Baden, 2016; Farr and Vázquez, 2020; Miall, 1987).

Further, research has shown that when it comes to stigmas, perceived controllability plays a role in how others respond to the stigmatized individual (Weiner et al., 1988). When a stigma is perceived to be involuntary, what Weiner and colleagues refer to as onset uncontrollable, it elicits pity, liking, and helping behaviors. On the other hand, when a stigma is perceived to be voluntary (i.e. onset controllable), it is met with hostility and judgments not to help. Although there are certainly exceptions (e.g. obtaining guardianship unexpectedly), in general, adoption is voluntarily and purposefully pursued. Thus, owing to the primarily voluntary nature of adoption, adoptive couples who are stigmatized at work are more likely to be met with hostility and a lack of help from their coworkers. Taken together, the characteristics of PAS classify it as an “unappealing persistent” stigma. Such stigmas have been linked to having fewer stress adjustment resources and greater difficulties regulating emotions than other types of stigmas (Pachankis et al., 2018). Therefore, examining the role that PAS in the workplace has on job incumbents’ work life as well as their family life provides important insights to the stigma literature.

Second, this study clarifies the process through which PAS leads to detrimental consequences for employees by utilizing WFC (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985) as an explanatory mechanism. WFC is a form of interrole conflict in which the demands from the work and family domains are incompatible; making participation in one role more difficult because of the participation in another role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Voydanoff, 2005). Building on the seminal work presented in the model of minority stress (Meyer, 2003), we propose that WFC is a critical linking mechanism between Meyer’s proximal minority stress process and outcomes for this form of stigmatization. This is because the nature of building one’s family causes inherent competition for limited resources between work and family roles. While research has found direct effects on outcomes in line with the minority stress model, unique mechanisms through which this stress process occurs is understudied (Baams et al., 2015). PAS is a strain-based demand at work that impacts a minority group of individuals (i.e. only those who have built their family through adoption). These individuals will experience disproportionate stress owing to this stigmatized identity (Meyer, 2003, 2007). As such, this stressor contributes to a reduction in resources for the adoptive job incumbent leaving him or her less equipped to address the competing demands of the work and family domains. Therefore, in confirming minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) on this unique population, we propose a theoretically driven mediator (i.e. WFC) to incorporate into this model and provide a unique lens for understanding how these complex experiences intertwine.

Third, while research has acknowledged the existence of adoption stigma (Baden, 2016; Farr and Vázquez, 2020; Miall, 1987), we do not know much about how this type of stigma is experienced nor how it might influence adoptive parents in the work domain. This study expands the research focus to consider the impact of this workplace phenomenon on adoptive parents in both the work and family domain. This answers a call by Holman (2018) to consider multiple contexts and actors in the minority stress experience. Therefore, we integrate minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) and family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982) and apply it to the workplace to explore the primary, spillover, and crossover effects of PAS (Westman, 2001, 2006). Further, we incorporate multiple key actors in the process by including not only the job incumbent but also the spouse. Through broadening our understanding of adoption stigma and understanding its important implications for employees and their families across multiple avenues, employees’ work outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction), personal outcomes (i.e. depression), and family outcomes (i.e. employee and spousal family satisfaction, parent–child bonding, and spousal depression), we can provide a more comprehensive picture of the impact of PAS.

Theoretical foundations and hypothesis development

Minority stress theory

Social stress theory has noted the importance of one’s social environment in the stress process (Crocker et al., 1998; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Further, social stress is likely to have a strong impact on those belonging to stigmatized social categories. Research has consistently shown that minority individuals, stigmatized because of their minority status, experience more dysfunctional mental and physical health outcomes than their majority peers (Pascoe and Smart Richman, 2009; Schmitt et al., 2014). Minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003), an elaboration of social stress theory, was originally developed to explain the associations between social situations, stress, and health for lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) individuals. It suggests that this disparity can be explained by the stress that social situations cause for minority individuals. In other words, minority stress theory posits that individuals experience stress owing to their stigmatized or marginalized status. Meyer (2007) highlights three assumptions of minority stress. First, it is unique. In other words, the stressors associated with a minority identity are additive to the general stressors that are experienced by all individuals. Second, minority stress is related to relatively stable underlying social and cultural structures. Third, minority stress is socially based, meaning it is experienced in the context of social relationships.

More specifically, the minority stress model suggests stress is situated within the context of the environment (Meyer, 2003, 2007). Within this model, stressors can be differentiated between general stressors within the environment, distal (i.e. objective) minority stress processes, and proximal (i.e. subjective) minority stress processes (Meyer, 2003, 2007). Distal minority stress processes stem from one’s minority status within the environment and include stressful events such as discrimination or violence. Proximal minority stress processes stem from one’s personal identification with their minority status and include stress owing to perceived stigmatization and expectations of rejection and discrimination. It is this proximal minority stress process that helps explain why PAS might lead to adverse outcomes through WFC.

Employees building their families through adoption rather than through having biological children puts them in a minority position. This is especially true in the workplace where approximately 80–90% of female employees will be pregnant at some point in their career (Fried, 1998; Johnson, 2008). As Meyer (2003, 2007) suggests, this minority status often leads to personal identification with one’s minority status. As employees perceive that becoming a parent through adoption is devalued and seen as second-rate by their coworkers or within their workplace, they will likely identify with the minority identity of an adoptive parent. In turn, this minority identity leads to stressors associated with the individual’s perception of self as stigmatized and devalued, leading to adverse outcomes. Specifically, these individuals will experience stress associated with expectations of rejection, concealment, and internalized stigmatization owing to being adoptive parents.

Stigma researchers posit that stigmatized individuals approach social interactions with anxiety (Goffman, 1963) and often feel that they must maintain vigilance (Allport, 1954) or constantly be “on guard” in case the person they encounter is prejudiced toward their stigma (Crocker et al., 1998). Meyer (2003, 2007) argues that this exertion of energy is stressful, and that it ultimately leads to adverse outcomes for the stigmatized individual. In the following sections, we explain PAS and how, when applied to employees in the process of adoption, minority stress theory posits that PAS is stressful and leads to adverse outcomes for employees and their families.

Perceived adoption stigma

Despite the fact that adoption has been shown to be beneficial for children (Hjern et al., 2019; Palacios et al., 2019a; Sehmi et al., 2020) and the vast majority of adoptive families remain intact (Palacios et al., 2019b), adoption scholars have called attention to the stigma surrounding adoption (Fisher, 2003; March, 1995; Miall, 1987; Wegar, 2000). Adoption stigma is defined as “stigma based on the absence of biological ties within families and the cultural prioritizing of biological parenthood” (Farr and Vázquez, 2020: 2). Adoption stigma stems from beliefs that adoption is the “second best” option for becoming a parent, is less permanent, and that adoptive parents are not “real” parents (Baden, 2016; Farr and Vázquez, 2020; Fisher, 2003; Miall, 1987). Not only can these beliefs be found in media coverage of adoption (Kline et al., 2006), but even myths, fairy tales, films, books, and everyday conversations portray society’s discomfort and judgment about adoption (Baden, 2016). Baden (2016: 7) suggests that adoption stigma is acted upon and conveyed to adoptive parents via microaggressions, which are “common slights, insults, and indignities that can occur almost daily that may be intentional or unintentional but that communicate adoption-related and biology-related judgments, slights, or criticisms about adoption”. Previous research has linked internalized adoption stigma to adoptive parents’ depression (Goldberg et al., 2011), but little is known about the implications of PAS for other areas of the adoptive parents’ lives, namely the workplace. One goal of this study is to broaden our understanding of adoption stigma by examining the implications of PAS for working adoptive parents and their families.

Stigmatized attributes can vary along six dimensions (Jones et al., 1984):

. . . concealability (i.e., the extent to which a stigma is visible to others), course (i.e., the extent to which a stigma persists over time), disruptiveness (i.e., the extent to which a stigma interferes with smooth social interactions), aesthetics (i.e., the potential for a stigma to evoke a disgust reaction), origin (i.e., whether a stigma is believed to be present at birth, accidental, or deliberate), and peril (i.e., the extent to which a stigma poses a personal threat or potential for contagion). (Pachankis et al., 2018: 453)

Along these six dimensions, adoption stigma has important differences from the stigmas traditionally examined in management research (i.e. pregnancy, parental status, race/ethnicity, gender, age), specifically with regards to its concealability, course, aesthetics, and origin. Pachankis et al. (2018) empirically examined the extent to which stigmas differ along these six dimensions and the implications that variation has on health and well-being outcomes. Importantly, Pachankis et al. (2018) found that “unappealing persistent” stigmas, such as PAS, were associated with reduced stress adjustment resources and greater difficulties regulating emotions.

When it comes to the work–family interface, pregnancy stigma is the most similar type of stigma since pregnancy and adoption are the two primary ways to grow one’s family. And yet, there are important distinctions between the two that warrant an in-depth examination of PAS. On one hand, adoption stigma is like pregnancy stigma in that growing one’s family does not align with the stereotypical “ideal employee” (Bailyn and Harrington, 2004; Jones, 2017). Jones et al.’s (1984) dimensional conceptualization of stigma provides a helpful framework to examine the differences between pregnancy stigma and adoption stigma. Both pregnancy and adoption stigmas can be considered low in disruptiveness and peril, and both are dynamic in their concealability. However, the reasons for varying concealability differ. Whereas pregnancy is only concealable up to a certain point (i.e. the baby bump becomes noticeable), the concealability of adoption depends on several factors such as the age and race of the adopted child, whether colleagues are present enough during the adoption process to know that the employee (or the employee’s spouse) was not pregnant, and whether the employee is required to obtain a verification letter of support for the home study process.

Adoption stigma also differs from pregnancy stigma in its course. More specifically, a person’s status as an adoptive parent remains, even after the adoption is finalized, whereas when the baby is born the pregnancy ends as does one’s status as a pregnant person. Another way in which adoption stigma differs from pregnancy stigma is in its duration. While the adoption process can range widely in terms of a timeframe and unpredictability, a pregnancy has a much narrower and predictable range. Adoption stigma also differs from pregnancy stigma in its aesthetic appeal. More specifically, the cultural norms and preferences for biological families support and encourage biological pregnancies, while potentially dissuading or stigmatizing adoption (Baden, 2016; Farr and Vazquez, 2020; Miall, 1987). Given previous research on stigmas has shown that different combinations of Jones et al.’s (1984) dimensions lead to different health and well-being outcomes (Pachankis et al., 2018), this research examines the relationships between PAS and several work and family outcomes to help better understand PAS as a unique stigma.

Perceived adoption stigma and work–family conflict

Demands are “structural or psychological claims associated with role requirements, expectations, and norms to which individuals must respond or adapt by exerting physical or mental effort” (Voydanoff, 2005: 708). One form of work demands relevant to how individuals integrate their work and family lives is strain-based demands or demands that take a psychological toll on employees and cause spillover through energy depletion, negative emotions, or stress (Voydanoff, 2005). We position PAS as a strain-based demand that stems from colleagues at work treating adoption as a second-rate option for building a family. Minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003, 2007) suggests that stigmatized individuals will experience disproportionate stress owing to their stigmatized identity and that this proximal minority stress process will impact outcomes. As strain associated with PAS comes from the integration of the work and family domains, we propose that PAS impacts primary, spillover, and crossover outcomes through an increased conflict between the work and family domains for these individuals.

WFC is the negative spillover between work and family domains (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). In the work–family literature, strain-based work demands have consistently been modeled as direct antecedents to WFC as the depletion of resources in one domain, work, make it difficult to handle the demands of the competing domain, family (Michel et al., 2011). More specifically, strain-based conflict (i.e. strain experienced in one role interferes with participation in another role) would likely occur as a result of the strain-based work stressor of PAS owing to resource depletion. In line with previous research, as colleagues at work put pressure on the job incumbent owing to their adoptive parent status, the job incumbent’s resources of energy and emotion are depleted as they feel stigmatized and have to manage colleagues’ expectations (Singh et al., 2019). As a result, the reduction in resources owing to their stigmatized identity (PAS) contributes to the challenge of the work domain interfering with the family domains (i.e. WFC) (Carlson et al., 2019).

Minority stress theory sheds additional light on how this conflict between roles may help explain the link between PAS and strain-based WFC. The nature of adoption stigma suggests that there is tension between the workplace ideals and what the employees are trying to accomplish with regards to their family. The minority stress model (Meyer, 2003, 2007) highlights the fact that perceived stigmatization causes individuals to feel anxious about social interactions (Goffman, 1963) and feel that they must maintain vigilance regarding their stigmatized identity (Allport, 1954; Crocker et al., 1998) to avoid discrimination. However, maintaining vigilance and managing one’s stigmatized identity at work takes effort on the part of the employee, leaving them depleted and less capable of meeting family demands. The minority stress model (Meyer, 2003, 2007) also suggests that proximal minority stress involves employees having consistent expectations of rejection. The strain associated with expectations of rejection in the workplace is depleting, again leaving fewer resources available for meeting family demands. Indeed, conceptualizing perceived discrimination as a strain-based demand, Minnotte (2012) found that age, sex, and racial discrimination at work contributed to increased WFC. Thus, we would expect conflict to result as individuals perceive adoption stigma and are compelled to contribute greater resources to the work domain, leaving less available for the family domain.

Hypothesis 1: PAS will be positively related with WFC.

Primary effects of perceived adoption stigma

The original model of minority stress (Meyer, 2003, 2007) argued that the proximal minority stress process would have an adverse impact on mental health outcomes. This model has since been expanded to a workplace context to consider job satisfaction (Velez et al., 2013). Thus, in line with existing research, we begin our investigation into the implications of PAS by looking at the primary effects. We build on theoretical foundations to consider the job incumbent’s mental health (i.e. depression) and extend prior research to learn if this form of stigma has an impact on job attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction). This primary effect is an intraindividual process that occurs within the same context and captures how a stressor in one domain (e.g. work) has an impact on that individual in the same domain.

Depression

In line with minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003, 2007), we expect that PAS will have an adverse effect on employee psychological health via increased WFC. This would be consistent with the previous findings that WFC contributed to poor psychological health after childbirth in working mothers (Carlson et al., 2011b; Marshall and Tracy, 2009). In this study, we specifically focus on depression because it is a broad measure that captures psychological health and because depressive symptoms have been shown to negatively impact job performance (Adler et al., 2006) and individuals’ ability to work (Elinson et al., 2004). According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2017), depression is a medical illness that negatively affects how individuals feel, think, and act. Depressive symptoms can vary from mild to severe and include feelings of sadness, loss of interest in activities once enjoyed, trouble sleeping, increased fatigue, difficulty thinking/concentrating, and thoughts of death or suicide (APA, 2017).

The experience of minority stress has been shown to contribute to lower well-being and higher levels of depression (Baams et al., 2015). Previous research has called for more examination of linking mechanisms in line with the minority population. For example, in examining LGB youth, perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belonging were key mediators to this process (Baams et al., 2015). Also, sexual minority stressors were linked to psychological distress through concealment-focused identity strategies (Velez et al., 2013). Individuals building their families via adoption are walking through a major life change and managing the competing roles of work and family. This coupled with the stress caused by stigmatization and the resulting WFC puts these individuals at even greater risk of depression.

Hypothesis 2: PAS will be indirectly (positively) related to depression through WFC.

Job satisfaction

In addition to impacting employees’ mental health, we expect PAS to negatively impact employees’ job attitudes via increased WFC. Specifically, we focus on job satisfaction defined as “a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it as offering” (Locke, 1969: 316). Stressors have consistently been linked to decreased job satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 2007) and research has specifically found that discrimination owing to stigmatized identities is linked to decreased job satisfaction (Velez et al., 2013). Meta-analyses have shown that both perceived racial discrimination (Triana et al., 2015) and perceived gender discrimination (Triana et al., 2019) are negatively related to employee job attitudes.

In their study of pregnant employees, Fox and Quinn (2015) found that perceived pregnancy stigma led to decreased job satisfaction. Given the family-related nature of adoption stigma, we expect that WFC will function as an explanatory mechanism that helps us better understand why PAS might negatively impact job satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2019). Previous research has indicated that WFC has a negative impact on employee job satisfaction (Amstad et al., 2011; Bruck et al., 2002). As mentioned, employees who feel stigmatized at work owing to their adoption will experience greater levels of WFC, which is likely to negatively impact their attitudes toward their work.

Hypothesis 3: PAS will be indirectly (negatively) related to job satisfaction through WFC.

Spillover effects of perceived adoption stigma

To better understand the spillover to the family domain, we integrate family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982) with minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003). Family systems theory argues that the family unit is “a system composed of interrelated and interdependent parts such that an alteration in one part affects all components of the system” (Smith et al., 2012: 131). As such, the actions and attitudes of one partner influence the other members of the system. Family systems theory experts argue that considering the parts of a system as a whole advances our understanding of family interaction (Bavelas and Segal, 1982). Previous research has applied family systems theory to the work–family interface to provide a broader understanding of the impact on the family domain (e.g. Ferguson et al., 2016). Spillover is an intraindividual process that occurs across roles or contexts (Westman, 2001). It is the extent that participation in one domain, work, impacts participation in another domain, family (Bolger et al., 1989). Thus, we propose that the WFC experienced by stigmatized job incumbents will spill over into the family domain owing to the integrated nature of the family system.

Family satisfaction

Consistent with the notion of spillover, WFC has consistently been linked to family satisfaction, the satisfaction that one gains from experiences with one’s family, such that greater WFC has diminished family satisfaction (Amstad et al., 2011). For example, when job incumbents are stressed, they are likely to have less support to contribute to the family domain in terms of time and energy, which has been shown to negatively influence family satisfaction (Phillips-Miller et al., 2000). The spillover process from the work domain to the family domain helps us understand that employees cannot be expected to leave their work experiences at work (Carlson et al., 2019). Instead, those experiences that induce conflict can negatively influence satisfaction in the work domain and in the family domain (Boyar and Mosley, 2007).

Hypothesis 4: PAS will be indirectly (negatively) related to family satisfaction through WFC.

Parent–child bonding

Family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982) contends that the family system plays a role in the parent–child relationship and research supports the family system’s impact on parent–child interactions (Trivette et al., 2010). The relationship between a parent and a child is a special one that differs from relationships with other individuals (Beutler et al., 1989; Kennell and Klaus, 1979). Parent–child bonding can begin upon conception, adoption, or fostering of a child (Hill and Flanagan, 2020) and is a parent-driven “process that occurs primarily throughout the first year of an infant’s life, but may continue throughout a child’s life” (Kinsey and Hupcey, 2013: 1319). In adoptions specifically, the parent–child bond is a critical element that needs to be established to help ensure the child feels secure in their new, forever family (van den Dries et al., 2009). A parent–child bond is an affective state of the parent and involves the parent’s positive feelings and emotions toward the child (Kinsey and Hupcey, 2013). As a parent expresses positive emotions, feelings, and actions toward the child, the child develops a more positive attachment to his or her parent (Hill and Flanagan, 2020). A compromised parent–child attachment can lead to future emotional and relational problems for the child, such as decreased ability to self-regulate, learn empathy, accept limits, and form close and trusting relationships (Levy and Orlans, 2001). Employees experiencing WFC as a result of PAS in the workplace may find that they lack the time or energy to adequately form a bond with their new child. Past research has demonstrated that individuals that experience WFC have fewer resources to devote to the family (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). Further, parental stress has been shown to negatively impact parent–child bonding (Willinger et al., 2005).

Hypothesis 5: PAS will be indirectly (negatively) related to parent–child bonding through WFC.

Crossover effects of perceived adoption stigma

Beyond the job incumbent, family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982) suggests the actions and attitudes of the job incumbent will impact the spouse. Through further extension of the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003) using family systems theory, we examine the crossover of PAS from the job incumbent to the spouse. Crossover is an interindividual contagion that occurs between two individuals across contexts (Westman, 2001). The underlying notion of crossover, explained by family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982), is that an individual’s experienced stress can contribute to the negative experience of their family members (Haines et al., 2006). Specifically, we consider the spouse’s perception of the stress crossover transmission (Ferguson, 2012), which occurs when stress from the work domain crosses over to create stress for the spouse in the other domain, and results in the original stressor becoming stressful to the spouse (Rook et al., 1991). Thus, as the job incumbent experiences WFC resulting from PAS, he or she is likely to exhibit behaviors that the spouse perceives as crossing over into the family domain. This is consistent with previous research that has found that the job incumbent’s role stressors contributed to WFC and subsequently to stress crossover transmission (Carlson et al., 2019).

Hypothesis 6: PAS will be indirectly (positively) related to stress crossover transmission through job incumbent WFC.

The crossover mechanism of interest here, as specified by Westman and Vinokur (1998), is the indirect crossover of strain as mediated by stress crossover transmission. This process of stress crossover between the job incumbent and the spouse is likely to have implications for the spouse as the stress for one individual becomes a stressor for the other individual (Howe et al., 2004). In this form of indirect crossover, a negative life event for the job incumbent can increase the strain of a partner (Westman and Vinokur, 1998). The stress crossover from job incumbent to spouse has been shown to make the spouse more likely to experience similar symptoms in terms of depression (Howe et al., 2004), distress and marital dissatisfaction (Westman et al., 2004), and perceived health (Westman et al., 2008). As individuals experience stress they are more likely to have negative interactions or conflictual interactions with their partners (Haines et al., 2006; Westman et al., 2004). In addition, if an individual experiences stress in the work domain they have fewer resources to contribute to the family domain, thus creating more demands for the spouse (Carlson et al., 2011a). Further, WFC has been shown to cross over to impact job and family experiences for the spouse (Carlson et al., 2011a; Westman and Etzion, 1995). We chose to examine three family outcomes from the perspective of the spouse to parallel the nonwork outcomes of the job incumbent: a personal outcome (i.e. depression), a family outcome (i.e. family satisfaction), and a parenting outcome (i.e. parent–child bonding).

Depression

Depression, as previously defined, is a psychological state that we argue could also be experienced by the spouse as a result of the job incumbent’s experiences of PAS. The relationship between stressful life events and major depressive episodes is well established (Hammen, 2005). This study takes it a step further by considering the role of stress through crossover on the spouse’s depression consistent with family systems theory, which suggests that specific events impact the system’s sequential function (Bavelas and Segal, 1982). As job incumbents perceive adoption stigma and subsequently experience WFC, which crosses over to the family, they have fewer resources with which to contribute to the family (Carlson et al., 2011a). Further, stress crossover captures feelings that the job incumbent’s job negatively impacts the family and makes the family feel stressed (Ferguson, 2012). In each case, the crossover from the job incumbent’s PAS contributes to a stressful environment in the family domain, leaving the spouse at greater risk of depression.

Hypothesis 7: PAS will be indirectly (positively) related to spousal depression through the serial mediation of job incumbent WFC and stress crossover transmission.

Family satisfaction

Further, family satisfaction, which captures a family member’s overall attitude toward the family is likely to be influenced by the job incumbent’s stress. Family systems theory suggests that family relationships are critical to the well-being of the family (Rothbaum et al., 2002). Again, as the job incumbent experiences WFC, this crossover process is likely to lead to negative interactions with the spouse. For example, stress crossover has contributed to increased social undermining, which was shown to decrease marital satisfaction (Westman et al., 2004). In other words, when a job incumbent experiences WFC owing to work stress they have fewer resources to contribute to the family domain, which leads to reduced family satisfaction (Phillips-Miller et al., 2000). We believe that as the job incumbent’s WFC crosses over to the family the overall family satisfaction from the perspective of the spouse will be diminished.

Hypothesis 8: PAS will be indirectly (negatively) related to spousal family satisfaction through the serial mediation of job incumbent WFC and stress crossover transmission.

Parent–child bonding

Finally, we consider if the stress crossover has an impact on the spouse’s parent–child relationship. As noted previously, family systems research supports the notion that the family system has an impact on parent–child interactions (Trivette et al., 2010). If the job incumbent perceives adoption stigma and subsequently experiences WFC, they have fewer resources to provide to the family and more experienced stress in their interactions with the family. Thus, the spouse would have fewer resources with which to invest in forming a relationship with the child and parental stress has been shown to decrease bonding (Willinger et al., 2005). Extant research has found that WFC crosses over to impact the spouse’s experiences at home and subsequently their parent–child interactions (Cinamon et al., 2007). Thus, as a job incumbent perceives adoption stigma, contributing to WFC, this creates a negative environment that is likely to impact the spouse’s ability to develop a close relationship with the child.

Hypothesis 9: PAS will be indirectly (negatively) related to spousal parent–child bonding through the serial mediation of job incumbent WFC and stress crossover transmission.

Methods

Participants and procedures

The current sample was part of a data collection effort focused on adoption in the workplace. Through posts on social media (i.e. Facebook), adoption advocacy organizations’ newsletters, and emails sent directly to adoptive parents by United States adoption agencies, we recruited married adoptive parents. Each post, newsletter, and email contained the link to an online registration survey where potential participants were screened for our study qualifications. Those eligibility criteria included being at least 18 years of age, at least one of the parents must have been working full time (non-self-employed) at the time of the adoption and both parents must have adopted the child. In this registration survey, the registrant provided his or her email address and that of his or her spouse. Couples who completed the study were entered in a raffle to win Amazon gift cards.

The registration survey was completed by 1059 working adults in the United States. There were 185 who did not fully qualify to participate. Thus, there were 874 married adoptive couples who qualified for the study, which resulted in 1748 participants receiving an email with a link to either the job incumbent or spouse survey. Among those, 669 completed job incumbent surveys and 685 completed spouse surveys. However, there were several couples in which only one person completed the survey. Thus, the final sample of matched job incumbent–spouse dyads was 594, a 68% retention rate. To minimize recall bias, we only retained those couples who had adopted within the last three years for this study. This resulted in a final sample size of 501 matched job incumbent–spouse dyads, 99% of which were heterosexual couples.

The majority of job incumbent respondents were male (64.5%) and the mean age was 36.56 years (SD = 8.83). The ethnicity of job incumbents was predominately White (93%). As was required, all job incumbents were working full time at the time of the adoption, averaging 44.22 hours/week (SD = 7.49). At the time of the adoption, the average organizational tenure of job incumbents was 6.98 years (SD = 5.55).

Spouse respondents were predominately female (64.7%) with an average age of 37.0 years (SD = 6.97). Their ethnicity was also predominately White (94.2%). Their average time working per week at the time of the adoption was 25.36 hours (SD = 20.09).

Couples in our study had been married on average for 11.08 years (SD = 5.90) and had an average of 2.77 children (SD = 1.85), including the adopted child, at the time of the adoption. Within our sample, the majority, 50.1% (251 couples), had adopted their child within one year prior to the start of the study data collection, 34.1% (171 couples) had adopted between one and two years prior, and 15.8% (79 couples) had adopted between two and three years prior.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, all measures were rated using a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Also, respondents were given the prompt for all scales to consider “the first six months after the adoption” when responding.

Job incumbent variables

Perceived adoption stigma

PAS was measured using Goldberg et al.’s (2011) five-item scale, which was adapted to a workplace context (i.e. using “my colleagues” instead of “people”). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each statement was true (1 = not at all true; 5 = very true). A sample item is “My colleagues indicated to me that they felt that as an adoptive parent I wasn’t a ‘real’ parent” (α = .84).

Work–family conflict

WFC was measured using the three-item strain dimension of WFC from Carlson et al.’s (2000) scale. A sample item is “I was often so emotionally drained when I got home from work that it prevented me from contributing to my family” (α = .92).

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured using Cammann et al.’s (1979) three-item scale. A sample item is “I was generally satisfied with my work situation” (α = .92).

Job incumbent and spouse variables

Depression

Depression was measured using Kroenke et al.’s (2009) seven-item scale as validated by Toker and Biron (2012). Respondents were asked how often they were bothered by the following problems (1 = not at all; 5 = every day). A sample item is “Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless” (job incumbent, α = .90; spouse, α = .90).

Family satisfaction

Family satisfaction was measured by adapting Cammann et al.’s (1979) three-item job satisfaction scale. A sample item is “Generally speaking, I was very satisfied with my family life” (job incumbent, α = .92; spouse, α = .94).

Parent–child bonding

Parent–child bonding was measured with Brockington et al.’s (2001) screening questionnaire for mother–infant bonding. We adapted this scale by selecting the eight positively worded items and changing the item wording from “baby” to “adopted child”. A sample item is “I felt close to my adopted child” (job incumbent, α = .89; spouse, α = .92).

Spouse variables

Stress crossover transmission

Stress crossover transmission was measured using Ferguson’s (2012) three-item scale. A sample item is “I frequently felt my spouse’s job negatively impacted the well-being of our family” (α = .88).

Controls

Consistent with prior research on married couples, we controlled for number of children and job incumbent gender (Carlson et al., 2011a).

Analyses and results

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all variables are presented in Table 1. The bivariate relationships are consistent with expectations regarding direction and magnitude. Analyses were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation of structural equation models in Mplus 8.7 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2021), and missing data were handled using full information maximum likelihood. Indirect effects were estimated using the MODEL INDIRECT command in MPlus, with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals surrounding these estimates generated using 5000 bootstrapped resamples. Parcels were created using the factorial algorithm technique (Little et al., 2002; Rogers and Schmitt, 2004) for each latent construct made up of four or more items (i.e. PAS, depression, and parent–child bonding). This technique was used to create evenly distributed constructs (i.e. three items per latent construct), reduce item-specific error, and reduce the demands placed on the data.¹

Table 1.

Adoptive parents’ descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. JI Gender	0.36	0.48
2. Number of children	2.77	1.84	–.20^**
3. JI PAS	2.02	0.92	.11^*	–.04	(.84)
4. JI WFC	2.70	1.19	.05	–.01	.25^**	(.92)
5. JI Job satisfaction	4.11	0.94	.02	.05	–.19^**	–.39^**	(.92)
6. JI Depression	1.67	0.69	.03	–.03	.24^**	.47^**	–.19^**	(.90)
7. JI Family satisfaction	4.40	0.82	.02	–.05	–.13^**	–.30^**	.17^**	–.53^**	(.92)
8. JI Parent–child bonding	4.45	0.69	.07	–.15^**	–.05	–.13^*	.06	–.41^**	.57^**	(.89)
9. Sp SCT	2.35	1.17	–.10^*	.04	.16^**	.42^**	–.34^**	.30^**	–.18^**	–.11^*	(.88)
10. Sp Depression	1.82	0.82	–.14^**	.04	.15^**	.13^	–.10^*	.29^**	–.22^**	–.23^**	.34^**	(.90)
11. Sp Family satisfaction	4.21	0.99	.18^**	–.14^**	–.08	–.10^*	.07	–.26^**	.34^**	.37^**	–.27^**	–.55^**	(.94)
12. Sp Parent–child bonding	4.26	0.72	.09^*	–.25^**	–.05	–.04	.01	–.22^**	.29^**	.60^**	–.15^**	–.48^**	.63^**	(.92)

JI: job incumbent; Sp: spouse; PAS: perceived adoption stigma; WFC: work–family conflict; SCT: stress crossover transmission. N = 501. Gender (0 = Male; 1 = Female). Values in parentheses on the diagonal are the alpha reliabilities.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Prior to testing our hypotheses, we assessed the fit of the parceled measurement model, which included all the study’s latent variables (i.e. controls for number of children and job incumbent gender were not included). The hypothesized measurement model exhibited strong fit with the data (χ² (360) = 550.11, p < .001; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .03). The standardized factor loadings ranged from .69 to .96 and all factor loadings were significant (p < .001). We also tested alternative measurement models that combined one or more of the latent constructs to confirm discriminant validity of the study variables. The first combined the outcomes into three latent variables, representing the primary (job incumbent depression and job satisfaction), spillover (job incumbent family satisfaction and parent–child bonding), and crossover (spouse depression, family satisfaction, and parent–child bonding) outcomes. This model exhibited significantly worse fit to the data (Δ χ² (30) = 3379.62, p < .001; CFI = .70; RMSEA = .14; SRMR = .13) compared with the hypothesized model. We also tested a two-factor model (Factor 1: job incumbent items, Factor 2: spouse items), which also exhibited significantly poorer fit to the data (Δ χ² (44) = 6724.03, p < .001; CFI = .41; RMSEA = .18; SRMR = .15). Finally, we tested a model that loaded all items onto a single factor, which also exhibited extremely poor model fit (Δ χ² (45) = 8163.92, p < .001; CFI = .29; RMSEA = .20; SRMR = .17) relative to the hypothesized model.

In order to address concerns regarding common method variance (CMV), we re-estimated our measurement model with the addition of an uncorrelated method factor as suggested by Williams et al. (1989). As expected, this model fit the data well (χ² (330) = 447.635, p < .01; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .03), and a chi-square difference test indicated a significant improvement (Δ χ² (30) = 98.67, p < .01). To further understand the influence of CMV, we examined the amount of variance explained by the method factor. In this model, CMV only accounted for 5% of the total variance, which is much less than the 25% observed by Williams et al. (1989). These results suggest that CMV is not a major concern in this study and that the observed relationships represent substantive versus artifactual effects.

Next, we specified our full structural model by adding all of the hypothesized paths as well as paths from the two control variables (i.e. job incumbent gender and number of children) to each of the endogenous variables contained in the measurement model. In addition, we also specified direct paths from PAS to all the other endogenous variables in the model (in addition to WFC), as the extant literature suggests that stigma may also be related to depression, among other outcomes (Frost, 2011). Including all these paths allows the model to freely estimate all possible direct paths from PAS to outcomes in this model to allow for a more thorough examination of the possible direct and indirect effects in our theoretical model. This full structural model with these additional paths added had a good fit to the data (χ² (409) = 651.79, p < .001; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .04) and all factor loadings were significant (p < .001). The results of this structural model containing more paths are presented in the Supplemental Appendix (https://osf.io/vrktq/?view_only=aa303149d6364f31a3970ff92634af7d).

As shown in the Appendix, several of the non-hypothesized paths from adoption stigma, as well as from the two control variables to the outcomes are not significant. Therefore, as a robustness check as well as to identify the most parsimonious model, we estimated additional models with some of these non-significant structural paths removed. These nested models included: (1) only the non-significant paths from adoption stigma to outcomes are removed (Δ χ² (5) = 5.06, p = .41), (2) only the non-significant paths from the control variables are removed (Δ χ² (12) = 10.05, p = .61), and (3) all non-significant paths from stigma and the control variables are removed (Δ χ² (17) = 14.60, p = .62). None of these models exhibits significantly better (or worse) fit to the data compared with the baseline model, with those paths included. Also, across all of these models, the parameter estimates associated with the hypothesized relationships are not meaningfully different (i.e. similar in magnitude, with the direction and significance levels unchanged). Given there is little difference between these nested models, we proceeded to examine our hypotheses using the more parsimonious model that removes all these non-significant paths (χ² (426) = 666.39, p < .001; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .04). The summary results are shown in Figure 2, and the full structural model results are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2.

Full structural model results.

Endogenous variable	Predictor	Estimate	SE	Est./SE	P-value
JI WFC
	PAS	0.26	0.05	5.33	0.000
JI Depression
	WFC	0.45	0.04	11.40	0.000
	PAS	0.10	0.05	2.09	0.036
JI Job satisfaction
	WFC	–0.37	0.05	–7.71	0.000
	PAS^a	–0.10	0.05	–1.94	0.052
JI Family satisfaction
	WFC	–0.31	0.04	–7.30	0.000
JI Parent–child bonding
	WFC	–0.13	0.04	–3.29	0.001
	# of Children	–0.13	0.04	–3.76	0.000
Sp. SCT
	WFC	0.44	0.05	9.78	0.000
	JI Gender	–0.13	0.04	–2.97	0.003
Sp. Depression
	SCT	0.30	0.05	6.09	0.000
	Adoption stigma	0.09	0.04	2.02	0.043
	JI Gender	–0.10	0.04	–2.57	0.010
Sp. Family satisfaction
	SCT	–0.24	0.05	–5.24	0.000
	JI Gender	0.13	0.03	3.73	0.000
	# of Children	–0.08	0.03	–2.43	0.015
Sp. Parent–child bonding
	SCT	–0.13	0.05	–2.75	0.006
	# of Children	–0.24	0.05	–5.30	0.000

JI: job incumbent; Sp: spouse; PAS: perceived adoption stigma; WFC: work–family conflict; SCT: stress crossover transmission. Standardized parameter estimates; job incumbent gender coded: 0 = Male; 1 = Female. N = 501.

We chose to retain the direct adoption stigma–JI depression relationship in this model as that path was significant (p < .05) in the initial model with all the paths from stigma and the controls to outcomes included.

Table 3.

Standardized indirect effects.

PAS → WFC → JI Depression	0.12	[.071, .165]
PAS → WFC → JI Job satisfaction	–0.10	[–.144, –.056]
PAS → WFC → JI Family satisfaction	–0.08	[–.119, –.044]
PAS → WFC → JI Parent–child bonding	–0.03	[–.063, –.013]
PAS → WFC → SCT	0.11	[.066, .164]
PAS → WFC → SCT → Sp. Depression	0.03	[.018, .054]
PAS → WFC → SCT → Sp. Family satisfaction	–0.03	[–.046, –.014]
PAS → WFC → SCT → Sp. Parent–child bonding	–0.01	[–.029, –.004]

JI: job incumbent; Sp: spouse; PAS: perceived adoption stigma; WFC: work–family conflict; SCT: stress crossover transmission. Standardized parameter estimates; 95% confidence intervals generated using 5000 bias-corrected bootstrap draws. N = 501.

Figure 2.

Summary results of the primary, spillover, and crossover effects of adoption stigma.

As seen in Table 2, Hypothesis 1 was supported as PAS was positively related to WFC (β = .26, SE = .05, p < .001). All other hypotheses (Hypotheses 2–9) propose indirect effects, which we evaluate based upon the specific indirect effects and the associated 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals presented in Table 3. These indirect effects and confidence intervals are generated as part of the structural model estimation that has been described previously, and represent the indirect effects of PAS on each outcome through that specific hypothesized pathway (i.e. the full mediation chain) in question. Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5 focused on the job incumbent’s experiences that occurred in the wake of PAS through WFC. PAS was indirectly related to depression (standardized indirect effect = .12, BCCI₉₅: .071, .165), job satisfaction (standardized indirect effect = −.10, BCCI₉₅: −.144, −.056), family satisfaction (standardized indirect effect = −.08, BCCI₉₅: −.119, −.044), and parent–child bonding (standardized indirect effect = −.03, BCCI₉₅: −.063, −.013). Thus, Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5 were all supported, which supports the proposition that job incumbents experience less job satisfaction, more depression, less family satisfaction, and less parent–child bonding as a result of PAS, all through WFC.

Hypotheses 6 through 9 focus on the impact of the PAS on the job incumbent’s spouse. Hypothesis 6 was supported as the job incumbent’s PAS was indirectly related to the spouse’s stress crossover transmission through the job incumbent’s WFC (standardized indirect effect = .11, BCCI₉₅: .066, .164). Also note that the direct effect from PAS to the spouse’s stress crossover transmission when included, was not significant (β = .07, SE = .05, p = .205). This was the first step in hypothesizing the crossover effect of PAS from the job incumbent to the spouse. Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 are all tests of indirect effects via serial mediation whereby PAS leads to spousal experiences through job incumbent WFC and then spousal-rated stress crossover transmission. In support of Hypothesis 7, the indirect effect on spousal depression was positive and significant (standardized indirect effect = .03, BCCI₉₅: .018, .054). In support of Hypothesis 8, the indirect effect on spousal family satisfaction was negative and significant (standardized indirect effect = −.03, BCCI₉₅: −.046, −.014). Finally, in support of Hypothesis 9, the indirect effect on spousal parent–child bonding was negative and significant (standardized indirect effect = −.01, BCCI₉₅: −.029, −.004). Thus, our results support the proposition of the crossover effect of PAS through WFC and stress crossover transmission, which culminates in greater spouse depression and reduced spouse family satisfaction and parent–child bonding.

In order to provide some empirical evidence in support of the direction of the relationships we have presented here, we examined the fit of some alternative structural models that had a different ordering of variables in the mediation chain. We then compared the fit of these models with the hypothesized model using the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) values, where lower values of each represent superior model fit (Kline, 2011; Quade et al., 2022). We examined a model that flips the positioning of PAS and the job incumbent’s WFC (i.e. WFC leads to adoption stigma, which in turn affects all the hypothesized outcomes). This alternative model exhibits poorer fit (AIC = 30267.73; BIC = 30811.67) relative to our final, hypothesized model (AIC = 30157.56; BIC = 30701.50). We estimated a model in which the ordering of the variables is completely reversed (i.e. spouse depression, family satisfaction, parent–child bonding all predict stress crossover transmission, which in turn predicts WFC and so forth). This model exhibited poorer model fit (AIC = 30249.87; BIC = 30379.15) as compared with the hypothesized model.

Finally, we also examined the potential for endogeneity issues in our model results, specifically omitted variable bias (Antonakis et al., 2014). One of the appropriate ways to address this within a SEM framework is to explicitly allow the error terms in pairs of predictor–outcome relationships to correlate with one another in the structural model specification (Grace, 2021; Kirby and Bollen, 2009; Shaver, 2005). This allows the model to estimate the correlation between the two endogenous variables’ respective error terms, and also generates a standard error and p-value associated with that estimate. Thus, using our final structural model as the baseline, we allowed each respective pair of error terms for all the predictor–immediate outcome relationships to correlate (e.g. WFC with job incumbent depression, WFC with job incumbent job satisfaction, WFC with spouse stress crossover transmission). As allowing for correlated error terms only applies when both variables are endogenous, we added the job incumbent’s age to the model as a predictor to PAS. We chose age because of the variables in our dataset, it is one that is significantly (although only moderately) related to PAS, but not to the job incumbent’s WFC, thus serving as an effective instrumental variable and allowing the model to be identified (Grace, 2021; Kirby and Bollen, 2009). This analysis showed that none of the estimates representing the correlations between pairs of error terms was statistically significant. Thus, we can conclude that our model results are not significantly affected by the presence of omitted variable bias.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of adoptive parents at work. Specifically, we wanted to understand the implications of PAS on the job incumbent’s and their spouse’s work and family outcomes. In order to better understand the detrimental impact of PAS, we integrated minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) and family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982) and found that PAS functioned as a social stressor resulting in increased WFC for the job incumbent. This then negatively impacted the job incumbent personally (i.e. job satisfaction and depression) and spilled over to negatively impact their experiences with their family (i.e. family satisfaction and parent–child bonding). Further, we found that PAS crossed over from the job incumbent to their spouse, negatively impacting the spouse’s personal (i.e. depression) and family (i.e. family satisfaction and parent–child bonding) outcomes.

Implications for research and theory

This study makes several contributions. Workplace stigmas such as race, gender, or sexual orientation have long since received attention in the discrimination literature (Colella et al., 2017; Dhanani et al., 2018). We built on recent work that has begun to expand the views of stigmatization to include the experiences of working pregnant women (Fox and Quinn, 2015; Jones, 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Little et al., 2015, 2018; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2019) by empirically investigating the experiences of adoptive couples with at least one spouse working full time. In doing so, we answered a call to provide a broader perspective of the workplace stigmas individuals may experience (Colella et al., 2017). This also meaningfully advances research in a similar vein for stigmatized women who are lesbian mothers (Hennekam and Ladge, 2017). Importantly, our work also answers a call for increased research on adoption-related issues that adoptive parents might face (Kline et al., 2006). Further, we helped establish the role of PAS as a unique form of stigma that can potentially impact both men and women in addition to other demands new parents are already experiencing. This work also proves meaningful because very little research has focused on men’s work–family experiences related to becoming a parent. Thus, this research provides valuable insights to both the stigma and work–family literatures.

Second, this study extends minority stress theory by clarifying the process through which PAS leads to detrimental consequences for employees by introducing WFC as an explanatory mechanism. Researchers have called for consideration of potential mediators between the stressor and outcomes that are appropriate for a specified population with regards to the minority stress model (Baams et al., 2015). Specifically, we conceptualize PAS as a strain-based work demand that impacts a minority group of individuals (i.e. adoptive parents). When faced with PAS at work, adoptive parents will experience a disproportionate amount of stress owing to this stigmatized identity, which takes a psychological toll and causes spillover through energy depletion, negative emotions, and stress, which means there is less energy for them to meet their family demands. Given our focus on PAS, a family-related stigma manifested at work, we believe how people manage their work and family demands as they build their family is a critical linking mechanism to explain this process. Our findings attest to this, as WFC played an integral role in relating PAS with all forms (i.e. primary, spillover, and crossover) of outcomes. Thus, we provided a theoretical and empirical contribution to the understanding of the functioning of the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003, 2007).

Finally, given our focus on PAS, we integrated minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003, 2007) and family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982). This approach allowed us to examine a broad range of outcomes at varying levels (individual, dyad, family), showing the far-reaching effects of PAS. Previous research has considered the impact of minority stress in the workplace (Velez et al., 2013), but little work has considered the impact on the family. This research answered a call by Holman (2018) to consider multiple contexts and actors impacted by the experience of minority stress. We considered primary outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction and depression), spillover to the family domain for the job incumbent (i.e. family satisfaction, parent–child bonding) and crossover to the spouse and his or her experience of depression, family satisfaction, and parent–child bonding. As expected, we found support for our hypothesized relationships suggesting that the experience of being stigmatized at work harms not only the stigmatized individual but also the broader family system. Perhaps one of the biggest contributions of this research is the finding that PAS negatively impacted both adoptive parents’ bonding with their adoptive child. This is critical, in the case of adoption, because establishing an attachment between the parents and the child is of the utmost importance (Gray, 2012).

Implications for practice

This study also offered several important practical implications. First, our findings indicated that organizations need to acknowledge and mitigate the harmful impact that the workplace can have on employees’ well-being while pursuing adoption. Further, parental depression has been shown to negatively impact the entire family system (Cummings et al., 2005). Managers should strive to increase job satisfaction and reduce depression as research has shown that both are adversely linked to absenteeism and productivity (Stewart et al., 2003). Based on our findings, managers could do this by addressing harmful stereotypes regarding adoption within the organization. More specifically, managers need to do their best to ensure such stereotypes are not widely held nor acted upon in their own decision making as well as among employees.

Further, since WFC mediated the relationship between PAS and adverse outcomes for employees and their families, organizations should focus on creating work environments in which employees pursuing adoption feel supported (see Fox and Quinn, 2015). One way to do this would be to institute policies that demonstrate organizational support for adoption, which has been linked to increases in job incumbents’ affective commitment (Quade et al., 2021). However, managers will also need to do things to ensure such family-friendly policies are both utilized by adoptive employees and viewed by others as positive. Research has shown that employees using family-friendly policies to alleviate WFC may be viewed as less committed to their jobs (Allen and Russell, 1999). This means that the very thing that could help employees as they build their families via adoption and reduce WFC could actually perpetuate the harmful effects we identified in this research. Thus, as managers successfully address the organization’s culture and de-stigmatize the use of family-friendly policies, they will create more supportive work environments for working adoptive parents.

There are broader implications for this research that go beyond the workplace as well. Many of the stigmas around building a family through adoption were not originated in the workplace. Thus, PAS also needs to be addressed more broadly. Specifically, there is an urgent need for adoption advocacy organizations to better educate the public about adoption and dispel harmful myths. Thus, it is possible that as the broader public accepts and normalizes adoption as a legitimate means of growing one’s family, PAS will be reduced.

Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations that offer opportunities for future research. One limitation of this research is the use of recall data. Specifically, respondents were asked to respond to survey questions regarding their experiences at the time of the adoption. However, it is appropriate to use recall (i.e. retrospective) data when studying experiences that are episodic in nature, such as an adoption, because events held in episodic memory are remembered more accurately (Wheeler et al., 1997).

Another limitation is the cross-sectional nature of our data. While we have taken steps to empirically address some of these limitations (e.g. tests for endogeneity, reverse-causality and CMV; data collected from job incumbent and spouse), there are other limitations that remain given this study design. Most notably, we can only draw inferences regarding association, but not causality, for all the relationships presented in our theoretical model. Our results are supportive of our overarching theoretical proposition that adoption stigma exists, and can have multiple detrimental effects for both the person experiencing it and his or her spouse. However, future research that incorporates a more robust (e.g. longitudinal or multi-level) study design is needed in order to more fully assess the causal relationships we have presented here. Future researchers could also consider a qualitative approach to elucidate how the adoption stigma manifests at work and impacts adoptive parents. These approaches would further allow the exploration into what degree conflict contributes to stigmatized behaviors and vice versa.

Relatedly, the focus of this study was to capture the crossover of stress from one individual (i.e. job incumbent) to another (i.e. spouse). As such, we did not require that the spouse be working and thus did not capture the spouse’s PAS or WFC. However, it is possible that the spouse also experiences PAS in their workplace and the resulting WFC, which would impact their own personal and family outcomes. Future research could explore an actor–partner-interdependence model (Kenny and Ledermann, 2010) to better understand PAS as a driving mechanism for both partners’ WFC, personal outcomes, and family outcomes.

Another potential limitation to this work is that we did not specifically account for or focus on the effects of other forms of minority status such as racial diversity and same-sex parents. So, while our sample was not racially exclusive nor did it exclude same-sex couples from participation, representation from those groups was limited in our sample. However, there is evidence from a national study on adoption that suggests the percentage of racial diversity within our sample is representative of adoptions within the United States. That said, future research on adoption stigma could take an intersectionality perspective (Meyer and Frost, 2013), which suggests that the experience of individuals who fall into more than one minority group (e.g. Black adoptive parents or same-sex adoptive parents) cannot simply be understood by adding knowledge about the separate groups together. Future research on PAS could examine the unique minority stress experiences of employees who hold multiple minority identities.

Future research could also consider the additive effect of adoption stigma. An underlying assumption of this study, consistent with minority stress theory, is that adoptive parents experience WFC to a greater extent as a result of PAS. All new parents, whether adoptive parents or not, experience increased family demands with the addition of a new child to their family. These new family demands will inevitably compete with their work demands, resulting in some level of WFC. In this study, we show that the experience of being stigmatized at work owing to being an adoptive parent takes a psychological toll and leaves employees depleted, with little left to give at home, causing strain-based WFC. This depletion also impacts interactions with family members (i.e. spouse and child). We argue that this depletion owing to PAS occurs in addition to the stress of adding a child to the family and taking on additional family responsibilities. This is consistent with minority stress theory, which suggests that stigmatized individuals experience disproportionate stress when compared with their non-stigmatized counterparts. However, future research could examine this additive effect by comparing adoptive parents with non-adoptive parents or by examining WFC levels throughout the adoption process (i.e. before and after the child comes home).

Finally, future research could benefit from investigating additional types of family-building stigma, beyond or connected to PAS. For example, researching if there are varying degrees of stigma based on type of adoption (e.g. kinship, intercountry, etc.), or characteristics about the adopted child (e.g. race, age, etc.). As another example, foster parents are an understudied population and in 2020, over 407,000 children in the USA were in foster care with approximately 117,000 of those children being eligible for adoption (i.e. children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated; US Department of Health and Human Services et al., 2021). Thus, foster parents are a significant portion of the workforce that is vastly understudied and understanding the way they may be stigmatized would be a fruitful avenue of research. Research could also examine the experiences of other family-building cohorts such as those pursuing fertility treatments and/or surrogacy. Further, PAS might impact other family members such as children or extended family members living in the home and future research could benefit by exploring the impact on the broader family system. Future research may also benefit from gathering perspectives of coworkers and supervisors in the work domain to understand their perception of this process. For example, determining if adoption stigma exists because colleagues view adoptive employees as a source of economic drain on the company given the more difficult transition for this type of new parent.

Conclusion

The goal of this research was to examine the impact of PAS in the workplace on primary, spillover, and crossover effects through WFC. Integrating minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003, 2007) and family systems theory (Bavelas and Segal, 1982), we proposed that PAS would have deleterious effects for working adoptive parents and their families, namely reduced job satisfaction for the job incumbent and increased depression as well as reduced family satisfaction and parent–child bonding for both the job incumbent and his or her spouse. Our findings supported our theorized model, suggesting that PAS in the workplace is an important consideration for organizations.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-hum-10.1177_00187267231164867 – Supplemental material for Welcome to parenthood!? An examination of the far-reaching effects of perceived adoption stigma in the workplace

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-hum-10.1177_00187267231164867 for Welcome to parenthood!? An examination of the far-reaching effects of perceived adoption stigma in the workplace by Kaylee J Hackney, Matthew J Quade, Dawn S Carlson, Ryan P Hanlon and Gary R Thurgood in Human Relations

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kaylee J Hackney

Matthew J Quade

Dawn S Carlson

Gary R Thurgood

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Kaylee J Hackney, PhD, is an assistant professor of management at Baylor University. She studies employee stress and well-being with a focus on pregnancy in the workplace. Her work has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Harvard Business Review. She is also the host of the Elegant Balance podcast where she shares her knowledge of the work–life interface to help professional women achieve a better work–life balance. [Email: kaylee_hackney@baylor.edu]

Matthew J Quade, PhD, is an associate professor of management in the Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University. His research focuses on behavioral ethics, ethics-based leadership styles, bottom-line mentality, and work–family integrations. His work has been published in various academic journals, including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, Human Relations, and Journal of Business Ethics. [Email: matt_quade@baylor.edu]

Dawn S Carlson, PhD, is a professor of management at Baylor University. Her research focuses on the work–family interface, work breaks, and remote working arrangements. Her work has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, and Harvard Business Review. She serves as the Director of the McBride Center of International Business for the Hankamer School of Business. [Email: dawn_carlson@baylor.edu]

Ryan P Hanlon, PhD, is the president and CEO of National Council for Adoption. His research focuses on adoption and foster care. His insights and perspectives on adoption have often been cited by major news outlets, including NPR’s Morning Edition, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, The New York Times, and many others. His work has been published in scholarly journals, including Child and Family Social Work, Child Welfare, Families in Society, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, and Journal of Public Child Welfare. [Email: rhanlon@adoptioncouncil.org]

Gary R Thurgood, PhD, is an assistant professor of management in the Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University. His research focuses on the intersection of personality characteristics, leadership, and the work environment and their impact on individual, group, and organizational processes and outcomes. His work has been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Strategic Management Journal, and Human Relations, and has received coverage in the Harvard Business Review and Fortune magazines. [Email: gary.thurgood@usu.edu]

References

Adler

Mclaughlin

Rogers

, et al. (2006) Job performance deficits due to depression. The American Journal of Psychiatry 163(9): 1569–1576.

Allen

Russell

(1999) Parental leave of absence: Some not so family-friendly implications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(1): 166–191.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

American Psychiatric Association (2017) What is depression? Available at: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/depression/what-is-depression (accessed 4 April 2020).

Amstad

Meier

Fasel

, et al. (2011) A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16(2): 151–169.

Antonakis

Bendahan

Jacquart

, et al. (2014) Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In: Day

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 93–117.

Baams

Grossman

Russell

(2015) Minority stress and mechanisms of risk for depression and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Developmental Psychology 51(5): 688–696.

Baden

(2016) ‘Do you know your real parents?’ and other adoption microaggressions. Adoption Quarterly 19(1): 1–25.

Bailyn

Harrington

(2004) Redesigning work for work–family integration. Community, Work & Family 7(2): 197–208.

10.

Bavelas

Segal

(1982) Family systems theory: Background and implications. Journal of Communication 32(3): 99–107.

11.

Beutler

Burr

Bahr

, et al. (1989) The family realm: Theoretical contributions for understanding its uniqueness. Journal of Marriage and the Family 51(3): 805–816.

12.

Bolger

DeLongis

Kessler

, et al. (1989) The contagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family 51(1): 175–183.

13.

Boyar

Mosley

Jr (2007) The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 71(2): 265–281.

14.

Brockington

Oates

George

, et al. (2001) A screening questionnaire for mother-infant bonding disorders. Archives of Women’s Mental Health 3(4): 133–140.

15.

Bruck

Allen

Spector

(2002) The relation between work–family conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 60(3): 336–353.

16.

Cammann

Fichman

Jenkins

, et al. (1979) The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

17.

Carlson

Ferguson

Perrewé

, et al. (2011a) The fallout from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Personnel Psychology 64(4): 937–961.

18.

Carlson

Grzywacz

Ferguson

, et al. (2011b) Health and turnover of working mothers after childbirth via the work–family interface: An analysis across time. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(5): 1045–1054.

19.

Carlson

Kacmar

Williams

(2000) Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56(2): 249–276.

20.

Carlson

Thompson

Kacmar

(2019) Double crossed: The spillover and crossover effects of work demands on work outcomes through the family. Journal of Applied Psychology 104(2): 214–228.

21.

Cinamon

Weisel

Tzuk

(2007) Work–family conflict within the family: Crossover effects, perceived parent–child interaction quality, parental self-efficacy, and life role attributions. Journal of Career Development 34(1): 79–100.

22.

Colella

Hebl

King

(2017) One hundred years of discrimination research in the Journal of Applied Psychology: A sobering synopsis. Journal of Applied Psychology 102(3): 500–513.

23.

Crocker

Major

Steele

(1998) Social stigma. In: Gilbert

Fiske

Lindzey

(eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 504–553.

24.

Cummings

Keller

Davies

(2005) Towards a family process model of maternal and paternal depressive symptoms: Exploring multiple relations with child and family functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(5): 479–489.

25.

Cutas

Chan

(eds) (2012) Families – Beyond the Nuclear Ideal. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

26.

Dhanani

Beus

Joseph

(2018) Workplace discrimination: A meta-analytic extension, critique, and future research agenda. Personnel Psychology 71(2): 147–179.

27.

Dickson

(2008) Antecedents and consequences of perceived family responsibilities discrimination in the workplace. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 11(1): 113–140.

28.

Elinson

Houck

Marcus

, et al. (2004) Depression and the ability to work. Psychiatric Services 55(1): 29–34.

29.

Farr

Vázquez

(2020) Stigma experiences, mental health, perceived parenting competence, and parent–child relationships among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents in the United States. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 445.

30.

Ferguson

(2012) You cannot leave it at the office: Spillover and crossover of coworker incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33(4): 571–588.

31.

Ferguson

Carlson

Boswell

, et al. (2016) Tethered to work: A family systems approach linking mobile device use to turnover intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology 101(4): 520–534.

32.

Fisher

(2003) Still ‘not quite as good as having your own’? Toward a sociology of adoption. Annual Review of Sociology 29(1): 335–361.

33.

Fox

Quinn

(2015) Pregnant women at work: The role of stigma in predicting women’s intended exit from the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(2): 226–242.

34.

Fried

(1998) Taking Time: Parental Leave and Corporate Culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

35.

Frost

(2011) Social stigma and its consequences for the socially stigmatized. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5(11): 824–839.

36.

Goffman

(1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

37.

Goldberg

Kinkler

Hines

(2011) Perception and internalization of adoption stigma among gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 7(1–2): 132–154.

38.

Grace

(2021) Instrumental variable methods in structural equation models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12(7): 1148–1157.

39.

Grandey

Cropanzano

(1999) The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54(2): 350–370.

40.

Gray

(2012) Attaching in Adoption: Practical Tools for Today’s Parents. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

41.

Greenhaus

Beutell

(1985) Sources and conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review 10(1): 76–88.

42.

Hackney

Daniels

Paustian-Underdahl

, et al. (2021) Examining the effects of perceived pregnancy discrimination on mother and baby health. Journal of Applied Psychology 106(5): 774–783.

43.

Haines

Marchand

Harvey

(2006) Crossover of workplace aggression experiences in dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11(4): 305–314.

44.

Hammen

(2005) Stress and depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 1: 293–319.

45.

Hennekam

Ladge

(2017) When lesbians become mothers: Identity validation and the role of diversity climate. Journal of Vocational Behavior 103: 40–55.

46.

Hill

Flanagan

(2020) The maternal–infant bond: Clarifying the concept. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge 31(1): 14–18.

47.

Hjern

Vinnerljung

Brännström

(2019) Outcomes in adulthood of adoption after long-term foster care: A sibling study. Development Child Welfare 1(1): 61–75.

48.

Holman

(2018) Theoretical extensions of minority stress theory for sexual minority individuals in the workplace: A cross-contextual understanding of minority stress processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review 10(1): 165–180.

49.

Howe

Levy

Caplan

(2004) Job loss and depressive symptoms in couples: Common stressors, stress transmission, or relationship disruption? Journal of Family Psychology 18(4): 639–650.

50.

Johnson

(2008) Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of First-Time Mothers: 1961–2003. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

51.

Jones

Farina

Hastorf

, et al. (1984) Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

52.

Jones

(2017) To tell or not to tell? Examining the role of discrimination in the pregnancy disclosure process at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(2): 239–250.

53.

Jones

King

Gilrane

, et al. (2016) The baby bump: Managing a dynamic stigma over time. Journal of Management 42(6): 1530–1556.

54.

Kennell

Klaus

(1979) Early mother-infant contact: Effects on the mother and the infant. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 43(1): 69–78.

55.

Kenny

Ledermann

(2010) Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology 24(3): 359–366.

56.

Kinsey

Hupcey

(2013) State of the science of maternal–infant bonding: A principle-based concept analysis. Midwifery 29(12): 1314–1320.

57.

Kirby

Bollen

(2009) Using instrumental variable tests to evaluate model specification in latent variable structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 39(1): 327–355.

58.

Kline

(2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

59.

Kline

Karel

Chatterjee

(2006) Covering adoption: General depictions in broadcast news. Family Relations 55(4): 487–498.

60.

Koh

Hanlon

Daughtery

, et al. (2022) Adoption by the numbers. National Council For Adoption. Available at: https://adoptioncouncil.org/numbers (accessed 30 May 2022).

61.

Kroenke

Strine

Spitzer

, et al. (2009) The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. Journal of Affective Disorders 114(1–3): 163–173.

62.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

63.

Levy

Orlans

(2001) Attachment disorder and the adoptive family. In: Levy

(ed.) Handbook of Attachment Interventions. New York, NY: Academic Press, 243–259.

64.

Little

Hinojosa

Paustian-Underdahl

, et al. (2018) Managing the harmful effects of unsupportive organizations during pregnancy. Journal of Applied Psychology 103(6): 631–643.

65.

Little

Major

Hinojosa

, et al. (2015) Professional image maintenance: How women navigate pregnancy in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 58(1): 8–37.

66.

Little

Cunningham

Shahar

, et al. (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling 9(2): 151–173.

67.

Locke

(1969) What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4(4): 309–336.

68.

March

(1995) Perception of adoption as social stigma: Motivation for search and reunion. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(3): 653–660.

69.

Marshall

Tracy

(2009) After the baby: Work–family conflict and working mothers’ psychological health. Family Relations 58(4): 380–391.

70.

Meyer

(2003) Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin 129(5): 674–697.

71.

Meyer

(2007) Prejudice and discrimination as social stressors. In: Meyer

Northridge

(eds) The Health of Sexual Minorities: Public Health Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations. Boston, MA: Springer Science + Business Media, 242–267.

72.

Meyer

Frost

(2013) Minority stress and the health of sexual minorities. In: Patterson

D’Augelli

(eds) Handbook of Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 252–266.

73.

Miall

(1987) The stigma of adoptive parent status: Perceptions of community attitudes toward adoption and the experience of informal social sanctioning. Family Relations 36(1): 34–39.

74.

Miall

(1996) The social construction of adoption: Clinical and community perspectives. Family Relations 45(3): 309–317.

75.

Michel

Kotrba

Mitchelson

, et al. (2011) Antecedents of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32(5): 689–725.

76.

Minnotte

(2012) Perceived discrimination and work-to-life conflict among workers in the United States. The Sociological Quarterly 53(2): 188–210.

77.

Muthén

(1998-2021) Mplus User’s Guide, 8th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

78.

Pachankis

Hatzenbuehler

Wang

, et al. (2018) The burden of stigma on health and well-being: A taxonomy of concealment, course, disruptiveness, aesthetics, origin, and peril across 93 stigmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(4): 451–474.

79.

Palacios

Adroher

Brodzinsky

, et al. (2019a) Adoption in the service of child protection: An international interdisciplinary perspective. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 25(2): 57–72.

80.

Palacios

Rolock

Selwyn

, et al. (2019b) Adoption breakdown: Concept, research, and implications. Research on Social Work Practice 29(2): 130–142.

81.

Pascoe

Smart Richman

(2009) Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 135(4): 531–554.

82.

Paustian-Underdahl

Eaton

Mandeville

, et al. (2019) Pushed out or opting out? Integrating perspectives on gender differences in withdrawal attitudes during pregnancy. Journal of Applied Psychology 104(8): 985–1002.

83.

Phillips-Miller

Campbell

Morrison

(2000) Work and family: Satisfaction, stress, and spousal support. Journal of Employment Counseling 37(1): 16–30.

84.

Podsakoff

LePine

(2007) Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(2): 438.

85.

Quade

Bonner

Greenbaum

(2022) Management without morals: Construct development and initial testing of amoral management. Human Relations 75(2): 273–303.

86.

Quade

Hackney

Carlson

, et al. (2021) It takes a village: How organizational support for adoption positively affects employees and their families. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 94(3): 706–734.

87.

Rogers

Schmitt

(2004) Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39(3): 379–412.

88.

Rook

Dooley

Catalano

(1991) Stress transmission: The effects of husbands’ job stressors on the emotional health of their wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53(1): 165–177.

89.

Rothbaum

Rosen

Ujiie

, et al. (2002) Family systems theory, attachment theory, and culture. Family Process 41(3): 328–350.

90.

Schmitt

Branscombe

Postmes

, et al. (2014) The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 140(4): 921–948.

91.

Sehmi

Rushton

Pickles

, et al. (2020) Infant domestic adoption: Outcomes at mid-life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 61(7): 789–797.

92.

Shaver

(2005) Testing for mediating variables in management research: Concerns, implications, and alternative strategies. Journal of Management 31(3): 330–353.

93.

Singh

Selvarajan

Solansky

(2019) Coworker influence on employee performance: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology 34(8): 587–600.

94.

Smith

Hamon

Ingoldsby

, et al. (2012) Exploring Family Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

95.

Stewart

Ricci

Chee

, et al. (2003) Lost productive work time costs from health conditions in the United States: Results from the American Productivity Audit. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 45(12): 1234–1246.

96.

Toker

Biron

(2012) Job burnout and depression: Unraveling their temporal relationship and considering the role of physical activity. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(3): 699–710.

97.

Triana

MDC

Jayasinghe

Pieper

(2015) Perceived workplace racial discrimination and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36(4): 491–513.

98.

Triana

MDC

Jayasinghe

Pieper

, et al. (2019) Perceived workplace gender discrimination and employee consequences: A meta-analysis and complementary studies considering country context. Journal of Management 45(6): 2419–2447.

99.

Trivette

Dunst

Hamby

(2010) Influences of family-systems intervention practices on parent–child interactions and child development. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 30(1): 3–19.

100.

Trzebiatowski

del Carmen Triana

(2020) Family responsibility discrimination, power distance, and emotional exhaustion: When and why are there gender differences in work–life conflict? Journal of Business Ethics 162: 15–29.

101.

US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, et al. (2021) Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Report #28. Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/afcars-report-28 (accessed 30 May 2022).

102.

Van den Dries

Juffer

van IJzendoorn

, et al. 2009 Fostering security? A meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review 31(3): 410–421.

103.

Velez

Moradi

Brewster

(2013) Testing the tenets of minority stress theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology 60(4): 532–542.

104.

Voydanoff

(2005) Work demands and work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Family Issues 26(6): 707–726.

105.

Wegar

(2000) Adoption, family ideology, and social stigma: Bias in community attitudes, adoption research, and practice. Family Relations 49(4): 363–369.

106.

Weiner

Perry

Magnusson

(1988) An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(5): 738.

107.

Westman

(2001) Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations 54(6): 717–752.

108.

Westman

(2006) Crossover of stress and strain in the work–family context. In: Jones

Burke

Westman

(eds) Work–Life Balance: A Psychological Perspective. New York, NY: Psychology Press, 163–184.

109.

Westman

Etzion

(1995) Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16(2): 169–181.

110.

Westman

Vinokur

(1998) Unraveling the relationship of distress levels within couples: Common stressors, emphatic reactions or crossover via social interaction? Human Relations 51(2): 137–156.

111.

Westman

Keinan

Roziner

, et al. (2008) The crossover of perceived health between spouses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 13(2): 168–180.

112.

Westman

Vinokur

Hamilton

, et al. (2004) Crossover of marital dissatisfaction during military downsizing among Russian army officers and their spouses. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5): 769–779.

113.

Wheeler

Stuss

Tulving

(1997) Toward a theory of episodic memory: The frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness. Psychological Bulletin 121(3): 331–354.

114.

Williams

Cote

Buckley

(1989) Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology 74(3): 462–468.

115.

Willinger

Diendorfer-Radner

Willnauer

, et al. (2005) Parenting stress and parental bonding. Behavioral Medicine 31(2): 63–72.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.52 MB