Category: Uncategorized

Transracial Adoption: what do the proponents and opponents say?

On By drchristinavillarrealIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

With more and more celebrities adopting children from different racial and/or cultural backgrounds than themselves, some of you may be wondering what experts say on inter-racial, or ‘transracial’ adoption, and what laws pertain to this issue. This article serves to briefly summarize key points on this issue.

“What is transracial adoption? Transracial adoption is the placement of infants and children of one race with parents of another race. Black children are more likely to be in foster care than white children, stay in foster care longer, and thus, are more likely to undergo multiple placements. Due to the developmental risks associated with long-term residence in foster care, a few strategies have been attempted to reduce the number of children in the welfare system (Taylor&Thornton, 1996). Transracial adoption is one of the most controversial methods currently being utilized to improve the welfare of black children” (from Issues in Transracial Adoption, Maureen McManus.)

Proponents of transracial adoption argue that transracial adoption is a preferable alternative to foster care. In the United States the majority of families wishing to adopt a child are white, and about half of the adoptable children in foster care are black (The New Republic, 1994). A simple solution would be to place the black children into the homes of white people, but the controversy over race-mixing has kept thousands of black children in foster care, though many white families are willing to adopt them. The National Association of Black Social Workers has discouraged the transracial adoption process by calling it “cultural genocide” (The New Republic, 1994). Other black groups, such as The National Association for Advancement of Colored People protested the statement and adopted a resolution to support it. The case in favor of transracial adoption comes primarily from empirical studies. Studies have repeatedly found that transracial adoption is a good situation for the children and families (Simon&Altstein, 1996). One study found that children made as successful an adjustment in their adoptive homes as other non-white chidren had in prior studies. According to this study’s results, seventy-seven percent of the children had adjusted successfully. Other studies have also shown that the foster care system produces adults who are developmentally disabled, socially isolated, highly unemployed, and are over-represented in the homeless population (Taylor&Thornton, 1996).

A controversial area of transracial adoption concerns issues of identity development. Proponents of transracial adoption believe that black children will not lose their identity if they’re adopted by white parents. Group identity is defined as “a bond with a racial group whose members are perceived by themselves and others to have a common origin and culture, and shared activities in which the common origin or culture is an essential ingredient”(Taylor&Thornton, 1996). The job of parents in socializing black children involves two areas. The first is standard socialization experiences and practices. The second is providing black children with skills to counter the impact of racial prejudice and discrimination and develop a healthy sense of self as a person of color (Taylor&Thornton, 1996).

Proponents of transracial adoption argue that adoption provides a permanent loving home for children who would otherwise languish in the out-of-home care system, and that the race of the potential adoptive parent should be irrelevant (Courtney, 1997). They believe that what’s in the best interest of a black child stuck in the child welfare system is to become part of a nurturing loving family, who will provide stability to the child’s life, regardless of whether the adopting family is black or white or of other cultural/racial background. Supporters of transracial adoption feel that families wanting to adopt should not be judged on their skin color, but instead on their ability to provide a good home and to be good parents. Otherwise, black children in foster care will not find homes, and suffer the consequences associated with long term foster care.

Opponents of transracial adoption are concerned that black children will lose their racial identity if they’re adopted by white parents. They also claim that black children will lose their cultural, physical, and psychological identity if adopted by parents of another race. The National Association of Black Social Workers is one group opposed to the placement of black children into white homes. This group is opposed to transracial adoption for these reasons: 1) to preserve African-American families and culture; 2) to enable black children to appreciate their origin by living with a family of the same race; 3) to enable black children to learn to cope with racism and learn how to function around it; and 4) to help make it easier for African-American families to adopt. Many black groups believe that if black children, who have not yet established a sense of racial identity, are adopted into white families, they will have diffuculty coping with prejudice and discrimination. Those without a strong sense of racial identity may internalize racist behavior directed toward them, resulting in a variety of negative outcomes, such as psychological distress (The New Republic, 1994). Also, individuals with poorly developed racial identity may become isolated. They may reject their black peers, while at the same time may never feel socially accepted by their white peers.

In 1972 The National Association of Black Social Workers’ president stated “We are opposed to transracial adoption as a solution to permanent placement for black children. We have an ethic, moral, and professional obligation to oppose transracial adoption. We are therefore legally justified in our efforts to protect the rights of black children, black families, and the black community. It is a blatant form of racial and cultural genocide” (Simon&Altstein, 1996). Then, in 1994, The National Association of Black Social Workers restated their position saying that “Transracial adoption should only be considered after documented evidence of unsuccessful same-race placements have been reviewed and supported by appropriate representatives of the African-American community (Simon&Altstein, 1996). Opponents of transracial adoption believe that public agencies do not try hard enough to find qualified black families interested in adoption, and the criteria required by these agencies discriminates against black families who cannot meet their standards.

The laws regarding transracial adoption are governed by the same laws as regular adoptions. “Each state has a set of statutes regulating the placement and adoption of children” (Simon&Altstein, 1996). These statutes state that the goal of the adoption law is to serve in the best interests of the child. Most of these statutory statements do not mention race in connection with the adoption process. However, nineteen jurisdictions do refer solely to race in their adoption laws. “Ten of these jurisdictions provide that the race of one or more of the parties directly affected by the adoption is to be included in the petition for adoption or listed as a finding in a court ordered or statute mandated investigation” (Simon&Altstein, 1996). The statutes are silent as to how agencies should use this information in final decisions of adoption. It inadvertently follows that this part of a process that takes race into consideration.

Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all prohibit the use of race to deny an adoption or placement. Three states, Arkansas, California, and Minnesota, have laws that specifically require preference for adoption within the same racial group. “The first preference is for a blood relative, the second for a family of the same race as the child, and the last for placement with a family knowledgeable and appreciative of the child’s racial or ethnic heritage” (Simon&Altstein, 1996). Analysis of past court rulings indicate that the courts are wiling to allow race in the consideration of adoption placements. However, there is no single approach to the legal analysis of the consideration of race in adoption. It is certain that the use of race as the only reason to make or break an adoption placement is condemned under any approach.
How You Can Help Your Child To Become a Stable, Happy, Healthy Individual With a Strong Sense of Racial or Cultural Identity is an article that discusses seven parenting techniques compiled from books and articles on adoption and by interviewing experts in transracial and transcultural adoption. Some of these “techniques” are common sense and apply to all adopted children, but others are specific to transracially or transculturally adopted children.

Resources:

1 “African-American Leadership Group Condemns Racist Adoption Practices.” Project 21

2 “All in the Family.” The New Republic, January 24, 1994, pp6-7.

3 Christ, Fran. “When Whites Adopt Blacks.” PLAN Preadoption Course, May 1990, pp.1-3.

4 Courtney, Mark, “The Politics and Realities of Transracial Adoption.” Child Welfare, Nov/Dec 1997, vLXXVI n6, pp.749-773.

5 Simon, Rita and Altstein, Howard, “The Case for Transracial Adoption.” Children and Youth Services Review, 1996, v18 n1/2, pp.5-12.

6 Taylor, Robert and Thornton, Michael, “Child Welfare and Transracial Adoption.” Journal of Black Psychology, May 1996, v22 n2, pp.282-291.

Coming out as gay: 6 stages for understanding the emotional process

On By drchristinavillarrealIn Gender Issues, psychology, sexual development, sexual health, Uncategorized4 Comments

After years of fighting off rumors about his sexuality, Latin singer Ricky Martin has finally just posted the following message on his official Web site, coming out and telling the world he is gay.

“Today is my day, this is my time, and this is my moment. These years in silence and reflection made me stronger and reminded me that acceptance has to come from within and that this kind of truth gives me the power to conquer emotions I didn’t even know existed … I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am,” he wrote.

Coming out as gay, lesbian bisexual or transgendered is a process that for many, is experienced in stages of change. While there are different models and theories about coming out, the six-step process (The Model of Homosexuality Identity Formation) was created by psychological theorist Vivienne Cass in 1979 and is still an accepted model for understanding the experience. While many will not experience these steps in a linear course, the following steps capture essential components of the coming out process. These steps are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and can be experienced simultaneously. For example other theorists have said that it is not uncommon for people go back and forth in their sexual identity development.

Step One: Identity Confusion
“Who am I?” is the major question in this step. People in this stage of the coming out process start to notice their attraction to same-sex people and really question what it means. Am I gay? Am I a lesbian? Am I transgender? Am I bisexual? Within this stage there may be a denial of inner feelings as a person continues to see themselves as a member of the mainstream, heterosexual population. Some may consider their behavior as ‘just experimenting’. Some people in this stage might keep emotional involvement separate from their sexual activity; others may choose to have deeply emotional relationships that are non-sexual.

Step Two: Identity Comparison
At this stage, a person may try to find an explanation for why they are having the feelings they are experiencing. “Maybe I am gay. Or maybe I’m bisexual.” Feelings of isolation & alienation are common in this stage. A person might wonder “Is this a phase?” “Am I only attracted to this one same sex person, or is this going to be a permanent trend?”

Step Three: Identity Tolerance
In this stage, a person might begin to accept identifying as gay, lesbian or transgender or bisexual. Some might come to terms with some parts of being a gay, but not fully embrace it. One might accept participating in sexual activity with woman and consider it okay, but may not be ready to identity as lesbian or bisexual for example, in public- thus, leading a ‘double life.’ Or a man may come to accept that he has fallen in love with another man, but considers this an isolated situation. At this stage, it is common for people to seek out a gay/lesbian/bi-sexual community or social group as a way to explore or experience identifying with other people of the same sexual orientation as a means for support.

Step Four: Identity Acceptance
In this stage a person has begun to accept, rather than just tolerate their sexual identity. People often begin forming friendships with other gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual people. Many begin to realize that being lesbian or bisexual is acceptable, and that their life can and will be happy and fulfilling. At this stage, it is common to begin coming out to a few trusted individuals.

Step Five: Identity Pride
People who are in this stage feel a sense of pride of their sexual orientation, and feel comfortable interacting in gay communities. They start coming out to others in their lives, by making their sexual orientation publicly known. It’s also common for people to feel angry and resentful because of the lack of legal and social rights that gay and lesbian people are not afforded by the majority culture. Some people may get involved in gay and lesbian activism. Others may feel the need to isolate.

Step Six: Identity Synthesis
In this stage, a person’s sexual orientation is integrated into their whole identity. For many, this includes a holistic view of the self and people often feel equally comfortable in straight and gay, lesbian, transgender or bi-sexual environments.

15 common cognitive distortions- how our thoughts influence our mental health

On By drchristinavillarrealIn anxiety, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, depression, Perfectionism, psychology, Uncategorized2 Comments

What’s a ‘cognitive distortion’ and why do so many people have them? Cognitive distortions are ways that our thought patterns can convince us that something is true or false. These are typically thoughts that occur automatically, and are usually used to reinforce negative thinking or emotions.  Our automatic thoughts can feel rational and accurate, and most of all, they can feel factual. But with examination, we can often find evidence that our thoughts are NOT factual, but based on a set of negative thought patterns that have developed based on our feelings, rather than factual evidence.

Cognitive distortions are at the core of what many cognitive-behavioral therapists and other kinds of health professionals try and help a person learn to change their thinking style. By learning to correctly identify distorted thoughts, a person can then respond to the distorted thoughts by balancing them with thoughts that are more balanced, and based on fact/reality rather than negative feelings. By refuting negative thoughts over and over again, they will slowly diminish overtime and be automatically replaced by more rational, balanced thinking.

Aaron Beck first proposed the theory behind cognitive distortions and David Burns was responsible for popularizing it with common names and examples for the distortions.

1. Filtering.

We take the negative details and magnify them while filtering out all positive aspects of a situation. For instance, a person may pick out a single, unpleasant detail and dwell on it exclusively so that their vision of reality becomes darkened or distorted.

 

2. Polarized Thinking.

Things are either “black-or-white.” We have to be perfect or we’re a failure–there is no middle ground. You place people or situations in “either/or” categories, with no shades of gray or allowing for the complexity of most people and situations. If your performance falls short of perfect, you see yourself as a total failure.

3. Overgeneralization.

We come to a general conclusion based on a single incident or piece of evidence. If something bad happens once, we expect it to happen over and over again. A person may see a single, unpleasant event as a never-ending pattern of defeat.

4. Jumping to Conclusions.

Without individuals saying so, we know what they are feeling and why they act the way they do. In particular, we are able to determine how people are feeling toward us. For example, a person may conclude that someone is reacting negatively toward them and don’t actually bother to find out if they are correct. Another example is a person may anticipate that things will turn out badly, and will feel convinced that their prediction is already an established fact.

5. Catastrophizing.

We expect disaster to strike, no matter what. This is also referred to as “magnifying or minimizing.” We hear about a problem and use what if questions (e.g., “What if tragedy strikes?” “What if it happens to me?”).

For example, a person might exaggerate the importance of insignificant events (such as their mistake, or someone else’s achievement). Or they may inappropriately shrink the magnitude of significant events until they appear tiny (for example, a person’s own desirable qualities or someone else’s imperfections).

6. Personalization.

Thinking that everything people do or say is some kind of reaction to us. We also compare ourselves to others trying to determine who is smarter, better looking, etc. A person sees themselves as the cause of some negative external event that they were in fact, not resposible for. For example, “We were late to the dinner party and caused the hostess to overcook the meal. If I had only pushed my husband to leave on time, this wouldn’t have happened.”

 

7. Control Fallacies.

If we feel externally controlled, we see ourselves as helpless a victim of fate. For example, “I can’t help it if the quality of the work is poor, my boss demanded I work overtime on it.” The fallacy of internal control has us assuming responsibility for the pain and happiness of everyone around us. For example, “Why aren’t you happy? Is it because of something I did?”

8. Fallacy of Fairness.

We feel resentful because we think we know what is fair, but other people won’t agree with us. We are convinced that “Life is always fair.”  People who go through life applying a measuring ruler against every situation judging its “fairness” will often feel badly and negative because of it.

9. Blaming.

We hold other people responsible for our pain, or take the other track and blame ourselves for every problem. For example, “Stop making me feel bad about myself!” Nobody can “make” us feel any particular way — only we have control over our own emotions and emotional reactions.

10. Shoulds.

We have a list of ironclad rules about how others and we should behave. People who break the rules make us angry, and we feel guilty when we violate these rules. A person may often believe they are trying to motivate themselves with shoulds and shouldn’ts, as if they have to be punished before they can do anything.

For example, “I really should exercise. I shouldn’t be so lazy.” Musts and oughts are also offenders. The emotional consequence is guilt, which does not propel us to change, but only serves to make us feel badly.

11. Emotional Reasoning.

We believe that what we feel must be true automatically. If we feel stupid and boring, then we must be stupid and boring. You assume that your unhealthy emotions reflect the way things really are — “I feel it, therefore it must be true.”

12. Fallacy of Change.

We expect that other people will change to suit us if we just pressure or cajole them enough. We need to change people because our hopes for happiness seem to depend entirely on them.

 

13. Global Labeling.

We generalize one or two qualities into a negative global judgment. These are extreme forms of generalizing, and are also referred to as “labeling” and “mislabeling.” Instead of describing an error in context of a specific situation, a person will attach an unhealthy label to themselves.

For example, they may say, “I’m a loser” in a situation where they failed at a specific task. When someone else’s behavior rubs a person the wrong way, they may attach an unhealthy label to him, such as “He’s a real jerk.” Mislabeling involves describing an event with language that is highly colored and emotionally loaded. For example, instead of saying someone drops her children off at daycare every day, a person who is mislabeling might say that “she abandons her children to strangers.”

14. Always Being Right.

We are continually on trial to prove that our opinions and actions are correct. Being wrong is unthinkable and we will go to any length to demonstrate our rightness. For example, “I don’t care how badly arguing with me makes you feel, I’m going to win this argument no matter what because I’m right.” Being right often is more important than the feelings of others around a person who engages in this cognitive distortion, even loved ones.

15. Heaven’s Reward Fallacy.

We expect our sacrifice and self-denial to pay off, as if someone is keeping score. We feel bitter when the reward doesn’t come.

References:

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapies and emotional disorders. New York: New American Library.

 

Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. New York: New American Library.

The psychological impact of being in the spotlight: the emotional struggle of celebrities

On By drchristinavillarrealIn celebrity mental health, Uncategorized1 Comment

Most of us imagine feeling happy and content should we ever achieve the wealth, fame and notoriety associated with being a celebrity.  However, the experience of being a person who is highly visible in the media can take a tremendous toll on one’s psychological functioning.  Even the most grounded actors, musicians, professional athletes, and high-ranking officials are vulnerable to the deleterious effects of being in the media spotlight. In his research, Jib Fowles, author of Star Struck: Celebrity Performers and the American Public (Smithsonian Institute Press), found that the average age of death for celebrities overall, was 58, compared to an average of 72 years for other Americans. His findings also revealed that celebrities are almost four times more likely to kill themselves than the average American. This article serves to explore the negative psychological impact of being in the media spotlight, which leads many celebrities to struggle emotionally.

As you read the following points, consider which celebrities have exhibited these traits to their own detriment.

No privacy. Everything celebrities do is publicized for the world to see, discuss, and mock. We love reading about the gaffes and gossip of the rich and famous, the more embarrassing, the better.  A celebrity’s natural response to this level of intense scrutiny is increased self-consciousness and paranoia.  Many celebrities, particularly those in the political arena, grow weary of the unrealistic standards they are held to, and begin to feel resentful of the limitations of being in the public spotlight.  They may “act out” in response to feeling suffocated by their carefully constructed public image.  Self-destructive, acting out behaviors often include unsavory sexual appetites, scandalous liaisons, volatile outbursts, or other destructive patterns such as uncontrolled substance use.  Exposure of their behaviors by the media can lead to overwhelming feelings of shame when their public image is destroyed.

Lost sense of self. Many celebrities feel unable to assert their individuality in a media world fraught with stereotypes.  As the media and fans develop a false perception of a celebrity (which is often one-dimensional) a celebrity begins to lose track of the multi-faceted aspects of their own personality.  This causes them to make choices that no longer reflect their true self, which further compromises their sense of identity.  Over time, they feel increasingly isolated and alone and have difficulty trusting others.

Loss of challenges. The experience of reaching the pinnacle of your goals and realizing it’s not as fulfilling as you think can be disconcerting. You’ve landed your dream job and begin settling in after your first big break…at first it’s exhilarating, but then you eventually wonder, “Is this all there is?” When a celebrity begins to feel they have nothing left to strive for – i.e. they’ve “made it”, suddenly they are left struggling to fill that empty emotional space with something even more thrilling or risqué.  Often celebrities turn to taking increasingly bigger and more dangerous risks, as a way to regain a sense of challenge.

Imposter syndrome. Some celebrities are bewildered by their fame, knowing that they are far from perfect.  The feeling of being an imposter occurs when people don’t feel they deserve their success. Celebrities may also fear being discovered, i.e. that the public will find out that they’re not as talented, intelligent, or attractive as they are portrayed in the media. They become keenly aware that their fans have idealized them in a way that is impossible to match in real life.  Consequently, celebrities can begin to feel their gifts are no longer enough, leaving them with a sense of inadequacy.

Quest for media spotlight immortality. Many celebrities fear their fame is fleeting, which leads them to constantly obsess about losing the attention of their fans and the media.  After a celebrity’s fame peaks, it is often a brutal ride downward as they garner less attention from others.  The loss of the spotlight can leave people feeling bereft of purpose and importance.  As a result celebrities often become desperate to regain notoriety and in doing so, become prone to buffoonery.  In the wake of this loss, they often turn to self-destructive behaviors as a means to cope with overwhelming feelings of failure.