TPC Journal V7, Issue 3 - FULL ISSUE

214 The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 3 Results Results of this study included both qualitative and quantitative findings in response to the five propositions; both types of findings were triangulated, compared, and integrated into this section. Both datasets shed light on the three research questions. Each proposition was discussed and supported by qualitative data. Quantitative evidence was integrated into this section as a way to corroborate qualitative findings. Consistencies and discrepancies were identified between the two sets of data. Research Question 1: How do parents perceive IF in children adopted from China? Participants Amy and Tina reported IF as a prominent issue in all four of the children. The first three propositions were highlighted in the answer to Question 1. Quantitative results were consistent with qualitative findings, both of which are discussed in depth in the following paragraphs. Children immediately bonded with adoptive parents soon after adoption. Adoptive parents were not considered as a child’s primary caregivers back to the time of adoption because of the brief time they had spent with the child. Adoptive parents, under that circumstance, were categorized as newly met adults. Amy shared that Amelia bonded immediately with her, followed by a successful adjustment. Amy further described that, in the very first night after they adopted Amelia, “she was laughing with us, smiling, giggling, and hugging us.” Tina shared similar patterns from Rebecca, who immediately bonded with her and her husband and presented as happy despite the fresh separation from her orphanage caregivers. Children initiated IF behaviors to newly met adults. Initiating affectionate behaviors to newly met adults was a significant indicator of IF (Tizard & Hodges, 1978). Amy and Tina shared this pattern as a common concern, with the fear that children were likely to be taken away by strangers. Participants characterized children’s behavior or tendency to show friendliness to strangers as boundary issues . These boundary issues were manifested vividly in Joshua. Tina reflected that Joshua would wander off and approach anybody, even though he was aware of the family’s presence. Tina provided several concrete examples to explain Joshua’s IF behaviors, including his actively seeking proximity specifically to women whom he first met. Tina recalled that Joshua approached a newly met woman at an airport. He also walked up to another woman at the beach, sat down next to the woman, and demonstrated a high level of physical affection toward her (e.g., running his hands through the woman’s hair). Tina added that Joshua was never hesitant to ask for food from strangers and often managed to get snacks from people from his stroller when they were in China. Children responded to affectionate behaviors by newly met adults. Children’s friendly behaviors also were manifested through their reactions to strangers’ affectionate behaviors. Both participants indicated that although parents were sensitive to children’s initiation of friendly behaviors, children’s reactions to strangers were not given equal attention. It could be a risk factor depending on who the stranger is and the underlying drive that the stranger had in approaching a child. Participants noted that children would accept food from unknown adults. Tina responded that it was common to witness Joshua walking to strangers and returning with food or snacks. Affectionate reactions to strangers happened frequently among the four children at different places. Tina recalled that at a local grocery store, a cashier picked up Joshua and showed him her computer screen, and Joshua responded with excitement and joy, without any sense of reservation. The participants indicated that even though children’s friendly reactions to strangers may not necessarily mean that they were indiscriminately friendly to all adult figures, the unreserved friendliness revealed a sign of social limitation.