TPC Journal V7, Issue 3 - FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 3 215 In addition to the friendly behavioral patterns, Amy and Tina offered further explanations on the four children’s IF behaviors. The two participants offered three rationales in explaining these behaviors: (a) children’s personalities; (b) their developmental stages; and (c) their desire to have basic needs met. Being an extrovert was linked to children’s friendly behaviors, as Tina expressed that Joshua may be the most extroverted person that she could think of, just based on the fact that he always enjoyed being with people. Both participants defined some of the children’s friendly behaviors as developmentally appropriate. Particularly, expressing a high level of friendliness was not atypical for younger children. In other words, it was reasonable that children under 5 years old consistently exhibited more friendly behaviors than those who were 8 years old or above. Both participants noted that the children mostly regarded themselves as the center of the universe and assumed that others would always be interested to hear everything they had to say. Amy indicated that friendliness may simply serve as a tool for children to have their basic needs met. The friendly tendency was obvious in Beatrice, as whenever she was hungry, she would request food from strangers. Participants did not view this tendency as pathological in speaking of children’s desire to meet their internal drive. Responses from participants for the quantitative stage echoed the qualitative findings. IF indicators were reinforced by participants’ responses to the 5-item measure. Eighty-five percent of the participants ( n = 78) selected 1 for item 1, indicating that their children were friendly (i.e., sometimes or always very friendly) with new adults. Fifty-seven percent of the participants ( n = 52) reported the lack of shyness or misbehaving in the presence of strangers. Twenty-five percent of the participants ( n = 23) identified 0, meaning “the child has always been shy or behaved in a strange manner,” and approximately 18% ( n = 17) indicated that children exhibited a reasonable level of shyness since their arrival in the United States but could not speak to children’s former friendly behaviors back in China. For item 3, examining children’s behaviors when meeting with new adults, 27% of the participants ( n = 25) selected 1, specifying that children always approached new adults, showing toys, speaking or asking questions. About 60% of parents ( n = 54) indicated that children would screen new adults (i.e., observing and evaluating) prior to taking actions. The remainder ( n = 13; 13%) indicated fears or indifference toward new adults. For item 4, approximately 41% of the participants ( n = 38) chose 1, identifying that their children have exhibited some tendency of going home with a newly met adult. With regard to item 5, 23% of the participants ( n = 21) reported that their children displayed a tendency to wander, without being subsequently distressed after realizing they were away from their parents. Research Question 2: What are some potential factors that are associated with IF? The fourth proposition guiding the qualitative case study was that age, institutionalization, and adoptive parents’ love and responsive parenting were potentially associated with children’s IF behaviors. Amy and Tina asserted that children’s behavioral adjustments were related to children’s ages at the time of arrival in the United States; specifically, younger children demonstrated better behavioral adjustments compared to children adopted at an older age. Comparing the behaviors of Amelia and Beatrice, Amy mentioned that Beatrice, who was adopted at the age of 3, experienced a more challenging time bonding and adjusting in comparison to Amelia, who was adopted at a younger age. Both participants maintained that children adopted at a younger age generally transitioned smoothly and quickly, because children adopted as infants were not old enough to remember their previous experiences, despite the fact that adoption involves separation and loss and itself could be considered as trauma. The participants connected children’s institutionalization experiences with their later IF behaviors. Children’s IF behaviors were speculated to be a consequence of earlier institutionalization that children