TPC Journal V7, Issue 3 - FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 3 217 tunes, encouraging eye contact, strictly following routines, and offering hugs. These techniques helped instill in the children security and stability. Age, institutionalization, and love and responsive parenting were included in the quantitative investigation. Bivariate analyses were conducted between each of the variables and IF scores. A higher institutionalization score was significantly correlated with a lower IF score ( r = -.24; p < .05); namely, the more positive institutionalization experiences a child had, the fewer IF behaviors the child exhibited (Liu & Hazler, in press). No significant correlations were identified between age and IF ( r = -.10; p > .05) or responsive parenting and IF ( r = -.04; p > .05). A multiple regression analysis yielded a significant model, with institutionalization as the significant predictor of IF. The results showed that institutionalization explained 9% variance in IF scores ( R 2 = .09, F (1, 88) = 4.16, p < .05) (Liu & Hazler, in press). Responsive caregiving was nonsignificant in predicting IF. Research Question 3: Is IF related to children’s attachment? In answering this question, data were matched with the fifth proposition: there was no clear conclusion on whether children’s IF was related to their attachment to parents, which warrants a further examination of the IF–attachment relationship. Neither qualitative nor quantitative results provided evidence to support a relationship between children’s attachment and IF behaviors. Amy and Tina shared an interesting fact that the children seemed to attach well with them in spite of frequent IF behaviors directed to adults other than the primary caregivers. All four children were reported to form successful attachment with their adoptive parents; in the meantime, they displayed different levels of IF toward strangers. The two participants held the opinion that IF may not necessarily be categorized as an attachment disorder. This was echoed by previous analysis concerning institutionalization, in which parents speculated that IF behaviors might be more appropriately treated as an institutionalization versus attachment issue. Tina disclosed that Joshua’s IF behaviors were described by a clinical practitioner as “nowhere near the attachment disorder.” A bivariate analysis was conducted between attachment and IF scores using the quantitative data, which yielded a nonsignificant result ( r = .12, p > .05). Therefore, no significant correlation was detected between attachment and children’s IF behaviors. A direct interpretation of the quantitative result was that an adoptee’s attachment with adoptive parents was not correlated with the level of the child’s IF. Positive attachment and IF can coexist in a child, which was consistent with the case study findings. Discussion This mixed methods study revealed qualitative themes and quantitative evidence in addressing the three research questions. Consistent with previous findings, this study reinforced that IF appears to be a prevalent issue in Chinese adoptees. Children’s IF was demonstrated through quick bonding to new adoptive parents soon after adoption, initiating excessively friendly behaviors to strangers, and responding to strangers’ affectionate behaviors without hesitance. A child’s affectionate behaviors toward adoptive parents were deemed a sign of IF, as the child and adoptive parents did not have previous encounters with each other. Under attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), a child selectively shows affection to and seeks proximity from the mother or the primary caregiver, and the attachment relationship is based on frequent behavioral exchanges between the child and the mother or primary caregiver (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Naturally, children’s excessive friendliness to strangers, without the selection process under the attachment theory, is considered atypical behavior. IF behaviors were described as a manifestation of pathology and either classified as a subtype of attachment disorder under the DSM-IV (APA, 1994) or renamed as disinhibited social engagement