Families Created by Donor Insemination

POLLY CASEY, VASANTI JADVA, LUCY BLAKE, AND SUSAN GOLOMBOK University of Cambridge

Families Created by Donor Insemination:

Father – Child Relationships at Age 7

This study examined the psychological well-being of fathers and father – child relationshipsin families with a 7-year-old child conceivedby donor insemination. Twenty-four donorinsemination families and comparison groups of25 egg donation and 32 unassisted-conceptionfamilies were assessed using a standardizedinterview and questionnaires administered tothe father, and father – child dyads participatedin an observational assessment of father – childinteraction. On the basis of perspectivesfrom Parental Investment Theory and stress-related models, it was expected that donorinsemination fathers would show raised levelsof psychological problems and a poorerquality of parenting and have more conflictualrelationships with their children than geneticallyrelated fathers in egg donation and unassisted-conception families. These hypotheses were notsupported by the findings. Instead, it seemsthat commitment to parenthood may be moreimportant than genetic relatedness for positivefather – child relationships.

Fathers are generally viewed as integral topositive family functioning, with childrenof highly involved fathers found to performbetter at school and to have higher levels ofpsychological adjustment, social competence,

Centre for Family Research, Free School Lane, Universityof Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3RQ, UK([email protected]).

Key Words: family interaction, father – child relations,fatherhood, fertility/family planning/infertility, parentingstyles.

and empathy than children whose fathers areless involved (Fagan & Iglesias, 1999; Flouri& Buchanan, 2002; Lamb, 2010; Parke, 2002).Research on the mechanisms through whichfathering influences child development hasshown that fathers influence their children inways similar to mothers, with sensitive yetauthoritative parenting found to be positivelyassociated with children’s socioemotional andcognitive development (Bronte-Tinkew, Moore,& Carrano, 2006; Lamb, 2012; Lamb & Lewis,2010; Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Fathersin families created by donor insemination differfrom fathers in unassisted-conception families inthat they lack a genetic link with their children,raising concerns that this may interfere with thedevelopment of a positive relationship betweenthem. It has been suggested that, in comparisonto biological fathers in unassisted-conceptionfamilies, donor insemination fathers may bemore distant from and less warm toward theirchildren (Baran & Pannor, 1993; Burns, 1987;Warnock, 1984) and may lack a sense ofentitlement in their role as fathers (Cordray,1999; Turner & Cole, 2000) in a way similar tostepfathers, who tend to disengage themselvesfrom disciplinarian roles (Amato & Sobolewski,2004; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 2002).With almost 500 children currently being borneach year in the United Kingdom through donorinsemination (Human Fertilization and Embry-ology Authority, 2010), and an estimated 30,000to 60,000 children born each year through donorinsemination in the United States (Evan, 2009),it is important that these concerns are addressed.

Evolutionary psychologists have framed theseconcerns in terms of Parental Investment Theory

858 Journal of Marriage and Family 75 (August 2013): 858 – 870DOI:10.1111/jomf.12043

Families Created by Donor Insemination 859

(Fox & Bruce, 2001), which explains differentialparental investment in offspring in terms ofreproductive survival such that parents will bemore inclined to allocate important resources(e.g., time, caregiving, financial aid) to offspringwith whom they share a genetic connection(Daly & Wilson, 1996, 1998; Hamilton, Cheng,& Powell, 2007). This view is based in part onthe finding that stepfathers offer less direct care,engagement, financial aid, and playtime to theirstepchildren than do biological fathers (Ander-son, Kaplan, Lam, & Lancaster, 1999; Hofferth,2003; Zvoch, 1999). Thus, from an evolutionarypsychology perspective, donor inseminationfathers may similarly be expected to show lesspositive relationships with their children incomparison to genetically related fathers.

It has also been suggested that the stressassociated with the experience of infertilityand its treatment may have an adverse impacton parents’ psychological well-being and mayinterfere with adjustment to parenthood whena long-awaited child eventually arrives (Burns,1990; Daniels, 2005). It is generally assumedthat women experience the effects of infertilitymuch more acutely than men. Although this maybe the case, there is evidence that men experienceinfertility and its treatment as significantlystressful nonetheless (Mason, 1993; Wichman,Ehlers, Wichman, Weaver, & Coddington,2011). As van den Akker (2001) pointed out,infertility does not occur in a vacuum but insteadexists in a society wherein great value is placedon having children. It has been argued thatblood ties and the traditional nuclear familyare so deeply embedded within cultural notionsof parenthood that deviations from this normcan trigger specific stressors for such families,including ambiguity for those in the parentalrole (Hamilton et al., 2007). In the case of donorinsemination, this ambiguity may be heightenedbecause of the increasing trend toward opennessabout the child’s genetic origins and the removalof donor anonymity in some countries, includingthe United Kingdom. Thus, donor inseminationfathers may struggle to define and fully acceptthemselves as parents.

Indeed, in a study by Webb and Daniluk(1999), infertile men described feelings of pow-erlessness over their inability to become parentsand, importantly, believed that fatherhood wasa right and a tradition. It has been suggestedthat there may be a considerable subgroup offathers for whom adjustment to parenthood after

infertility presents a challenge (Fisher, Hammar-berg, & Baker, 2005). For example, there havebeen reports of higher levels of anxiety and lowerlevels of self-esteem in relation to parenting inassisted-reproduction fathers, in comparison tounassisted-conception fathers (Cohen, McMa-hon, Tennant, Saunders, & Leslie, 2001; Hjelm-stedt, Widstrom, Wramsby, & Collins, 2003).Given the association between paternal psycho-logical difficulties and less positive fathering(Wanless, Rosenkoetter, & McClelland, 2008),it may be expected that fatherhood after donorinsemination will be associated not only withraised levels of psychological problems but alsowith a less positive relationship between thefather and his child.

Existing research on fathers in donor insemi-nation families suggests some differences in theway that fathers interact with their children.Although in general the quality of parent-ing by donor insemination fathers of youngchildren has been found to be as good asor superior to that of fathers in unassisted-conception families (Brewaeys, Ponjaert, vanHall, & Golombok, 1997; Flykt et al., 2009;Golombok et al., 1996; Golombok, Cook, Bish,& Murray, 1995; Holditch-Davis, Sandelowski,& Harris, 1999), the findings are not entirelystraightforward. Nachtigall, Pitcher, Tchann,Becker, and Szkupinski Quiroga (1997) foundthat fathers in donor insemination families whowere concerned about the stigma associated withthe use of this procedure reported less warmthtoward their 5-year-old child than fathers whowere less concerned about stigma. Furthermore,Golombok, MacCallum, Goodman, and Rutter(2002) found that donor insemination fatherswere found to be less involved in the controland discipline of their 12-year-old children thanfathers from unassisted-conception families.

An additional concern for families con-ceived using donated gametes is that of secrecy.Although there appears to be a growing trendtoward disclosure in some gamete donationfamilies (Blyth, Langridge, & Harris; 2010;Golombok, Jadva, Lycett, Murray, & MacCal-lum, 2005; Lycett, Daniels, Curson, & Golom-bok, 2005), there is a considerable subgroupfor whom disclosure rates remain low (Read-ings, Blake, Casey, Jadva, & Golombok, 2011).Secrecy is thought to be detrimental to fam-ily relationships (Finkenauer, Engels, Branje,& Meeus, 2004; Karpel, 1980; Landau, 1998;Schooler & Norris, 2002), with children picking

860 Journal of Marriage and Family

up on latent clues that information is beingwithheld from them, for example, throughparents’ tone of voice, facial expressions, oravoidance of certain subjects (De Paulo, 1992;Ehrensaft, 2008; Paul & Berger, 2007). Publi-cations from this study based on the mothersand children at age 7 have reported findingsof lower mother – child mutuality (warm, well-synchronized, and cooperative interaction) andmaternal positivity in donor insemination andegg donation families in which the child wasunaware of his or her donor conception in com-parison to naturally conceived families (Golom-bok et al., 2011; Golombok, Blake, Casey,Roman, & Jadva, 2013).

Finally, from the perspective of children indonor insemination families, recent researchindicates that the lack of a genetic link with theirfather does not have serious deleterious effects inand of itself (Bos & van Balen, 2010; Brewaeys,2001; Golombok et al., 2004, 2005, 2006; Owen& Golombok, 2009) but that there may bean increased risk of psychosocial problems forchildren (Brewaeys, Golombok, Naaktgeboren,de Bruyn, & van Hall, 1997; Cook, Vatev,Michova, & Golombok, 1997; Manuel, Facy,Choquet, Grandjean, & Czyba, 1990). In otherwords, the concerns about increased levels ofpsychological difficulties in donor inseminationfathers and about secrecy, rather than beingdonor conceived per se, may place children atrisk for psychological difficulties.

The present study aimed to address the extentto which donor insemination as a means ofcreating a family affects parenting and thequality of father – child relationships. The focuswas on the influence (if any) of nonbiologicalfatherhood and the experience of assistedconception on the fathers’ psychological well-being, quality of fathering, and father – childinteraction. Because of small sample sizes itwas not possible to assess the impact of secrecyversus disclosure directly, although the influenceof this factor is considered in the interpretationand discussion of the results.

An advantage of this study is the useof an objective observational measure, whichprovided an opportunity to examine the qual-ity of interaction between donor inseminationfathers and their children for the first time.Observational measures allow a detailed assess-ment of the quality of dynamic interactionsbetween parents and children that cannot becaptured by interview or questionnaire (Aspland

& Gardner, 2003; Bakeman & Gottman, 1997;Hartman & Laird, 1990). Two further advan-tages are the inclusion of a comparison group ofegg donation families in which the child is genet-ically related to the father but lacks a genetic linkwith the mother, thus controlling for the use offertility treatment and third party involvement inthe child’s conception, and a comparison groupof unassisted-conception families in which bothparents were genetically related to their children.

We examined the psychological well-beingof fathers and the quality of father – child rela-tionships in families with a donor inseminationchild aged 7 years. Earlier phases of the presentstudy found that use of donor insemination didnot appear to jeopardize fathers’ psychologicalwell-being or quality of parenting when the chil-dren were aged 1 (Golombok et al., 2004), 2(Golombok et al., 2005), or 3 (Golombok et al.,2006). Paternal influences on the developmentof children become more significant as chil-dren grow older (Allen, Hauser, O’Connor, &Bell, 2002; Grossman et al., 2002), however,with findings from studies of children in middlechildhood showing strong associations betweenfather – child relationships and child adjustment,whereas equivalent associations are not as fre-quently reported for mothers (Lamb & Lewis,2010). Potential differences between the bio-logical fathers in unassisted-conception and eggdonation families and nonbiological fathers indonor insemination families may become appar-ent now that the children are age 7. In addition,it is possible that the detrimental effects ofsecrecy seen in mother – child interaction in thisstudy (Golombok et al., 2011, 2013) will also bereflected in father – child interaction.

On the basis of predictions arising fromparental investment and stress-related perspec-tives, together with the emerging findings relat-ing to donor insemination families, the followingthree outcomes were hypothesized: (a) donorinsemination fathers would show higher lev-els of psychological problems than unassisted-conception and egg donation fathers; (b) donorinsemination fathers would display lower lev-els of warmth and involvement with their7-year-old children, particularly in terms of dis-cipline, in comparison to unassisted-conceptionand egg donation fathers; and (c) there wouldbe more conflictual behavior between fathersand children during the observational task incomparison to unassisted-conception and eggdonation fathers and children.


METHOD

Participants

In the first phase of the study, families with a 9-to 12-month-old child conceived through donorinsemination and egg donation were recruitedthrough nine fertility clinics throughout theUnited Kingdom. Parents with an unassisted-conception child (who are both geneticallyrelated to the child) were recruited throughmaternity wards according to the followingcriteria that maximized comparability with theassisted reproduction families: the child wasbetween 9 and 12 months old, the child resultedfrom a singleton birth with a minimum of30 weeks gestation and had no congenitalabnormalities, the mother was at least 30 yearsof age, the child was the mother’s first or secondchild, the mother was married to or cohabitingwith the child’s father, and the pregnancy hadbeen planned. For a detailed description of theinitial recruitment procedure, see Golomboket al. (2004). At the first stage of the study,when the children were age 1, 40 fathers witha child conceived by donor insemination, 37fathers with a child conceived by egg donation,and 52 fathers with an unassisted-conceptionchild participated in the investigation. At age2, the participation rates were 85%, 76%, and71%, respectively. At age 3, fathers were not

interviewed, but they completed questionnaires.The current phase of the study included 24 donorinsemination fathers, 25 egg donation fathers,and 32 fathers from unassisted-conceptionfamilies when the children were 7 years old,representing 60%, 68%, and 62%, respectively,of the initial sample of fathers when the childrenwere age 1. Using data collected during thefirst phase of the study, analyses comparingthose fathers who are still participating andthose who have been lost to follow-up showedno differences in terms of age, socioeconomicstatus, marital status, or number of children. Inaddition, no differences were found betweenparticipating and nonparticipating fathers inpsychological well-being as measured by theTrait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1983), theEdinburgh Depression Scale (Thorpe, 1993), andthe Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1990).

Demographic details by family type forthe present phase of the study are shown inTable 1. All the children were age 7 years, andthere was no difference in the proportion of boysand girls in each group. Unassisted-conceptionfathers were younger than donor inseminationand egg donation fathers, F(2, 80) = 4.20, p <.05. The number of children in the family alsodiffered between family types (Fisher’s exactp = .01), with unassisted-conception familiesbeing more likely than donor insemination

Table 1. Sociodemographic Information by Family Type

VariableDonor Insemination

(n = 24)Egg Donation

(n = 25)Unassisted

Conception (n = 32) F p

Age of father (years) 47.50 47.84 43.06 4.20∗ .02n n n Fisher’s exact p

Child’s genderBoy 12 16 19 .63Girl 12 9 13

Socioeconomic statusProfessional 8 11 14 .01∗∗

Managerial/technical 8 7 18Skilled/nonmanual 5 5 0Skilled/manual 3 2 0

Number of childrenOne 8 11 2 .01∗∗

Two 12 11 25Three 4 3 5

Marital statusMarried/cohabiting with child’s mother 24 22 32 .051Separated/divorced from child’s mother 0 3 0

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.


and egg donation families to have more thanone child. A higher proportion of unassisted-conception families than donor insemination oregg donation families appeared in the top twosocioeconomic status categories (Fisher’s exactp = .01), based on the occupation of the parentwith the highest ranking position according toa modified version of the Registrar General’sclassification (Office of Population and CensusStatistics & Employment Department Group,1991). This scale ranged from 1 (professional)to 4 (skilled manual), with donor inseminationand egg donation families being more spreadout among the four categories than unassisted-conception families. The difference betweenfamilies in terms of marital status approachedsignificance (Fisher’s exact p = .051), with alldivorced couples belonging to the egg donationgroup (n = 3).

Disclosure of Gamete Donation

In the current sample, only 29% of the donorinsemination children and 36% of the egg dona-tion children had been told about their donor con-ception. These figures differ slightly from thosereported in other publications from this studybecause the sample is slightly different (i.e., onlydata concerning fathers are presented here).

Procedure

Data were obtained from fathers by tape-recorded interview and standardized question-naires and by a videotaped observational taskwith the child. Researchers trained in the studytechniques visited the fathers at home and, inexceptional cases, at work. Not all fathers com-pleted all three measures (i.e., the interview,questionnaires, and observational measure),either because they were interviewed at workand so could not participate in the observationalassessment with their child or because the ques-tionnaires were not returned. Thus, all fatherswere interviewed (N = 81), 68 (84%) com-pleted questionnaires, and 59 (73%) took part inthe observational assessment with their child.

Measures

Fathers’ psychological state. Fathers com-pleted the Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger,1983) and the Edinburgh Depression Scale(Thorpe, 1993) to assess levels of anxiety and

depression, respectively. Both of these mea-sures, for which higher scores represent greaterdifficulties, have been shown to have goodreliability and to discriminate between clini-cal and nonclinical groups. Fathers also com-pleted the short form of the Parenting StressIndex (Abidin, 1990), a standardized assessmentof stress associated with parenting. Subscalescores of Parental Distress, Parent – Child Dys-functional Interaction, and Difficult Child wereobtained, with higher scores indicating greaterparenting stress. Test – retest reliability for thetotal score has been found to be .96 over a 1- to3-month interval and .65 over 1 year. Concurrentand predictive validity have been demonstratedfor the full-length questionnaire, and the shortform has been reported to correlate highly withthe full-length version.

Quality of parenting. Fathers were interviewedusing an adaptation of a standardized interviewdesigned to assess quality of parenting (Quinton& Rutter, 1988). This interview procedure hasbeen validated against observational ratingsof parent – child relationships in the home,demonstrating a high level of agreement betweenglobal ratings of the quality of parentingby interviewers and observers (Quinton &Rutter, 1988). The following ratings were madeby the researcher according to standardizedcoding criteria, taking into account informationobtained from both the interview and theresearcher’s observations during the visit:

1. Expressed warmth was rated on a 6-pointscale that ranged from 0 (none) to 5 (high)and was based on the father’s tone of voice,facial expression, and gestures when talkingabout the child; spontaneous expressions ofwarmth, sympathy, and concern about thechild; and enthusiasm and interest in the childas a person.

2. Emotional overinvolvement was rated on a4-point scale that ranged from 0 (little ornone) to 3 (enmeshed) and measured thedegree to which family life and the emotionalfunctioning of the father were centered onthe child and the degree to which the fatherwas overly concerned about or overprotectivetoward the child.

3. Emotional underinvolvement was rated ona 4-point scale that ranged from 0 (littleor none) to 3 (detached/dismissive) andmeasured the extent to which fathers were


disengaged with respect to the well-being ofthe child.

4. Quality of interaction was rated on a 5-point scale that ranged from 0 (very poor)to 4 (very high) and measured the amount oftime that the child and father spent togetherand the extent to which they enjoyed eachother’s company and showed affection to oneanother.

5. Control was rated on a 4-point scale thatranged from 0 (little or no control) to 3(good control) and was based on the extentto which the father exercised flexible controland authority and set clear boundaries for thechild’s behavior.

6. Criticism was rated on a 5-point scalethat ranged from 0 (no criticism) to 4(considerable criticism) and was based onthe level of the father’s criticism of the childthroughout the interview.

7. Disciplinary indulgence was rated on a 6-point scale that ranged from 0 (none) to 5(indulgent) and measured the degree to whichthe father failed to show consistent attemptsto guide the child’s behavior and tended tolet the child get away with things.

8. Disciplinary aggression was rated on a 6-point scale that ranged from 0 (none) to 5(abusive) and measured the extent to whichthe father’s disciplinary style was markedby irritability, loss of temper, and physicalpunishment.

On the basis of 47 randomly selectedinterviews that were coded by a secondinterviewer, interrater reliability for the abovevariables was found to range from .50 to .80(Golombok et al., 2011).

Father – child interaction. Fathers and childrenwere asked to complete a video-recorded inter-active task together: the Co-Construction Task(Steele et al., 2007; Steele, D’Agostino, & Blom,2005). During a visit to participants’ homes,fathers and children were given a set of woodenbuilding blocks and instructed to build some-thing together, the only stipulations being thatthey had 5 minutes in which to complete the taskand that they should try to use as many of theblocks as possible. The video-recordings werethen rated according to a standardized codingsystem adapted from that of Steele et al. (2005,2007) by a team of two observers who were blindto family type. Father and child behaviors were

rated separately, using both micro-analytic codes(the presence or absence of a target behavior in10-second segments) and global codes (the levelof a target behavior throughout the entire ses-sion). Although father – child dyads were given 5minutes in which to complete the task, they oftenfinished within the 5 minutes, and therefore, toensure consistency, only the first 3 minutes ofthe interaction were coded for all father – childdyads. For the micro-analytic coding, in orderto account for missing data incurred due tothe naturalistic setting (e.g., participants fac-ing away from the camera during a 10-secondsegment or inaudible speech), the ratings wereconverted into proportions (percentages) repre-senting the frequency of occurrence of a behaviorover the 3-minute period. The following threefather nonverbal variables were coded micro-analytically: (a) ‘‘looking behavior,’’ whetherthe father tried to engage contact with the childby looking directly at him or her (b) ‘‘positivefacial expression,’’ the presence of behaviorssuch as smiling, laughing, and animation; and(c) ‘‘negative facial expression,’’ the presenceof behaviors such as frowning and sneering. Thefollowing three fathers’ verbal variables werealso coded micro-analytically: (d) ‘‘response toquestions,’’ verbal responses to comments andquestions during the interaction; (e) ‘‘asks ques-tions/makes suggestions,’’ whether the father isactively engaged in the task by making sugges-tions and asking questions about how to proceed;and (f) ‘‘positive verbal reinforcement,’’ posi-tive words of encouragement or praise. Thechildren’s nonverbal and verbal behavior wascoded micro-analytically using the same vari-ables as for fathers (a – e), excluding (f), positiveverbal reinforcement. Instead, the children’sbehavior was coded for the variable ‘‘makes sug-gestions/takes initiatives,’’ the extent to whichthe child attempted to lead the task.

For the global codes, fathers and childrenwere individually rated on a 4-point scale thatranged from 0 (none) to 3 (almost always) on thefollowing four variables, based on observationsof the entire interaction: (a) ‘‘positive quality ofdemeanor,’’ the extent to which the father/childexhibited behaviors that positively influencedthe interaction, such as warmth, enjoyment,and praise; (b) ‘‘neutral quality of demeanor,’’the extent to which the father/child exhibitedbehaviors such as flatness, disinterest, and lackof reference to the other member of the dyad;(c) ‘‘negative quality of demeanor,’’ the extent


to which the father/child exhibited behaviorsthat negatively influenced the interaction,such as criticism, anger, and annoyance; and(d) ‘‘controlling behavior,’’ the extent to whichthe father/child was controlling or imposingduring the interaction without regard to the inputfrom the other member of the dyad. In line withthe procedure recommended by Steele et al.(2005, 2007), each father – child dyad was codedon both the micro-analytic and global codingscheme by two researchers simultaneously. Toprevent bias in the coding of the observations, ateam of four researchers coded the observationsin pairs, working in a rotation to ensureeach possible combination of pairs coded anequal proportion of observations; that is, tworesearchers coded an observation simultane-ously. In addition, regular meetings were held toensure that there was no ‘‘drift’’ in researchers’interpretation of agreed coding criteria.

RESULTS

We conducted separate multivariate analysesof covariance (MANCOVAs) for the variablesrelating to fathers’ psychological state, qualityof parenting, and father – child interaction.When a significant difference between groupswas found, one-way analyses of covariancefor each variable were carried out, alongwith the following two contrasts: (a) donorinsemination versus egg donation and (b) donorinsemination versus unassisted conception.Correlations were computed to determinewhether any relationships existed betweenthe demographic variables and the outcomevariables. We used covariates only whenthere was a significant relationship between ademographic variable and an outcome variablethat differed significantly between groups.Thus, age of the father and socioeconomic

status were included in the analyses ascovariates.

Fathers’ Psychological State

Fathers’ scores on the Trait Anxiety Inventory,the Edinburgh Depression Scale, and the Par-enting Stress Index subscale scores of ParentalDistress, Parent – Child Dysfunctional Interac-tion, and Difficult Child were entered into aMANCOVA. Wilks’s lambda was significantF(10, 118) = 1.91, p < .05. As shown inTable 2, there was a significant differencebetween groups for the Parental Distresssubscale of the Parenting Stress Index,F(2, 63) = 4.20, p < .05. The contrasts showedthat this reflected a difference between the donorinsemination and egg donation fathers (p < .01),and a difference between the donor insemina-tion fathers and unassisted-conception fathers(p < .05), with lower levels of parental dis-tress reported by donor insemination fathers thanboth egg donation and unassisted-conceptionfathers. The differences between groups were ofa medium effect size (r = .32 and r = .38, respec-tively; Cohen, 1992). There were no significantdifferences between family types for the TraitAnxiety Inventory or the Edinburgh DepressionScale.

Quality of Parenting

The interview variables relating to positiveaspects of parenting (expressed warmth, emo-tional overinvolvement, emotional underin-volvement, and quality of interaction) wereentered into a MANCOVA. There was no sig-nificant difference between family types. Vari-ables relating to the control/discipline aspects ofparenting (control, criticism, disciplinary indul-gence, and disciplinary aggression) were entered

Table 2. Means, F, and p Values for Fathers’ Psychological State Between Family Types

QuestionnaireDonor Insemination


(n = 20)Unassisted Conception

(n = 28) F p

Trait Anxiety Inventory 32.65a 35.05a 37.00a 0.82 .44Edinburgh Depression Scale 4.35a 3.20a 5.64a 1.89 .16PSI: Parental Distress 18.60a 22.40b 24.11b 4.20* .02PSI: Parent – Child Dysfunctional Interaction 15.60a 16.50a 18.29a 2.03 .14PSI: Difficult Child 20.50a 23.15a 23.11a 0.63 .54

Note: Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 in the contrasts. PSI = Parenting Stress Index.∗p < .05.


into a separate MANCOVA. Again, no signifi-cant difference was found between family types.

Father – Child Interaction

The micro-analytic variables from the Co-Construction Task of fathers’ verbal variables(response to questions, asks questions/makessuggestions, and positive verbal reinforce-ment), fathers’ nonverbal variables (lookingbehavior, positive facial expression, negativefacial expression), children’s verbal variables(response to questions, asks questions, andmakes suggestions/takes initiatives), and chil-dren’s nonverbal variables (looking behav-ior, positive facial expression, negative facialexpression) were entered into four separateMANCOVAs. No significant differences werefound according to family type.

As shown in Table 3, the global variables fromthe Co-Construction Task of positive quality ofdemeanor, neutral quality of demeanor, negativequality of demeanor, and controlling behaviorwere entered into a MANCOVA for fathers andchildren separately. There were no significantdifferences between groups for fathers. Forthe children’s variables, Wilks’s lambda wassignificant, F(8, 102) = 2.75, p < .01. One-way analyses of covariance showed a significantdifference between family types in negativequality of demeanor, F(2, 54) = 4.23, p < .05(see Table 3). This reflects a difference betweenthe donor insemination children and the eggdonation children (p < .05) and between thedonor insemination children and the unassisted-conception children (p < .05), with thedonor insemination children displaying greaternegativity than both the egg donation and theunassisted-conception children. The differencesbetween groups were of a medium effect size(r = −.35 and r = −.31, respectively; Cohen,1992); however, as shown in Table 3, all groups

scored between 0 (none) and 1 (few), indicatingthat donor insemination children did not displayparticularly high levels of negativity. Instead,the children in egg donation and unassisted-conception families displayed particularly lowlevels. There were no differences betweenfamily types for positive quality of demeanor,neutral quality of demeanor, or controllingbehavior.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to the hypothesized negative effects ofnongenetic fatherhood in donor inseminationfamilies, fathers of 7-year-old children con-ceived by donor insemination did not differfrom fathers of children conceived by egg dona-tion or from fathers of unassisted-conceptionchildren with respect to the quality of their rela-tionship with their child. Donor inseminationfathers were found to display equally high levelsof warmth and involvement with their childrenas genetically related fathers in egg donationand unassisted-conception families. It is impor-tant to note that donor insemination fathers didnot differ from egg donation and unassisted-conception fathers in the control and disciplineof their children, challenging claims that fatherswith a genetically unrelated child may be lesslikely to engage in disciplinary aspects of parent-ing (Brewaeys, Ponjaert, et al., 1997; Golombok,MacCallum, et al., 2002). The findings from theinterview were supported by the results fromthe observational assessment of father – childinteraction, in which no group differences wereidentified for any of the fathers’ variables.This finding is in line with earlier phases ofthe study that showed that donor inseminationfathers did not differ from fathers in egg dona-tion and unassisted-conception families withrespect to warmth toward or control of their child(Golombok et al., 2004, 2005, 2006).

Table 3. Means, F, and p Values for Parent – Child Interaction Between Family Types

Global variableDonor Insemination


(n = 17)Unassisted Conception

(n = 21) F p

Child positive quality of demeanor 1.38a 1.65a 1.57a 1.34 .27Child neutral quality of demeanor 0.57a 0.88a 0.71a 0.47 .63Child negative quality of demeanor 0.71a 0.29b 0.14b 4.23∗ .02Child controlling behavior 1.00a 0.82a 0.43a 2.88 .07

Note: Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 in the contrasts.∗p < .05


These findings challenge the predictions,derived from both Parental Investment The-ory and stress-related perspectives, that donorinsemination fathers would show poorerrelationships with their genetically unre-lated children than would egg donation andunassisted-conception fathers with their genet-ically related children. Instead, the findingsmay be accounted for by Compensation The-ory (Hamilton et al., 2007), which has beenoffered as an explanation for the similarly highlevels of investment in children by adoptiveand biological parents. Unlike adoptive fathers,donor insemination fathers do not need to coun-terbalance the effects of the child’s negative pre-placement experiences (Hamilton et al., 2007);however, donor insemination fathers share withadoptive parents the experience of existing out-side traditional notions of parenthood and thusmay feel compelled to substantiate their role andcompetency as fathers by increasing their parent-ing efforts. This may mitigate the absence of agenetic connection with the child that mightotherwise compromise the quality of father-ing. Donor insemination fathers, like adoptivefathers, have pursued a long and arduous route toparenthood, which may intensify their commit-ment to creating a positive family environmentwhen a child eventually arrives (Kirk, 1984). Incontrast to stepfathers, who become members ofa preexisting family in which children have beenand may continue to be parented by their bio-logical father, donor insemination fathers regardtheir children as their own (Golombok, MacCal-lum, et al., 2002).

With respect to fathers’ psychological well-being, the hypothesized findings of higher levelsof anxiety and lower levels of self-esteem inassisted-conception fathers, which have beenreported in other studies (Cohen et al., 2001;Hjelmstedt et al., 2003), were not found here.Indeed, the only difference in psychologicalwell-being reflected lower levels of stressassociated with parenting for donor inseminationfathers than for fathers in both egg donationand unassisted-conception families. This findingmay reflect the end result of a rigorous screeningprocess; infertility treatment can be highlystressful, and those who sustain treatment arelikely to be psychologically resilient in character(Hamilton et al., 2007; Repokari et al., 2005).In fact, Olivius, Friden, Borg, and Bergh(2004) noted that the most common reasongiven for discontinuing assisted-reproduction

treatment was psychological distress. That donorinsemination fathers scored lower in terms ofparenting stress than fathers in egg donationfamilies, who are also part of a couple who haveexperienced infertility, suggests that men whobecome fathers using donor insemination maybe those who possess particular psychologicalstrengths. Nevertheless, it is important to pointout that the donor insemination fathers differedfrom fathers in the other family types on onlyone subscale of the Parenting Stress Index.

Of particular interest are the observationsof the children during interaction with theirfather. Children who had been conceived usingdonor insemination were rated as displayinggreater negativity toward their father thanchildren in both egg donation and unassisted-conception families. It should be noted, however,that this difference reflects particularly lowlevels of negativity among the egg donationand unassisted-conception children rather thanhigh levels of negativity among the donorinsemination children. It is possible that thehigher levels of negativity displayed by thedonor insemination children when interactingwith their father may be associated with theabsence of a genetic connection between them.A more likely explanation, however, is thatthis finding may reflect a higher level ofsecrecy among the donor insemination families,which has been associated with less positivemother – child relationships in gamete donationfamilies where the parents have not disclosed thedonor conception to the child (Golombok et al.,2011; Golombok, Brewaeys, et al., 2002; Lycett,Daniels, Curson, & Golombok, 2004). Childrenare sensitive to information being withheld fromthem, picking up on clues such as parents’tone of voice, facial expressions, or avoidanceof certain subjects (Ehrensaft, 2008; Jadva,Freeman, Kramer, & Golombok, 2009; Paul &Berger, 2007). In the present sample, only 29%of the donor insemination children were awareof their donor conception. Family secrets havebeen shown to interfere with communicationbetween family members, in particular betweenthose who know the secret and those who do not(Papp, 1993). Thus, it is conceivable that secrecyabout the child’s donor conception may haveinfluenced father – child communication and hadsubtle effects on children’s interaction with theirfather.

This study was limited by the small samplesize, which is characteristic of studies of gamete


donation families and due in part to the inevitableloss of participants in a longitudinal studydesign. This was particularly restrictive withregard to exploring the impact of secrecy versusdisclosure about the child’s donor conception,although the impact of secrecy versus disclosureon mother – child interaction has been examinedin previous publications (Golombok et al.,2011, 2013). Reasons were not given by allnonparticipating fathers as to why they haddeclined to take part; however, this was often dueto fathers’ work commitments. The recruitmentand retention of fathers in family studiesand studies of assisted-reproduction familiesin particular is a common problem (Mitchellet al., 2007; Newton & Houle, 1993). Althoughthose who remained in the study when thechildren were age 7 may differ in importantways from those who were lost to follow-up, nodifferences were found between participatingand nonparticipating fathers with respect todemographic characteristics or questionnairemeasures of psychological adjustment when thechildren were age 1.

An advantage of the present study was theuse of an observational measure that produced adetailed, objective assessment of the dynamicsof the father – child relationship. Assisted-reproduction parents may feel more inhibitedthan unassisted-conception parents in expressingregret and may feel a low sense of entitlementto complain (Hammarberg, Fisher, & Wynter,2008). They may also tend to present themselvesin a positive light in an effort to counter thenegative attitudes toward nontraditional familyforms (Golombok et al., 2004). Observationalassessments are less influenced than othermeasures by socially desirable responding,because it is difficult to ‘‘fake good’’ with anobservational measure.

The findings from the present study add tothe comparatively small body of in-depth dataon the dynamics of nongenetic fatherhood interms of both the quality of parenting andfather – child interaction. Despite predictionsof poorer outcomes for fathers and childrenin donor insemination families (who lack agenetic connection) than for fathers in children inegg donation and unassisted-conception families(between whom the genetic link is intact),the results indicate that donor inseminationfathers are just as involved and warm in theirparental role. It would seem that the desire forand commitment to parenthood may be more

important than genetic relatedness for positivefathering of donor insemination children of earlyschool age. It will be important to follow up withthese families as the children reach adolescence,particularly in light of the finding of greaternegativity toward their father displayed by donorinsemination than egg donation and unassisted-conception children. Adolescence represents atransitional point in child development at whichstresses associated with family structure maybe felt more acutely (Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 2002). Fathers’ roles may shift over time,too, with the effects of fathers’ behaviors andfather – child relationships becoming strongeras children grow older (Cabrera, Fitzgerald,Bradley, & Roggman, 2007).

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. (1990). Parenting Stress Index test manual.Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press.

Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., O’Connor, T. G., & Bell, K.L. (2002). Prediction of peer-rated adult hostilityfrom autonomy struggles in adolescent – familyinteractions. Development and Psychopathology,14, 123 – 137.

Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2004). The effectsof divorce on fathers and children: Nonresidentialfathers and stepfathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Therole of the father in child development (4th ed., pp.341 – 367). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., Lam, D., & Lancaster,J. (1999). Paternal care by genetic fathers andstepfathers II: Reports by Xhosa High Schoolstudents. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20,433 – 451.

Aspland, H., & Gardner, F. (2003). Observationalmeasures of parent child interaction. Child andAdolescent Mental Health, 8, 136 – 144.

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observinginteraction: An introduction to sequential analysis.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baran, A., & Pannor, R. (1993). Lethal secrets (2nded.). New York: Amistad.

Blyth, E., Langridge, D., & Harris, R. (2010). Familybuilding in donor conception: Parents’ experiencesof sharing information. Journal of Reproductiveand Infant Psychology, 28, 116 – 127.

Bos, H., & van Balen, F. (2010). Children ofnew reproductive technologies: Social and geneticparenthood. Patient Education and Counseling,81, 429 – 435.

Brewaeys, A. (2001). Review: Parent – child relation-ships and child development in donor inseminationfamilies. Human Reproduction Update, 7, 38 – 46.

Brewaeys, A., Golombok, S., Naaktgeboren, N., deBruyn, J. K., & van Hall, E. (1997). Donor


insemination: Dutch parents’ opinions aboutconfidentiality and donor anonymity and theemotional adjustment of their children. HumanReproduction, 12, 1591 – 1597.

Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., van Hall, E. V.,& Golombok, S. (1997). Donor insemination:Child development and family functioning inlesbian mother families. Human Reproduction, 12,1349 – 1359.

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J.(2006). The father – child relationship, parentingstyles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intactfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 850 – 881.

Burns, L. H. (1987). Infertility as boundary ambiguity:One theoretical perspective. Family SystemsMedicine, 8, 359 – 372.

Burns, L. H. (1990). An exploratory study ofperceptions of parenting after infertility. FamilySystems Medicine, 8, 177 – 189.

Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., &Roggman, L. (2007). Modelling the dynamics ofpaternal influences on children over the life course.Applied Developmental Science, 11, 185 – 189.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. PsychologicalBulletin, 112, 155 – 159.

Cohen, J., McMahon, C., Tennant, C., Saunders,D., & Leslie, G. (2001). Psychosocial outcomesfor fathers after IVF conception: A controlledprospective investigation from pregnancy to fourmonths postpartum. Reproductive Technologies,10, 131 – 135.

Cook, R., Vatev, I., Michova, S., & Golombok, S.(1997). The European Study of Assisted Reproduc-tion Families: A comparison of family functioningand child development between eastern and west-ern Europe. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetricsand Gynaecology, 18, 203 – 212.

Cordray, B. (1999, May). Speaking for ourselves:Quotes from men and women created by DI/remotefather conception. Paper presented at the 11thWorld Congress on In Vitro Fertilisation andHuman Reproductive Genetics, Sydney, Australia.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1996). Violence againststepchildren. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 5, 77 – 81.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1998). The truth aboutCinderella: A Darwinian view of parental love.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Daniels, K. (2005). Is blood really thicker thanwater? Assisted reproduction and its impact on ourthinking about family. Journal of PsychosomaticObstetrics and Gynecology, 26, 265 – 270.

De Paulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behaviourand self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111,203 – 243.

Ehrensaft, D. (2008). When baby makes three or fouror more: Attachment, individuation, and identity inassisted-conception families. The PsychoanalyticStudy of the Child, 63, 3 – 23.

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2009). Oldlessons for a new world: Applying adoptionresearch and experience to assisted repro-ductive technology. Retrieved from http://adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2009_02_oldlessons.php

Fagan, J., & Iglesias, A. (1999). Father involvementprogram effects on fathers, father figures, andtheir Head Start children: A quasi-experimentalstudy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14,243 – 269.

Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Branje, S. J. T.,& Meeus, W. (2004). Disclosure and relationshipsatisfaction in families. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 66, 195 – 209.

Fisher, J. R. W., Hammarberg, K., & Baker, H. W.G. (2005). Assisted conception is a risk factor forpostnatal mood disturbance and early parentingdifficulties. Fertility and Sterility, 84, 426 – 430.

Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Life satisfactionin teenage boys: The moderating role of fatherinvolvement and bullying. Aggressive Behavior,28, 126 – 133.

Flykt, M., Lindblom, J., Punamaki, R.-L., Poikkeus,P., Repokari, L., Unkila-Kallio, L., Vilska, S.,Sinkkonen, J., Tiitinen, A., Amqvist, F., &Tulppala, M., (2009). Prenatal expectations intransition to parenthood: Former infertility andfamily dynamics considerations. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 23, 779 – 789.

Fox, G. L., & Bruce, C. (2001). Conditional father-hood: Identity theory and parental investmenttheory as alternatively sources of explanation offathering. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63,394 – 403.

Golombok, S., Blake, L., Casey, P., Roman, G.,& Jadva, V. (2013). Children born throughreproductive donation: A longitudinal studyof psychological adjustment. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 54, 653 – 660.

Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Cook, R., Giavazzi,M. T., Guerra, D., Mantovani, A., van Hall,E., Crosignani, P. G., & Dexeus, S. (1996).The European Study of Assisted ReproductionFamilies. Human Reproduction, 11, 2324 – 2331.

Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A, Giavazzi, M. T.,Guerra, D., MacCallum, F., & Rust, J. (2002).The European Study of Assisted ReproductionFamilies: The transition to adolescence. HumanReproduction, 17, 830 – 840.

Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C.(1995). Families created by the new reproductivetechnologies: Quality of parenting and social andemotional development of the children. ChildDevelopment, 66, 285 – 298.

Golombok, S., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., Murray,C., MacCallum, F. (2005). Families created bygamete donation: Follow-up at age 2. HumanReproduction, 20, 286 – 293.


Golombok, S., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., Jadva, V.,Murray, C., Rust, J., Abdalla, H., Jenkins, J., &Margara, R. (2004). Parenting infants conceived bygamete donation. Journal of Family Psychology,18, 443 – 452.

Golombok, S., MacCallum, F., Goodman, E.,& Rutter, M. (2002). Families with childrenconceived by DI: A follow-up at age 12. ChildDevelopment, 73, 952 – 968.

Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., Lycett, E.,MacCallum, F., & Rust, J. (2006). Non-geneticand non-gestational parenthood: Consequences forparent – child relationships and the psychologicalwell-being of mothers, fathers, and children at age3. Human Reproduction, 21, 1918 – 1924.

Golombok, S., Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P.,Mellish, L., Marks, A., & Jadva, J. (2011). Childrenconceived by gamete donation: Psychologicaladjustment and mother – child relationships at age7. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 230 – 239.

Grossman, K., Grossman, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik,E., Kindler, H., Scheuer-Englisch, H., & Zimmer-man, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the father – childattachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive andchallenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11,307 – 331.

Hamilton, L., Cheng, S., & Powell, B. (2007).Adoptive parents, adaptive parents: Evaluatingthe importance of biological ties for parentalinvestment. American Sociological Review, 72,95 – 116.

Hammarberg, K., Fisher, J. R. W., & Wynter, K.H. (2008). Psychological and social aspects ofpregnancy, childbirth, and early parenting afterassisted conception: A systematic review. HumanReproduction Update, 14, 395 – 414.

Hartman, A., & Laird, J. (1990). Family treatmentafter adoption: Common themes. In D. Brodzinsky& M. Schechter (Eds.), The psychology of adoption(pp. 221 – 239). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. (2002).Parenting in divorced and remarried families. InM. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting(Vol. 3, pp. 287 – 316). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hjelmstedt, A., Widstrom, A. M., Wramsby, H.,& Collins, A. (2003). Patterns of emotionalresponses to pregnancy, experience of preg-nancy and attitudes to parenthood among IVFcouples: A longitudinal study. Journal of Psy-chosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 24,153 – 162.

Hofferth, S. (2003). Race/ethnic differences in father-involvement in two-parent families. Journal ofFamily Issues, 24, 185 – 216.

Holditch-Davis, D., Sandelowski, M., & Harris,B. (1999). Effect of infertility on mothers’ andfathers’ interactions with young infants. Journal

of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 17,159 – 173.

Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority.(2010). Fertility treatment in 2010: Trends andfigures. Retrieved from http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/2011-11-16_-_Annual_Register_Figures_Report_final.pdf

Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok,S. (2009). The experiences of adolescents andadults conceived by sperm donation: Comparisonsby age of disclosure and family type. HumanReproduction, 24, 1909 – 1919.

Karpel, M. (1980). Family secrets. Family Process,19, 295 – 306.

Kirk, D. H. (1984). Shared fate: A theory and methodof adoptive relationships. Port-Angeles, WA: Ben-Simon.

Lamb, M. E. (2010). How do fathers influencechildren’s development? Let me count the ways.In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in childdevelopment (5th ed., pp. 1 – 26). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Lamb, M. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families,and circumstances: Factors affecting children’sadjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16,98 – 111.

Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2010). The developmentand significance of father – child relationships intwo-parent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The roleof the father in child development (5th ed., pp.94 – 153). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Landau, R. (1998). The management of geneticorigins: Secrecy and openness in donor assistedconception in Israel and elsewhere. HumanReproduction, 13, 3268 – 3273.

Lycett, E., Daniels, K., Curson, R., & Golombok,S. (2004). Offspring created as a result of donorinsemination: A study of family relationships, childadjustment, and disclosure. Fertility and Sterility,82, 172 – 179.

Lycett, E., Daniels, K., Curson, R., & Golombok,S. (2005). School-aged children of donor insem-ination: A study of parents’ disclosure patterns.Human Reproduction, 20, 810 – 819.

Manuel, C., Facy, F., Choquet, M., Grandjean, H., &Czyba, J. C. (1990). Les risques psychologiquesde la conception par IAD pour l’enfant [Thepsychological risks of donor conception forchildren]. Neuropsychiatrie de L’Enfance, 38,642 – 658.

Marsiglio, W., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).Exploring fatherhood diversity: Implications forconceptualizing father involvement. Marriage andFamily Review, 29, 269 – 293.

Mason, M. C. (1993). Male infertility—Men talking.New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, S. J., See, H. M., Tarkow, A. K. H., Cabrera,N., McFadden, K. E., & Shannon, J. D. (2007).Conducting studies with fathers: Challenges and


opportunities. Applied Development Science, 11,239 – 244.

Nachtigall, R. D., Pitcher, L., Tchann, J. M., Becker,G., & Szkupinski Quiroga, S. (1997). Stigma,disclosure, and family functioning among parentsof children conceived through donor insemination.Fertility and Sterility, 68, 83 – 89.

Newton, C. R., & Houle, M. (1993). Genderdifferences in psychological response to infertilitytreatment. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,2, 129 – 139.

Office of Population and Census Statistics & Employ-ment Department Group. (1991). Standard clas-sification of occupations. London: Her Majesty’sStationery Office.

Olivius, C., Friden, B., Borg, G., & Bergh, G. (2004).Why do couples discontinue in vitro fertilizationtreatment? A cohort study. Fertility and Sterility,81, 258 – 261.

Owen, L., & Golombok, S. (2009). Familiescreated by assisted reproduction: Parent – childrelationships in late adolescence. Journal ofAdolescence, 32, 835 – 848.

Papp, P. (1993). The worm in the bud: Secrets betweenparents and children. In E. Imber-Black (Ed.),Secrets in family and family therapy (pp. 66 – 85).New York: Norton.

Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H.Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 3,pp. 27 – 74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Paul, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Topic avoidance andfamily functioning in families conceived withdonor insemination. Human Reproduction, 22,2566 – 2571.

Quinton, D., & Rutter, M. (1988). Parenting break-down: The making and breaking of intergenera-tional links. Aldershot, England: Avebury Gower.

Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Jadva, V., &Golombok, S. (2011). Secrecy, disclosure andeverything in between: Decisions of parentsconceived by donor insemination, egg donation,and surrogacy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online,22, 485 – 495.

Repokari, L., Punamaki, R.-L., Poikkeus, P., Vilska,S., Unkila-Kallio, L., Sinkkonen, J., Tiitinen, A.,Amqvist, F., & Tulppala, M. (2005). The impactof successful assisted reproduction treatment onfemale and male mental health during the transitionto parenthood: A prospective controlled study.Human Reproduction, 20, 3238 – 3247.

Schooler, J. E., & Norris, B. L. (2002). Secrecyin adoption and the high cost it required. InJ. E. Schooler & B. L. Norris (Eds.), Journeys

after adoption: Understanding lifelong issues (pp.3 – 15). Westport, CT: Bergin & Harvey.

Spielberger, C. (1983). The handbook of theState – Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Steele, M., D’Agostino, D., & Blom, I. (2005).The co-construction coding manual: Verbal andnonverbal behavior. Unpublished manuscript.

Steele, M., Hodges, J., Kaniuk, J., Steele, H.,D’Agostino, D., Blom, I., Hillman, S., &Henderson, K. (2007). Intervening with maltreatedchildren and their adoptive families: Identifyingattachment facilitative behaviors. In D. Oppenheim& D. F. Goldsmith (Eds.), Attachment theory inclinical work with children: Bridging the gapbetween research and practice (pp. 58 – 89). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Thorpe, K. (1993). A study of the use of theEdinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale with parentgroups outside the postpartum period. Journalof Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11,119 – 125.

Turner, A. J., & Cole, A. (2000). What does it meanto be a donor offspring? The identity experiencesof adults conceived by donor insemination and theimplications for counseling and therapy. HumanReproduction, 15, 2041 – 2051.

Van den Akker, O. B. A. (2001). The acceptable faceof parenthood: The relative status of biological andcultural interpretations of offspring in infertilitytreatment. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 3,137 – 153.

Wanless, S. B., Rosenkoetter, S. E., & McClelland,M. M. (2008). Paternal depression and infantcognitive development: Implications for researchand intervention. Infants and Young Children, 21,134 – 141.

Warnock, M. (1984). The report of the Committee ofInquiry Into Human Fertilization and Embryology.London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Webb, R. E., & Daniluk, J. C. (1999). The end of theline: Infertile men’s experiences of being unable toproduce a child. Men and Masculinities, 2, 6 – 26.

Wichman, C. L., Ehlers, S. L., Wichman, S. E.,Weaver, A. L., & Coddington, C. (2011). Com-parison of multiple psychological distress mea-sures between men and women preparing forin vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 95,717 – 721.

Zvoch, K. (1999). Family type and investment ineducation: A comparison of genetic and stepparentfamilies. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 20,453 – 464.

Families Created by Donor Insemination

Documents

Transcript of Families Created by Donor Insemination