research on open adoption

Unplanned Pregnancy?
Become a Family
Find a Family
Adoption Information

10 Things that Scientific Research Says about Open Adoption

Whether you are considering adoption, know someone who recently adopted or have gone through the adoption process yourself, you likely know that open adoption is the standard today. In the vast majority of modern adoptions, birth and adoptive parents share contact during and after the process, exchanging picture and letter updates, text messages, emails and phone calls and even arranging in-person visits.

American Adoptions , like many adoption professionals, encourages this contact because we have seen firsthand the benefits it has for everyone involved — and the science backs it up.

When it comes to the advantages of openness in adoption, the research speaks for itself. Here are 10 important facts and statistics about open adoption and its benefits for everyone in the adoption triad:

1. Today, closed adoptions are all but extinct; it’s estimated that only 5 percent of modern adoptions are closed .

2. That means that 95 percent of today’s adoptions involve some level of openness, whether they are mediated , fully open or somewhere in between.

3. In a 2012 survey of adoption professionals conducted by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, the overwhelming majority of agencies reported that between 76–100 percent of expectant parents chose their babies’ adoptive parents.

4. With American Adoptions, 100 percent of prospective birth mothers have the right to choose the perfect adoptive parents for their child, get to know them before placement and decide what type of relationship they want to have with their baby and the adoptive family after birth.

5. Most birth and adoptive families in open adoptions report positive experiences, and those with more openness tend to be more satisfied with the adoption process .

6. Open adoption can help birth parents process their grief after placement. Birth mothers who have ongoing contact with their children report greater peace of mind and less grief, worry and regret than those who do not have contact.

7. Openness is especially beneficial for those at the center of the adoption – the adoptees. Research shows that adolescents who have ongoing contact with their birth parents are more satisfied with their adoptions than those without contact. Openness allows them to better understand the reasons for their adoption, promotes more positive feelings toward their birth mother, provides them with information that aids in identity formation, and more.

8. Adoptive parents are becoming increasingly interested in and excited about open adoption. The California Long-Range Adoption Study found that the majority (73 percent) of adoptive parents are very comfortable with contact in their open adoptions. Other studies have found that openness in adoption reduces adoptive parents’ fear and increases their empathy toward birth parents, and also leads to benefits in their relationships with their adopted children.

9. In addition to “structural openness” (open adoption relationships with their birth parents), studies show that adopted children benefit from “communicative openness” within their families — meaning they are free to discuss adoption and express their feelings about their adoption with their parents. Children who experience more open adoption communication within their families have higher self-esteem , fewer behavioral problems, more trust for their parents, fewer feelings of alienation and better overall family functioning .

10. Fortunately, because of the overwhelming benefits of openly discussing adoption within the family, almost all adopted children ( 97 percent ) know about their adoption stories .

With so many benefits of open adoption, it’s no wonder that nearly every prospective birth mother chooses to have some openness in her adoption plan — nor is it surprising that adoptive parents are increasingly excited about developing a relationship with their children’s birth families.

To learn more about the benefits of open adoption and how it works with American Adoptions, call 1-800-ADOPTION now to speak with an adoption specialist.

Read about an american adoptions writer who was adopted through an open adoption , and her parents’ thoughts on open adoption ..

How wonderful you mention that open adoption can help birth parents with their grief. My husband and I want to adopt a baby this year. We will find a reputable adoption support service locally to assist us.

Bridging the Divide: Openness in Adoption and Post-adoption Psychosocial Adjustment among Birth and Adoptive Parents

1 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Misaki N. Natsuaki

David martin, leslie leve.

2 Oregon Social Learning Center

Jenae Neiderhiser

3 Pennsylvania State University

Daniel S. Shaw

4 University of Pittsburgh

Georgette Villareal

5 University of California, Davis

Laura Scaramella

6 University of New Orleans

David Reiss

7 Austen Riggs Center

Using 323 matched parties of birth mothers and adoptive parents, this study examined the association between the degree of adoption openness (e.g., contact and knowledge between parties) and birth and adoptive parents’ post-adoption adjustment shortly after the adoption placement (6 to 9 months). Data from birth fathers (N=112), an understudied sample, also were explored. Openness was assessed by multiple informants. Results indicated that openness was significantly related to satisfaction with adoption process among adoptive parents and birth mothers. Increased openness was positively associated with birth mothers’ post-placement adjustment as indexed by birth mothers’ self reports and the interviewers’ impression of birth mothers’ adjustment. Birth fathers’ report of openness was associated with their greater satisfaction with the adoption process and better post-adoption adjustment.

For much of the 20 th century, societal expectations of ‘parenting’ consisted of rearing one’s own biological child. Advanced fertility donor methods to assist in reproductive success were yet to be developed, and adoptions were generally closed or “confidential” in nature and characterized by secrecy. These more secretive and closed adoption practices were conceived to protect all three parties of the adoption triad – birth parents, adoptive parents, and the child ( Bussiere, 1998 ; Silverstein & Demick, 1994 ). Confidential adoptions were thought to ensure birth parents’ rights of privacy, shielding unwed mothers from the stigma of “illegitimacy”. These practices also were believed to protect adopted children from social ridicule and to shelter adoptive parents from the humiliation of their infertility ( Bussiere, 1998 ). Since the 1970s, however, there has been a gradual shift in societal practices and views around ‘parenting’, with fertility donor methods becoming developed, and open adoptions becoming the norm ( Grotevant, McRoy, Elde, & Fravel, 1994 ). In contrast to closed adoption, open adoption is characterized by contact and communication between birth and adoptive parents ( Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ). As stigma surrounding non-marital births diminished and unwed parenthood became increasingly accepted, it is now quite common for birth and adoptive families to have some degree of post-placement contact with one another. The degree of openness, however, varies widely, ranging from the exchange of a few photos mediated through an adoption agency to frequent visits and information exchanges ( Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ).

The implications of varying degrees of openness in adoption to the post-placement adjustment of birth and adoptive parents remain a subject of much debate (Miall & March, 2005). Opponents of open adoption maintain that continued contact between the adopted child and birth parents impedes the attachment and bonding between adoptive parents and their adopted child. According to their view, adoptive parents in open adoption feel less in control and less secure in their parental role with a lingering presence of the birth parents ( Kraft, Palombo, Woods, Mitchell, & Schmidt, 1985 ). Open adoption also was assumed to interfere with the grieving process that is essential for the mental health of the birth mother by not allowing her to experience a finality of the separation and a full mourning experience to eventually gain perspective ( Kraft et al., 1985 ).

Proponents of open adoption see things quite differently. They suggest that adoptive parents in open adoption benefit significantly from information about birth parents through ongoing contact with them. Openness in adoption also allows adoptive parents to gain knowledge about their child’s medical and mental health histories, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and reasons for adoption ( Campbell, Silverman, & Patti, 1991 ; Siegel, 2003 ). Open adoption, therefore, makes adoptive parents feel more, rather than less, secure in their parental role because adoptive parents feel that birth parents have given them explicit consent to parent the child ( Siegel, 2003 ). Open adoption also helps to mitigate birth mothers’ feelings of pain and loss, resulting in less destructive behavior and greater emotional well-being ( Baran, Pannor, & Sorosky, 1976 ; Groth, Bonnardel, Davis, Martin, & Vousden, 1987 ). Moreover, birth mothers who are involved in open adoption are more likely to feel assured of the child’s welfare because the direct contact they have with the adoptive parents typically fosters trust that their child is in a safe and caring home ( Pannor & Baran, 1984 ). In contrast, closed adoptions are viewed as confining; birth mothers often feel isolated, have unresolved feeling of guilt and self-blame, and feel uncertain of the well-being of the child ( DeSimone, 1996 ; Logan, 1996 ; Silverman, Campbell, Patti, & Style, 1988 ; Silverstein & Demick, 1994 ). Thus, greater certainty of the child’s well-being may not only alleviate the birth mother’s grief, but also may contribute to her sense of pride regarding the decision ( Lancette & McClure, 1992 ).

Open adoption also can be viewed as a form of what Granovetter (1973) called “weak ties” whereby adoptive and birth parents are connected through special interpersonal relationships that arise out of special circumstances of adoption. Establishing supportive relationships outside of birth parents’ immediate social networks in the form of continued exchanges and contact may be especially important for their post–placement adjustment. Birth parents, particularly birth mothers, are often socially isolated after placement ( DeSimone, 1996 ; Logan, 1996 ; Silverman et al., 1988 ; Silverstein & Demick, 1994 ). Although some limited evidence suggests that birth fathers found adoptions processes challenging (e.g., Baumann, 1999 ; Clapton, 2002 ; Deykin, Patti, & Ryan, 1988 ; Reitz & Watson, 1992 ), birth fathers also may benefit from having “weak ties” to the adoptive families. Such “weak ties” may provide birth parents’ assurance and certainty about their adopted child. Open adoption, therefore, forges a new form of relationship in which birth and adoptive parents have a “shared fate” to the benefit of the parties involved ( Kirk, 1964 ).

The Existing Empirical Evidence

Although researchers have begun to examine empirically the benefits and consequences of open adoption (e.g., Berry, 1993 ; Berry, Dylla, Barth, & Needell, 1998 ; Grotevant et al., 1994 ; Von Korff, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2006 ), data remain scarce and the existing research has often yielded inconsistent results. For example, Blanton and Deschner (1990) reported that birth mothers using open adoption felt more socially isolated, had more somatic complaints, felt more despair, and expressed more dependency than birth mothers involved in confidential adoption. In contrast, more recent work suggests that open adoption may reduce stress for all involved parties ( Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ), particularly birth mothers ( DeSimone, 1996 ; Logan, 1996 ; Silverstein & Demick, 1994 ). In Siegel’s (2003) study of adoptive parents who were interviewed seven years after the initial placement of the adopted child, although adoptive parents were more likely to report that the adopted child was “better off” with ongoing contact with the birth parents, some adoptive parents felt more pressure as a parent in an open adoption than they suspected they would in a closed adoption. Most of the empirical work, particularly those supporting the position of closed adoption, has used small samples or been more qualitative in nature. Although more recent work has begun to document the benefits of contacts between adoptive and birth families ( Berry, 1993 ; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ), the issue of the costs and benefits associated with open and closed adoption remains to be determined.

The most systematic studies of openness come from recent survey data collected from two different sources, from California ( Berry, 1993 ; Berry et al., 1998 ) and from the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Project (MTAP: Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ; Grotevant et al., 1994 ; McRoy, Grotevant, & White, 1988 ). Based on a survey of 1,396 adoptive parents in California, Berry (1993) found that adoptive parents were most likely to report high levels of satisfaction with adoption when the level of openness was consistent with their initial adoption plan. In a prospective study of 764 adoptive families, however, Berry et al. (1998) did not find openness to be a significant predictor of satisfaction and adjustment among adoptive parents four years after the initial placement of the child. In a series of studies, researchers from the MTAP also reported similarities and differences in adoptive parents across varying levels of openness (e.g., Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ; Grotevant et al., 1994 ; McRoy et al., 1988 ; Von Korff et al., 2006 ; Wrobel, Ayers-Lopez, Grotevant, McRoy, & Friedrick, 1996 ). In general, these investigators found that adoptive parents in open adoption were satisfied with the adoption process ( Grotevant et al., 1994 ) and that adopted children in open adoption did not experience more difficulties compared to adoptees in mediated or closed adoptions ( Von Korff et al., 2006 ). Holleinstein, Leve, Scaramella, Milfort, and Neiderhiser (2003) also found evidence to suggest open adoption was beneficial; information about birth parents favorably influenced adoptive parents’ perception of the birth parents.

Methodological Issues

Some methodological difficulties remain in the conduct of adoption research, however. First, most of the previous studies on openness in adoption have been based on relatively small samples of either adoptive or birth families, making generalization of the findings difficult. Families and individuals involved in adoption, particularly birth parents, are considered to be hard-to-reach populations. Despite the fact that birth mothers represent an important component of the “adoption triangle” ( Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1978 ), they often remain “anonymous” or “hidden” and difficult to study, largely due to the sensitive and stigmatizing nature of adoption and relinquishment ( March, 1995 ). Including birth mothers in studies of satisfaction with openness is critically important because a significant number of birth mothers have been found to have trouble “putting the experience behind them” or “moving on with their lives” ( Fravel, McRoy, & Grotevant, 2000 ) following the placement of the child. Even less is known about the birth fathers of adopted children ( Brodzinsky, 2005 ; Miall & March, 2005a ). Indeed, Sachedev (1991) called birth fathers “a neglected element in the adoption equation” (p. 131). Many adoption studies have examined birth and adoptive parents separately. However, a clearer picture would emerge if information were obtained about openness and post-adoption adjustment from all parties involved. In this study, the effect of openness on post-placement adjustment was examined using a large sample of both adoptive and birth parents recruited across the United States.

Second, when larger samples have been available, previous studies have tended to rely only on a single source of information to assess the levels of openness. A common and best known practice has been to categorize adoption into three levels -- confidential (closed), mediated (semiopen), and fully disclosed (open) (see Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ). While the use of a single source of information is helpful to obtain the informant’s experience and perception toward adoption process, such experience may not necessarily be shared by the other parties involved. The present study used a comprehensive approach to assessing the levels of openness by directly examining perceived degree of openness, the amount of actual contact, and the degree of knowledge about each other, as reported by each participating adoptive and birth parent. This comprehensive assessment approach to the construct of openness provides more reliable information on the effects of openness.

Third, in most previous studies that investigate the effect of openness in adoption, assessments of adoptive or birth parents were conducted with varying lengths of time since placement. Such a practice makes deriving clear inferences difficult because the effect of openness on adoptive and birth parents may vary depending on how long ago the placement occurred. In other words, the length of time since placement may very well be a confounding factor. The current study assessed participants at a relatively uniform length of time, birth parents at approximately 6-months and adoptive parents at approximately 9-months after placement. This methodological adjustment should allow for more rigorous inferences about the effect of openness.

To summarize, the present study was designed to examine the associations between openness in adoption and post-adoption adjustment of birth and adoptive parents while overcoming some of the methodological issues in previous studies. Specifically, measures of openness were obtained from both birth and adoptive parents at a fixed time period, when adopted children were 6–9 months of age. Higher levels of openness were hypothesized to be significantly and positively related to post-adoption well-being as measured by participants’ satisfaction with the adoption process and post-adoption adjustment.

Sample and Procedures

The Early Growth and Development Study (EGDS) is an ongoing, longitudinal multi-site study of adopted children, adoptive families, and birth parents. The primary goal of the EGDS is to examine the effects of genotype-environment interaction and correlation on the social and emotional development of infants and toddlers. The EGDS drew its sample from 33 adoption agencies in 10 states in three regions: Northwest, Southwest, and Mid-Atlantic. These agencies reflect the full range of US adoption agencies: public, private, religious, secular, those favoring open adoptions, and those favoring closed adoptions. Each agency recorded the demographic information from all clients who met our recruitment criteria (domestic adoption placement to a non-relative within 90 days of birth). More information about the sample and recruitment methods can be found in the article by Leve et al. (2007) .

By April 2007, the EGDS recruited 531 birth mothers and 380 adoptive families (both/either adoptive mothers and adoptive fathers). Of these, 359 linked adoption triads (i.e., birth mothers, adoptive parents, and adopted child) were identified. This study is based on the first wave of data obtained from 323 matched adoptive parents and birth mothers who provided complete information on the study variables used here (i.e., indices of adoption openness and adjustment variables).

Because the sample was recruited from three different geographical regions, we examined regional differences in sample demographic characteristics (i.e., age, income, education of birth and adoptive parents). Only two significant regional differences were found: adoptive fathers’ education was slightly higher in the Northwest site than in the Southwest site and birth mothers’ household income was slightly higher in the Mid-Atlantic site than the Southwest site. Comparison of the participants who were included in and excluded from this study revealed no significant differences in terms of demographic variables such as income, education, and age.

A unique feature of the present study is the inclusion of birth fathers. Due to the challenges associated with recruiting this population, data from only 112 birth fathers who were linked to their adoption triads (i.e., adoptive parents, birth mothers, and the adopted child) were collected by April 2007. Given their smaller sample size, results for birth fathers are reported in a subsidiary analysis. Though preliminary, these data begin to fill a critical void in the literature.

Ninety-four percent of adoptive mothers and 92 percent of adoptive fathers in this sample were Caucasian. These estimates for Caucasians are higher than the Census 2000 national estimates of adoptive parents’ race/ethnicity composition (71% of adoptive parents were non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic, see Kreider, 2003 for details). Among birth mothers, 77% were Caucasian, 11% were African American, 4% were Hispanic American, and 8% were other racial/ethnic background. Eighty-four percent of the birth fathers were Caucasian, 6% were African American, 4% were Hispanic American, and 5% had other racial/ethnic background. The mean ages at the time of placement were 37.04 (SD=5.46), 38.01 (SD=6.00), 24.3 (SD=6.09), and 25.10 (SD=7.14) for adoptive mothers, adoptive fathers, birth mothers, and birth fathers, respectively. Nearly half of the adoptive parents were characterized as affluent and had annual gross household income that exceeded $100,000. More than 70% of adoptive parents had completed college education or advanced to further education. College degree was the mode of education level for both adoptive mothers and fathers (45.6%, 39.3%, respectively). On average, birth mothers’ and birth fathers’ personal income were $7,416 and $13,515, respectively. High school degree was the mode of birth mothers’ and fathers’ educational attainment (32.6%, 45.95%). Forty-three percent ( n = 139) of the adopted children involved in the target sample of adoptive and birth parents were female. Fifty-nine percent of the adopted children were Caucasian, 20% were mixed races, 11% were African American, and 10% were unknown.

Birth parents participated in a 2-hour interview in their home or in another location convenient for them at approximately 6-months post-placement (when the child was 6 months old). Adoptive parents participated in a 2 ½ hour interview in their home at 9-months post-placement (when the child was 9 months old). Participants were paid for volunteering their time to the study. For both the birth- and adoptive-parent assessment, computer-assisted interview questions were asked by the interviewer to the participant, and each participant independently completed a set of questionnaires. Domains assessed for both adoptive and birth parents included personality, psychosocial adjustment, life events, and the adoption placement. In addition, adoptive parents were observed in a series of interaction tasks with their child (e.g., teaching and temperament tasks). Interviewers completed a minimum of 40 hours of training including a two-day group session, pilot interviews, and videotaped feedback, prior to administering interviews with study participants. All interviews were audio recorded and feedback was provided by a trained evaluator for a random selection of 15% of the interviews to ensure adherence to the study’s standardized interview protocols.

Measuring Openness in Adoption

Openness in adoption was measured using three subscales independently reported by each birth and adoptive parent: perceived openness, actual contact between adoptive and birth parents, and the amount of knowledge of one another between birth and adoptive parents. This measurement strategy is consistent with Grotevant and McRoy’s (1998) conceptualization of openness as “a spectrum involving different degrees and modes of contact and communication between adoptive family members and a child’s birth mother” (p. 2). The measure of openness differs from the tripartite categorical classification of closed, semi-open, and open adoption in Grotevant and McRoy (1998) and reflects a continuum of openness. Each of these subscales is described below.

Perceived Openness

Birth mothers and fathers individually reported, on a 7-point scale ranging from very closed (1) to very open (7), their overall ratings on the degree of openness they experienced in their adoption process. Interviewers gave a detailed description of the response options. For instance, the interviewers provided birth parents a definition of “very closed (1)” as “you have no information about the adoptive parents”, “open (5)” as “you have 1 to 3 visits per year and communicate semi-regularly by phone, letters, or emails with the adoptive family, and “very open (7)” as “you have visits with the family at least once a month and communicate several times a month by phone, letters, or emails”.

Adoptive parents responded to a question, “ how open would you describe the adoption right now? ” They were presented with 3 initial choices to narrow down the openness options (1 = closed or somewhat closed; 2= somewhat open; and 3 = pretty open). “Closed or somewhat closed” was defined as “no direct contact with a birth parent” and “pretty open” as “somewhat regular contact with a birth parent”. Adoptive parents were then followed up with more detailed questions depending on their answer to this initial question. If they chose “closed or somewhat closed”, they were asked to provide more detailed description of their adoption experience, using three-point response scale from “very closed”, “closed”, and “semi open”. The definitions of response options (i.e., “very closed”, “closed”, and “semi open”) were explicitly provided to enhance participants’ understanding of the concept. If they chose “somewhat open” as their answer to the initial question, adoptive parents were asked to indicate their adoption experience in more details using three-point scale from “semi open”, “moderately open”, and “open”. Those who chose “pretty open” in the initial question were asked to describe their experience using three-point scale consisting of “open”, “quite open”, and “very open”. Summarizing these items allowed a 7-point scale of openness, ranging from very closed (1), closed (2), semi open (3), moderately open (4), open (5), quite open (6), to very open (7). This response scale corresponds to the response scale presented to birth parents.

Birth mothers and birth fathers individually reported on how much contact they had with the adoptive parents. Adoptive mothers and fathers reported separately on how much contact they had with the birth mother and birth father because unlike adoptive parents, most birth parents were not a couple. To measure the birth mother-report of their contact with the adoptive parents and the birth father-report of their contact with the adoptive parents , each birth parent was asked to indicate how often the adoptive parents engaged in four different types of contact with him/her on a 5-point scale ranging from never (1) to daily (5): sent or gave their photos, exchanged letters or emails, talked with him/her on the phone, and had face-to-face contact (αs = .74 for both birth parents). For the adoptive father- and adoptive mother-reports of their contact with the birth mother , each adoptive parent responded to the same four items as above to describe their engagement in keeping contact with the birth mother plus two additional items rated on the same 5-point scale: how often the birth mother sent them e-mails/letters and how often the birth mother sent presents to the child (αs = .80 and .79 for adoptive fathers and mothers, respectively). For the adoptive father- and mother-reports of their contact with the birth father , each adoptive parent again responded to the same six questions to report how often the birth father keep contact with him/her (αs = .87 and .86 for adoptive fathers and mothers, respectively). Higher scores in these scales indicated more frequent contact between adoptive families and birth parents.

Birth mothers and birth fathers reported how much knowledge they had with the adoptive mother and father. On a 4-point scale ranging from nothing (1) to a lot (4), birth mothers indicated the extent to which they knew about five aspects of each adoptive parent: his/her physical health, mental health, ethnic and cultural background, his/her reasons for adoption, and their extended family’s health history. These items created scales of birth mothers’ knowledge about the adoptive father (α= .85) and their knowledge about the adoptive mother (α= .82). Birth fathers answered to the same set of questions that measured birth fathers’ knowledge about the adoptive father (α=.90) and their knowledge about the adoptive mother (α= .88). Similarly, adoptive mothers and fathers independently answered the same questions that assessed adoptive mothers’ and fathers’ knowledge about the birth mother (αs = .80 for both adoptive parents) and their knowledge about the birth father (αs = .87 and .86 for the adoptive father- and mother-reports, respectively). Higher scores indicated more knowledge about the other party.

Aggregated Openness Measure

The perceived openness, contact, and knowledge subscales were combined to create an aggregated openness measure for each informant (i.e., adoptive fathers, adoptive mothers, birth mothers, and birth fathers). This procedure created six aggregated openness measures: adoptive father- and mother-reported openness with respect to the birth mother (both αs=.74), birth mother-report of openness (α=.78), adoptive father- and mother-reported openness with respect to the birth fathers (αs=.61 and .59, respectively), and birth fathers-report of openness (α=.86). Each subscale was standardized before aggregating because the measures of perceived openness, contact, and knowledge had different response formats.

One possible confound in the study is selection effect. That is, more troubled birth and adoptive parents may choose closed adoption because they are less willing to share their information to other families involved in adoption. To address this issue, associations between depression, anxiety, and annual income of birth and adoptive parents and their reports of openness were examined. No significant correlations of self-reported depression and anxiety and annual income with the degree of openness in any parties involved in adoption were found. Interestingly, however, adoptive mother-report of openness was positively related to their report of anxiety (r = 0.12, p<.05), suggesting that adoptive mothers in more open adoptions tended to be more anxious, contrary to the direction of expectation for selection effects.

Satisfaction with the adoption process

Previous studies have shown that the degree of openness is associated with satisfaction with the adoption process ( Berry, 1993 ; Grotevant et al., 1994 ). To measure levels of satisfaction, birth mothers and fathers independently used a 4-point scale ranging from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (4) to report on their satisfaction with: (a) the amount of information about the adoptive mother, (b) the amount of information about the adoptive father, (c) the amount of contact with the adoptive family, and (d) the levels of openness of the adoption plan. Responses of these 4 items were internally consistent (αs = .80 and .89 for birth mothers and fathers, respectively), and were thus combined. In a similar fashion, adoptive fathers and mothers independently completed items using the same 4-point scale regarding their satisfaction with: (a) the amount of information about the birth mother, (b) the amount of information about the birth father, (c) the amount of contact with the birth mother, (d) the amount of contact with the birth father, and (e) the levels of openness of the adoption plan. These items were combined to form a scale of adoptive fathers’ and mothers’ satisfaction (both as =.64). Higher scores indicated higher satisfaction with the adoption process.

Post-adoption adjustment

Two indices were used to assess birth parents’ adjustment. First, on a 5-point scale ranging from improved a lot (1) to a lot worse (5), a birth parent indicated the extent to which going through adoption affected his/her: (a) quality of romantic relationship, (b) financial well being, (c) physical health, (d) mental and emotional health, (e), friendships, (f) relationships with his/her spouse/partner, (g) general satisfaction with life, (h) satisfaction with physical appearance, (i) relationship with his/her parents, (j) sense of control over his/her life, and (k) ability to plan for his/her future (αs = .78 and .84 for birth mothers and fathers, respectively). The responses were reverse-coded and summed so that the higher scores indicated better post-adoption adjustment.

Second, trained interviewers provided ratings of each birth parent. After completing a 2-hour in person interview, interviewers completed 16 items regarding their impressions of the birth parents’ adjustment using a 4-point scale, ranging from very true (1) to not true (4). Sample items included, “respondent seemed anxious”, “respondent did or said things to clearly indicate depression or sadness”, “respondent seemed irritable or hostile” , and “respondent seemed to feel well” . Items were coded such that higher scores indicated better adjustment of birth parents in the eyes of interviewers. Observers’ subjective impression of participants has been found to be reliable and valid, and shown to be a useful and cost-effective supplement to naturalistic observation procedures ( Weinrott, Reid, Bauske, & Brummett, 1981 ). Interviewers’ impression demonstrated reasonably high internal consistency in the present study (αs=.86 and .88 for birth mothers and fathers, respectively). In terms of convergent validity, although no comparable measure of self-reported global well-being was collected in this study, modest associations would be anticipated between this measure and global self-worth as assessed by the Harter Adult Self-Perception Profile ( Messer & Harter, 1986 ). Analyses indicated that interviewer ratings of birth mothers were marginally, yet positively associated with the self-reported global self worth subscale ( r = .10, p < .10). For birth fathers, this correlation was non-significant ( r = .08, ns).

Adoptive parents’ post-adoption adjustment was measured somewhat differently. First, adoptive parents completed items regarding the extent to which the adoption process affected (a) quality of their relationship, (b) their relationship with their other children, (c) physical health, (d) mental and emotional health, (e) friendships, (f) relationships with in-laws, (g) general satisfaction with life, (h) social life, (i) relationship with his/her parents, (j) career or professional life. Items were rated on a scale ranging from a lot worse (1) to improved a lot (5). The items were added to form a scale of adoptive parents’ adjustment to the adoption process (αs = .62 and .70 for adoptive fathers and mothers, respectively). Second, using the same 5-point response scale, adoptive parents also were asked how much each of the ten domains of the adoptive process improved after having the adopted child. We summed the items to create a scale of adoptive parents’ adjustment after welcoming the adopted child to their home (αs = .73 and .74 for adoptive fathers and mothers). For both scales, higher scores indicated better post-adoption adjustment.

Several demographic (i.e., household income and education) and possible confounding variables were included in the analyses. One potential confounding variable in predicting adoptive parents’ post-adoption satisfaction and adjustment is the presence of biological children in the adoptive family. Of the 323 adoptive families, 53 (16%) had at least one biological child. There was no significant difference between adoptive families with and without biological children of their own in terms of adoptive fathers’ satisfaction and adjustment indices. However, compared to adoptive mothers who had biological children of their own, adoptive mothers who did not have any biological child were more likely to report that the experience of adoption process and welcoming the adopted child to the home positively affected their adjustment (Fs=5.79, 7.41, ps<s.01, respectively). We thus included the presence of biological child in adoptive family in the model for adoptive mothers.

Another covariate that requires attention is the level of choice/control each adoptive party had in deciding the level of openness in adoption. For instance, adoptive and birth parents who had choices in selecting the level of openness may feel more satisfied with the adoption process. In this study, adoptive and birth parents were asked to respond to a question of “How much choice did you have regarding level of openness?” Their responses were scaled to a 3-point response ranging from no control (either agency has a pre-establishing policy on the level of openness, or other birth/adoptive parents decided), some control (negotiated with the parties involved in the adoption), to full control (the respondent decided the level of openness). Higher scores indicated higher levels of control/choice the respondent had in determining the openness level. The level of choice in deciding the openness level was not associated with satisfaction or adjustment indices among adoptive parents and birth mothers. For birth fathers, however, it was positively associated with satisfaction ( r = .23, p < .05), showing that birth fathers reported higher satisfaction toward the adoption process when they had higher levels of control in deciding the levels of openness. Thus, this covariate was included in the birth fathers’ model in predicting their satisfaction with the adoption process.

Overview of Analyses

We first examined descriptive statistics of the study variables. We then reported bivariate correlations between the degrees of openness reported by three distinctive informants (i.e., adoptive fathers and mothers, and birth mothers) and their adjustment indices. Next, we performed a series of structural equation modeling to test whether openness in adoption was associated with post-placement adjustment of adoptive fathers, mothers, and birth mothers. As a subsidiary analysis, we examined bivariate correlations between openness in adoption and birth fathers’ post-adoption psychological adjustment. The analysis of the birth father sample was conducted separately from the above-mentioned analyses for adoptive parents and birth mothers due to the smaller sample size.

Descriptive and Correlational Analyses

Means and standard deviations of the study variables are presented in Table 1 . As shown in Table 1 , the means for openness were above 4.5 in a 7-point scale for all adoptive parties, showing that, on average, the sample perceived their adoption processes to be slightly open. Table 2 describes the frequency of this 7-point perceived openness scale. For all four parties, the modes and medians were 5 with slightly negatively skewed distributions (skewness = −.22, −.27, −.34, and −.50 for adoptive fathers, adoptive mothers, birth mothers, and birth fathers, respectively). These descriptive statistics indicate that the adoption practices in our sample were slightly skewed toward being more open. Only one adoptive mother, one birth mother, and seven birth fathers perceived their adoptions as “very closed.” Approximately 62% of adoptive fathers, 64% of adoptive mothers, 71% of birth mothers, and 57% of birth fathers perceived their adoptions to be “open” to “very open.” However, as evident from Table 2 , substantial variation in their responses was evident.

Means and Standard Deviations of the Study Variables

	Adoptive Father		Adoptive Mother		Birth Mother		Birth Father
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Measures of openness of adoption process
Openness of adoption process	4.60	1.31	4.69	1.30	5.06	1.32	4.50	1.54
Knowledge about birth mothers	16.27	2.66	16.52	2.69	--	--	--	--
Knowledge about birth fathers	10.24	4.27	10.37	4.35	--	--	--	--
Knowledge about adoptive mothers	--	--	--	--	14.01	3.91	12.52	4.84
Knowledge about adoptive fathers	--	--	--	--	13.97	4.00	12.44	4.57
Contact with birth mothers	12.16	3.09	12.48	3.14	--	--	--	--
Contact with birth fathers	7.73	2.56	7.71	2.49	--	--	--	--
Contact with adoptive parents	--	--	--	--	17.39	4.41	15.21	4.31

Satisfaction toward adoption process	15.77	2.57	15.18	2.67	13.89	2.76	12.96	3.37

Measures of post-adoption adjustment
Improved well-being after adopting the child	31.42	4.26	31.85	4.72	33.39	6.18	34.34	5.85
Post-adoption adjustment	31.89	4.40	33.31	5.05	--	--	--	--
Interviewer's impression of well-being	--	--	--	--	14.22	1.73	13.77	1.69

Note . n=323 for adoptive fathers, adoptive mothers, and birth mothers. n=112 for birth fathers.

Frequency in the Measure of Openness in Adoption Process by Informants

		Adoptive Father		Adoptive Mother		Birth Mother		Birth Father
	Scale	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
"very closed"	1	0	0.00	1	0.31	1	0.31	7	6.48
	2	21	6.54	16	4.97	10	3.11	5	4.63
	3	56	17.45	54	16.77	32	9.94	12	11.11
	4	44	13.71	43	13.35	50	15.53	22	20.37
	5	132	41.12	131	40.68	115	35.71	37	34.26
	6	44	13.71	50	15.53	60	18.63	15	13.89
"very open"	7	24	7.48	27	8.39	54	16.77	10	9.26
	missing	2		1		1		215

Table 3 presents correlations among the aggregated measure of openness, satisfaction with the adoption process, and post-adoption adjustment among adoptive parents and birth mothers. The correlations indicate that the degree of openness in the adoption process was significantly related to satisfaction with the adoption process. This pattern was consistent regardless of who reported satisfaction or openness. Interestingly, openness was not significantly associated with adoptive fathers’ post-adoption adjustment or improved well-being after adopting the child. For adoptive mothers, openness was modestly associated with improved wellbeing after adoption of the child. However, no significant association between openness and adoptive mothers’ post-adoption adjustment emerged. For birth mothers, openness was positively correlated with their post-adoption adjustment and interviewers’ impression of their well-being.

Zero-order Correlation Coefficients between Degree of Openness and Post-adoption Satsifaction and Adjustment

	Adoptive Father			Adoptive Mother			Birth Mother
Openness	Satisfaction	Adjustment	Improved Well-being	Satisfaction	Adjustment	Improved Well-being	Satisfaction	Adjustment	Positive Impression

Adoptive Father	0.16	0.07	0.04	0.20	0.05	0.11	0.14	0.19	0.15
Adoptive Mother	0.14	0.02	0.03	0.22	0.06	0.12	0.12	0.19	0.15
Birth Mother	0.12	0.07	0.05	0.14	0.06	0.09	0.31	0.21	0.13

N=323 matched adoptive families and birth mothers.

We also computed correlations among the observed variables that together formed a latent construct in subsequent structural equation modeling analyses (not shown). Two observed variables of adoptive parents’ post-adoption adjustment (i.e., adjustment after going through the adoption process and improved well-being after adopting the child) were highly correlated ( r s = .84 and .78 for adoptive fathers and adoptive mothers, respectively), suggesting that it is reasonable to form a latent construct from these two measures of adjustment. The correlations among the indices of openness reported by three different informants (i.e., adoptive fathers, adoptive mothers, and birth mothers) ranged from .66 to .81, showing a reasonable agreement. However, birth fathers’ report of openness did not produce such a high convergence with adoptive parents’ report of openness with birth fathers ( r s =.56 and .45, p < .01, with adoptive fathers’ and mothers’ report of openness, respectively). Given the smaller sample size of birth fathers and a moderate agreement between adoptive parents’ and their report of openness, we decided to conduct a separate, subsidiary analysis for birth fathers.

The Effect of Openness in Adoption on Adoptive Parents’ Post-Adoption Adjustment and Satisfaction

The hypothesis regarding the link between openness in adoption process and post-placement adjustment among birth and adoptive parents was tested using LISREL 8.72 ( Joreskog & Sorborm, 2005 ). The results of the structural equation models for both adoptive fathers and mothers are shown in Figure 1 . The coefficients presented in Figure 1 are based on standardized solutions. Although not shown in the figure, adoptive parents’ household income was controlled in the analyses. Adoptive parents’ income was not significantly associated with either their post-adoption adjustment or their satisfaction with adoption process. Additionally, for the adoptive mothers’ model, the presence of a biological child of their own in adoptive families, which was not significantly associated with outcomes, was also controlled. As shown in Figure 1 , openness reported by three independent reporters loaded significantly on a latent construct (λs = .72 to .91). The loadings of two indicators assessing adoptive parents’ post-adoption adjustment also were significant for both adoptive-father and adoptive-mother models (λs = .87 to .92).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms78439f1.jpg

Structural equation model of the link between openness in the adoption process and adoptive parents’ post-adoption adjustment.

Note . ** p<.01. + p<.10. Coefficients above denote loadings for adoptive fathers, and below for adoptive mothers. Although not shown, adoptive parents’ household income was controlled for both models and the presence of biological children for the adoptive mothers’ model.

As expected, a statistically significant path from openness to satisfaction emerged (βs = .16 and .23, p s<.01, for adoptive fathers and mothers, respectively), indicating that adoptive parents were more satisfied when there was more contact and communication with the birth mother. The coefficient for the path between openness and adoptive fathers’ post-adoption adjustment did not reach statistical significance. For the adoptive mother model, the association between openness and post-adoption adjustment was only marginally significant (β = .11, p <.10). The fit of two models was satisfactory, χ 2 (12) = 7.07, RMSEA=.00, GFI = .99, for adoptive fathers; χ 2 (18) = 15.30, RMSEA=.00, GFI = .99, for adoptive mothers.

The Effect of Openness on Birth Mothers’ Post-Adoption Adjustment and Satisfaction

The results for birth mothers are presented in Figure 2 . Although birth mothers’ income and educational level were controlled in these analyses, they are not included in the figure for the parsimony of graphical presentation. The paths from birth mothers’ income and education to three outcome variables were not statistically significant, except that birth mothers’ income was positively associated with interviewers’ impression of birth mothers’ well-being (β = .15, p <.01).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms78439f2.jpg

Structural equation model of the link between openness in the adoption process and birth mothers’ post-adoption adjustment.

Note . ** p<.01. Although not shown, birth mothers’ income and education were controlled.

Estimation of this model yielded a good fit to the data, χ 2 (12) = 38.12, RMSEA=.08, GFI = .97. Consistent with the results for adoptive parents, openness was positively and significantly associated with birth mothers’ satisfaction with adoption process (β = .18, p <.01). Also consistent with expectations, openness was positively associated with birth mothers’ post-adoption adjustment (β = .22, p <.01). The finding of an association between openness and adjustment was further strengthened by the significant path from openness and interviewers’ impression of birth mothers’ well-being (β = .16, p <.01). Taken together, these results suggest that birth mother’s post-adoption adjustment was enhanced when she kept in contact with adoptive parents.

A Subsidiary Analysis for Openness and Birth Fathers’ Adjustment

To supplement the findings for birth mothers, we examined the associations between birth fathers’ adjustment and openness in adoption. This analysis was conducted separately from other analyses because (a) there were only 112 participating birth fathers, as opposed to 323 birth mothers who were linked to the other members of adoption triads and (b) birth father-reported openness does not converge with that of other informants. Table 4 presents the correlations between the four indices of openness and birth fathers’ post-adoption adjustment. As mentioned earlier, because the preliminary analyses showed that the levels of choice/control birth fathers had in determining the degree of openness was positively associated with birth fathers’ satisfaction toward the adoption experience ( r = .23, p < .05), we included it as a covariate upon computing the coefficients for birth fathers’ satisfaction. The results indicated that birth father-report of openness was positively correlated with his satisfaction with the adoption process ( r = .41, p < .01) and post-adoption adjustment (r = .25, p<.01). However, this pattern of results was not apparent when adoptive parent-reports of openness were used. None of the openness indices was significantly associated with interviewers’ impression of birth fathers. Thus, the overall pattern of findings appeared to be quite different from that of birth mothers.

Correlation Coefficients between Degree of Openness and Birth Fathers' Post-adoption Satsifaction and Adjustment

	Birth Father
Openness	Satisfaction	Adjustment	Positive Impression

Adoptive Father	0.13	0.09	0.09
Adoptive Mother	0.02	0.14	0.06
Birth Father	0.41	0.25	0.01

N=112. The coefficients were computed based on pairwise deletion. Openness is a combination of three subscales (i.e., percieved openness, contact, and knowledge).

Recent advances in assisted reproductive technologies and the availability of adoption placements have expanded the definition of what it means to be a parent. For some, it means a newfound ability to rear a child from birth onward; for others, it means the gift of giving life to another through an adoption placement or through assisted reproductive technologies (e.g., embryo, egg, insemination donation, or surrogacy). However, despite varied routes to parenthood, little is known about how the ongoing relationship between rearing and biological parents relates to their own psychosocial adjustment. Using a sample of matched birth and adoptive parents, this study examined the relationship between levels of adoption openness and post-placement satisfaction and adjustment among them. The results that emerged from this study are fairly straightforward: For adoptive parents and birth mothers, the degree of openness in the adoption was significantly and positively associated with satisfaction with the adoption process shortly after the adoptive placement. Increased openness was also significantly related to better post-placement adjustment of birth mothers. The finding that birth mothers who were involved in more open adoptions had better post-placement adjustment outcomes was further strengthened by interviewers’ reports of their impression of birth mothers’ well-being.

These results are in contrast to some earlier claims that open adoption would increase distress among birth and adoptive parents (e.g., Blanton & Deschner, 1990 ; Kraft et al., 1985 ), but are consistent with more recent findings by Grotevant and McRoy’s (1998) that voluntary open adoption tends to reduce the stress for all parents involved in adoption process. Although straightforward, these results have significant implications to adoption practices and offer some important information about settling the controversy of open vs. closed adoption. Our findings provide a formal evaluation of open adoption practices, showing that satisfaction with the adoption process for adoptive and birth parents, and post-adoption well-being of birth mothers are indeed higher when adoption process is more open.

Consistent with Kirk’s (1964) expectation, this study shows the beneficial effect of a new form of relationship that was forged in open adoption. In this special relationship, birth and adoptive parents come together to have what Kirk (1964) called “shared fate” to the benefit of the parties involved. The results reported here also provide evidence for the strength of what Granovetter (1973) termed “weak ties” where adoptive and birth parents are linked through special interpersonal relationships established by open adoption. The benefits to birth mothers appear to arise from exchanges and contacts with adoptive parents that provide informal sources of social supports. Assurance, security, and knowledge about the birth parents and the adopted child gained through open contacts with birth parents appear to enhance the adoptive parents’ satisfaction.

The robust associations between openness and post-adoption adjustment among adoptive parents did not emerge, however. Openness was not associated with post-adoption adjustment for adoptive fathers, and only modestly with adoptive mothers. Quite possibly, the advantages and disadvantages for adoptive parents in open adoption might cancel each other out. For instance, results obtained from the interviews with adoption agency personnel ( Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ) and a community survey ( Miall & March, 2005b ) documented both advantages and disadvantages of open adoption for adoptive parents. The advantages included adoptive parents’ increased sense of entitlement to the adopted child, reduced fear of birth parents, benefits of knowing the medical and psychological background of the child. Disadvantages included adoptive parents’ feeling threatened by birth parents, the possible complexity and challenge created by contacts, and adoptive parents’ fear of interference by birth parents in raising the child. Indeed, McRoy and Grotevant (1988) reported that while adoptive parents in open adoption were, in general, satisfied with the amount of contact with the birth parent, adoptive parents in direct contact with birth mothers did express some concerns about the maturity of birth mothers and the amount of time and energy that contact with them demanded. Perhaps increased contact with birth parents also increases the demands for adoptive parents’ time and energy during a time when adoptive parents, many of whom are first time parents, are busy adapting to the parental role. Although adoptive parents in open adoption felt that openness was in the best interests of the children, 9-months post-placement may well be a highly challenging time for them. At this time, their adjustment and well-being may be more affected by how they adapt to their lives of raising the adopted child than by the degree of contact with birth mothers. Indeed, a recent report by Gross, Shaw, Burwell, & Nagin (in press) showed child effects on maternal depression during the first 18 months of life.

The methodological advances made in this study are noteworthy. First, this study has made a contribution to the assessment of openness construct by showing utility of a multi-informant strategy. The multi-informant assessment strategy turned out to be very informative. Unlike many multi-agent measures, a fairly high agreement in openness emerged across informants. Such high convergent validity increases confidence in the results reported here. Second, openness was measured on a continuum instead of using a tripartite categorization. As pointed out by Brodzinsky (2005) , continuous measures that including information sharing, contact, and communication should provide more fine-grained assessment of the subtle variation in the continuum of openness in adoption.

This study is among the first with a relatively large sample that includes both adoptive and birth parents linked through the adopted child to examine associations between openness and adjustment of birth and adoptive parents. A design that includes both birth mothers and birth fathers provides a more complete picture of the parties involved in the adoption processes. Previous research has tended to focus on adopted children and their adoptive parents ( Brodzinsky & Schechter, 1990 ; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998 ; Smith & Brodzinsky, 2002 ). Few studies have investigated the post-adoption adjustment of birth mothers who represent an important component of the “adoption triangle” ( Sorosky et al., 1978 ). Understanding variation in post-adoption adjustment among birth fathers as well as the divergent trajectories of health of this “hidden” population has special relevance to preventive intervention efforts targeted at this at-risk population.

Finally, the possible confound of length of time since adoption was minimized by assessing our participants at a fairly uniform point in time (approximately 6 months for birth parents and 9 months for adoptive parents) since placement. This advance is not trivial, as it is the case that post-placement adjustment varies with length of time since placement. Although collecting data in a narrow window of time is challenging, the efforts are worthwhile because it provides more rigorous inference about the association.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Some caveats of the present study must be noted. First of all, cross-sectional data that are collected shortly after adoptive placement (6 to 9 months) were used, which does not allow for a long-term investigation of the adjustment of birth and adoptive parents or the changing nature of openness over time. Because openness in adoption fluctuates with time as life circumstances and psychological state of both birth and adoptive families change ( Grotevant, Perry, & McRoy, 2005 ), future studies would benefit from considering the longitudinal effects and long-term trend of openness on birth and adoptive parent adjustment. Second, this study focused only on the post-placement adjustment of birth and adoptive parents. Future studies examining the effects of openness on adopted children would enhance our understanding of the total benefits associated with open adoption. Third, although the contribution of birth fathers is not trivial, the smaller sample size posed analytical challenges and prevented the full evaluation of the study hypotheses. Fourth, although there is substantial variation in the degree of openness, the current sample had relatively open adoption experiences. Quite possibly, adoptive and birth parents who selected more open adoption practices would feel more satisfied with greater openness in adoption. This possibility should be considered when interpreting the results reported in this paper and planning future research studies. Fifth, as with many other studies, the presence of selection bias cannot be entirely eliminated. Although we examined a set of adoptive and birth parents’ characteristics that could potentially bias the levels of openness and satisfaction, it is still possible that some potential confounds were overlooked. The results should be view as preliminary before rigorous randomized trials are conducted. Sixth, birth and adoptive parents usually entered the adoption process with certain expectations about openness. It is likely that whether their expectations about openness were met or violated would affect their levels of satisfaction. Future research is likely to benefit from addressing whether a match or mismatch between their expected openness and actual openness accounts for the link between openness and satisfaction. Finally, readers are reminded that the magunitude of the standardized coefficients were small. It should be emphasized, however, that because of complexity in human behaviors and emotions, effects size are necessarily small in outcomes with multiple determinants ( Ahadi & Diener, 1989 ). Nevertheless, given the methodological strengths such as use of multiple measures and infomants for both predictors and criterion variables, the significant findings raise our confidence in the results.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by grant 5-R01-HD 042608 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (David Reiss, MD, PI). Writing of this manuscript was partially supported by the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota and by the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science of University of California, Davis. We would like to thank the birth and adoptive parents who participated in this study and the adoption agencies who help with our recruitment of the participants. Thanks also are due to Rand D. Conger who is part of the investigative team. Special thanks to Katie R. Schilling for her thorough review of the literature on birth mothers.

Ahadi S, Diener E. Multiple determinants and effect size. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. 1989; 56 :398–406. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baran A, Pannor R, Sorosky AD. Open adoption. Social Work. 1976; 21 (2):97–100. [ Google Scholar ]
Baumann C. Adoptive fathers and birthfathers: A study of attitudes. Child and Adolescent Social Work. 1999; 16 :373–391. [ Google Scholar ]
Berry M. Adoptive parents perceptions of, andcomfort with open adoption. Child Welfare. 1993; 72 :231–253. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Berry M, Dylla DJC, Barth RP, Needell B. The role of open adoption in the adjustment of adopted children and their families. Children and Youth Services Review. 1998; 20 :151–171. [ Google Scholar ]
Blanton TL, Deschner J. Biological mothers grief: The postadoptive experience in open versus confidential adoption. Child Welfare. 1990; 69 :525–535. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brodzinsky DM. Reconceptualizing openness in adoption: Implications for theory, research, and practice. In: Brodzinsky DM, Palacios J, editors. Psychological issues in adoption. Westport, CT: Praeger; 2005. pp. 145–166. [ Google Scholar ]
Brodzinsky DM, Schechter MD. The psychology of adoption. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
Bussiere A. The development of adoption law. Adoption Quarterly. 1998; 1 :3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
Campbell LH, Silverman PR, Patti PB. Reunions between adoptees and birth parents: The adoptees experience. Social Work. 1991; 36 :329–335. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Clapton G. Birth fathers and their adoption experiences. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingley Publishers; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
DeSimone M. Birth mother loss: Contributing factors to unresolved grief. Clinical Social Work Journal. 1996; 24 :65–76. [ Google Scholar ]
Deykin EY, Patti PB, Ryan J. Fathers of adopted children: A study of the impact of child surrender on birth fathers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1988; 58 :240–248. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fravel DL, McRoy RG, Grotevant HD. Birthmother perceptions of the psychologically present adopted child: Adoption openness and boundary ambiguity. Family Relations. 2000; 49 :452–433. [ Google Scholar ]
Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology. 1973; 78 :1360–1380. [ Google Scholar ]
Gross H, Shaw DS, Burwell RA, Nagin DS. Transactional processes in child disruptive behavior and maternal depression: A longitudinal study from early childhood to adolescence. Development and Psychopathology. (in press). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grotevant HD, McRoy RG. Openness in adoption: Exploring family connections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Grotevant HD, McRoy RG, Elde CL, Fravel DL. Adoptive family system dynamics: Variations by level of openness in the adoption. Family Process. 1994; 33 :125–146. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grotevant HD, Perry YV, McRoy RG. Openness in adoption: Outcomes for adolescents within their adoptive kinship networks. In: Brodzinsky DM, Palacios J, editors. Psychological issues in adoption: Research and practice. Westport, CT: Praeger; 2005. pp. 167–186. [ Google Scholar ]
Groth M, Bonnardel D, Davis DA, Martin JC, Vousden HE. An agency moves toward open adoption of infants. Child Welfare. 1987; 66 :247–257. [ Google Scholar ]
Hollenstein T, Leve LD, Scaramella L, Milfort R, Neiderhiser JM. Openness in adoption, knowledge of birthparent information, and adoptive family adjustment. Adoption Quarterly. 2003; 7 :43–52. [ Google Scholar ]
Joreskog K, Sorborm J. LISREL (Version 8.72) Scientific Software International, Inc.; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Kirk HD. Shared fate: A theory of adoption and mental health. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
Kraft AD, Palombo J, Woods PK, Mitchell D, Schmidt AW. Some theoretical considerations on confidential adoptions, Part I: The birth mother. Child and Adolescent Social Work. 1985; 1 :13–21. [ Google Scholar ]
Kreider RM. Adopted children and stepchildren 2000: Census 2000 special reports (No. CENSR-GRV) U.S. Census Bureau; 2003.
Lancette J, McClure BA. Birthmothers: Grieving the loss of a dream. Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 1992; 14 :84–96. [ Google Scholar ]
Leve LD, Neiderhiser JM, Ge X, Scaramella L, Conger RD, Reid JB, et al. The Early Growth and Development Study: A prospective adoption design. Twin Research and Human Genetics. 2007; 10 :84–95. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Logan J. Birth mothers and their mental health: Uncharted territory. British Journal of Social Work. 1996; 26 :609–625. [ Google Scholar ]
March K. Perception of adoption as social stigma: Motivation for search and reunion. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1995; 57 :653–660. [ Google Scholar ]
McRoy RG, Grotevant HD, White KL. Openness in adoption: New practices, new issues. New York: Praeger; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
Messer B, Harter S. Manual for the adult self-perception profile. Denver, CO: University of Denver; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
Miall CE, March K. Community attitudes toward birth fathers' motives for adoption placement and single parenting. Family Relations. 2005a; 54 :535–546. [ Google Scholar ]
Miall CE, March K. Open adoption as a family form: Community assessments and social support. Journal of Family Issues. 2005b; 26 :380–410. [ Google Scholar ]
Pannor R, Baran A. Open adoption as standard practice. Child Welfare. 1984; 63 :245–250. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Reitz M, Watson KW. Adoption and the family system: Strategies for treatment. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
Sachdev P. The birth father: A neglected element in the adoptin equation. Families in Society. 1991; 72 :131–138. [ Google Scholar ]
Siegel DH. Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents' feelings seven years later. Social Work. 2003; 48 :409–419. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Silverman PR, Campbell LH, Patti PB, Style CB. Reunions between adoptees and birth parents: The birth parents' experience. Social Work. 1988; 33 :523–528. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Silverstein DR, Demick J. Toward an organizational-relational model of open adoption. Family Process. 1994; 33 :111–124. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smith DW, Brodzinsky DM. Coping with birthparent loss in adopted children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2002; 43 :213–223. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sorosky AD, Baran A, Pannor R. The adoption triangle: The effects of the sealed record on adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
Von Korff L, Grotevant HD, McRoy RG. Openness arrangements and psychological adjustment in adolescent adoptees. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 :531–534. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Weinrott MR, Reid JB, Bauske BW, Brummett B. Supplementing naturalistic observations with observer impressions. Behavioral Assessment. 1981; 3 :151–159. [ Google Scholar ]
Wrobel GM, Ayers-Lopez S, Grotevant HD, McRoy RG, Friedrick M. Openness in adoption and the level of child participation. Child Development. 1996; 67 :2358–2374. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Creating a Family

Supporting Adoptive, Foster, & Kinship Families

Open Adoption

Approximately ninety-five percent of domestic infant adoptions in the US have some degree of openness with varying levels of ongoing connections between adoptive families and their children’s birth families. Although less common, it is also possible to have an open adoption in foster care adoptions and international adoptions.

In the vast majority of domestic infant adoptions, the adoptive and expectant parents considering adoption meet each other, and the expectant parents pick the new family for their baby. In many infant adoptions, openness continues on some level once the adoption is finalized. The level of openness varies from sending letters and pictures through an adoption agency, to online connections via Facebook, to periodic phone calls and texts, to scheduled visits. It is important that both the expectant and adoptive parents are informed of their options for open adoption before they are matched, and that both parents find the right level of openness going forward.

Openness in adoption has evolved over the last 25 years because of the input from adult adoptees and research by mental health professionals. Longitudinal adoption research has shown that open adoption is better for adoptees, adoptive parents, and birth parents.

Approximately two-thirds of domestic infant adoptions in the US involve some level of ongoing contact between the adoptive family and birth family. Adoption agencies report that of their domestic infant adoptions in the last several years:

55% had identifying and contact information fully shared between birth and adoptive families
40 % had contact mediated by the adoption agency
5% were closed adoptions (confidential adoptions)

The main reason to consider open adoption is that research shows it is better for the kids. It does not hurt that it is also better for both the adoptive and birth parents. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute report, Openness in Adoption, found that:

Most participants in open adoptions report positive experiences, and greater openness is associated with greater satisfaction with the adoption process (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Grotevant, Perry, & McRoy, 2005; Ge, et al., 2008).
Birthmothers who have ongoing contact with their children report less grief, regret, and worry, as well as more peace of mind, than do those who do not have contact (Cushman, Kalmuss & Namerow, 1997; Henney, Ayers-Lopez, McRoy & Grotevant, 2007).
The primary benefit of openness is access by adopted persons – as children and continuing later in life – to birth relatives, as well as to their own medical, genealogical and family histories. Adolescents with ongoing contact are more satisfied with the level of openness in their own adoptions than are those without such contact, and they identify the following benefits: coming to terms with the reasons for their adoption, physical touchstones to identify where personal traits came from, information that aids in identity formation, positive feelings toward birthmother, and others. Youth in open adoptions also have a better understanding of the meaning of adoption and more active communication about adoption with their adoptive parents (Berge, et al., 2006; Grotevant, et al., 2007; Wrobel, et al., 1996 & 1998).
Adoptive parents as a group report positive experiences with open adoptions and high levels of comfort with contact. For them, greater openness is linked with reduced fear of and greater empathy toward birth parents, more open communication with their children about adoption, and other benefits in their relationships with their adopted children (Berry, et al., 1998; Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Grotevant, Perry, & McRoy, 2005; Grotevant, et al., 1994; Siegel, 2008).

No. The adoptive parents are the parents and will make the decisions about raising the child.

Many people at the beginning of their adoption journey have never heard of or considered open adoption and thus are often wary. It is very important that both adoptive and expectant parents become educated on open adoption and their options for creating an ongoing relationship that will work for all parties in the child’s best interest.

Sources: Creating a Family radio shows below; www.adoptioninstitute.org

I Really Don’t Want an Open Adoption! – Weekend Wisdom

What you need to know about open adoption, birth parent experiences in adoption, talking with children about adoption at different ages, podcasts on open adoption, our #1 secret tip for navigating open adoption, open adoption and the holidays, how do you manage relationships with birth parents with substance use disorders, 5 tips for navigating sticky situations with birth parents, resources on open adoption, articles & tipsheets, on-demand courses, suggested books.

Free Courses

Expert-Based Training for Parents & Professionals

Open vs. Closed Adoptions: A Post Adoption Mental Health Perspective

Thank you very much to the BPAR clients who shared their stories anonymously so we could illustrate this important topic.

Throughout it all, access to education, support and post adoption services are key to helping families navigate the unique issues around birth family contact that might arise throughout their lives.

BPAR’s Experience with Open and Closed Adoptions

Mental health clinicians at BPAR work with all members of the adoption triad. Some of the people we work with have had open adoptions, some have had closed adoptions and decided as adults to search for birth family members, and some have decided not to search at all. Each story is unique. Throughout their lives, children and adult adoptees grapple with questions about their birth family origins and identities. They wonder about who they might have inherited their singing voices from, they wonder about their blue eyes or about their medical histories. They wonder why their birth parents decided to make an adoption plan for them. Micky Duxbury writes in her book, Making Room in Our Hearts (p.2) , “In order to know who you are, you need to know something about where you came from; in order to move into the future, you have to be able to claim your past.” Many adult adoptees have spoken to us about difficulties they experienced as children when their birth family and adoption story was not acknowledged or discussed in the home. They felt as if their adoptions were a shameful secret that they could not talk about, and they sometimes felt disloyal if they were curious about or wished to meet their birth families. They struggled with wanting to honor their adoptive parents but also wanting to know about their past and meet their birth families.

Adoptive dads Zhang and Michael adopted their now 10-year-old son, Sam, at birth (names and identifying information have been changed). The adoption plan allows for 2 visits with the birth family each year. Zhang and Michael report that birth family visits have been “on the whole very positive,” in spite of the ups and downs. They feel that Sam’s birth family contact has allowed their son to “learn who he is and have his questions answered.” They anticipate that Sam will have more questions as he grows, and on-going contact will help answer these questions. They add, “This is preferable to the alternative – to never hear from them again. We are glad that we have this model. It seems more fair to Sam.”

Christina, 22, was adopted from foster care when she was around four months old. At the time, her adoptive family was living in the Midwest, close to Christina’s birth parents, who were in their early 20’s when she was born. Christina had frequent visits with her birth parents, as often as every other week, when she was an infant. Later, when Christina was around three and the family moved to the East Coast, she and her parents flew to visit birth family members around once a year. She speaks positively of her open adoption, but adds that it was not without its challenges. Her birth family has a long history of adoption (including her birth mother, who was adopted from China) as well as substance abuse, and she has not always had direct contact with her birth father, who has been in and out of jail. Christina states, “Being adopted in general is so challenging, there is so much to unpack. If I had needed to wait until I was 18 to meet my birth family and find out all the crazy, it would have been way too much at once!” Christina learned more information as she grew older, and her adoptive parents were very supportive, helping her navigate the ups and the downs, and helping her to make sense of new information. She says, “It would have been harder if they were hesitant. They were always unwavering and supportive. That helped me not feel guilty about wanting a relationship with my birth family.” One of the hardest parts about birth family contact for Christina has occurred more recently. She feels that since she is now over 18, she would like to navigate the birth family contact with less help from her adoptive family. “I have been shifting from relying on my parents to making more of my own choices. I am the decision maker.” One of the most difficult things that Christina has grappled with has been “survivors guilt.” She sees how her biological brothers, who grew up with her birth mother, have not had the same life as she has, and she struggles with guilty feelings around this.

Although there needs to be more research addressing adoption in general and open vs. closed adoptions in particular, the current research does shed some light on the shift toward more open adoptions. In the past, it was felt that a closed adoption would lessen the amount of shame the adoptee might feel. Some of this sentiment was based on the misconception that unwed mothers were somehow shameful or scandalous (Martha et. al., 2 009). As a result of this secrecy, however, the children were not able to understand their story or where they come from. Zhang and Michael addressed this notion when they spoke with me: Their open relationship with Sam’s birth family “sends the message that there is nothing to be ashamed of.”

Susan, 55, was adopted in 1964 when most adoptions were closed. She states that her adoptive parents preferred this closed model because “they wanted to pretend I was their birth daughter.” Her family’s tendency toward silence and secrecy felt very powerful throughout her childhood. Susan feels that her parents felt shame due to their infertility, and the family never talked about the adoption as she grew up. At the same time, other people did know about this “secret,” and Susan remembers being teased about her adoption by her cousins growing up. “I always felt isolated, as if I did not belong.” This culture of secrecy was so powerful that even the nuns illegally changed Susan’s paperwork at the time of her adoption, adding misinformation to her records. As an adult, Susan realizes how impactful it would have been if her family had not tried to hide the truth about her adoption. She recommends that “the whole family have an open dialogue about adoption. The more you talk about it, the more confident you are with it. It helps you become really comfortable with your story.” Ben, a 29-year-old adoptee interviewed for Micky Duxbury’s book Making Room in Our Hearts (p.16), comments, “If I knew who my birth mother was, I could have stopped the fantasizing and wondering….I could have just asked her those questions instead of just having them bounce around in my head for all those years.”

Research on the Lifelong Impact of Open Adoption

The Donaldson Institute published a study in 2012 entitled “Openness in Adoption: From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections.” The authors estimate that in 2012, only about 5% of domestic adoptions were closed adoptions. The rest were considered open adoptions in that the adoptive family had some level of ongoing relationship with birth family members. This interaction could entail email contact, sending yearly pictures and updates, or visits. The authors note that, in most infant adoptions, the birth mother picks the new family for her baby. In fact, in infant adoptions, it is becoming more common for adoptive parents to meet the birth mother prior to or during the birth. For the adoptive parents, “more openness is…associated with greater satisfaction with the adoption process.” In addition, birth mothers who have ongoing contact with their children “report less grief, regret and worry, as well as more peace of mind.”

Adoptive parents sometimes worry about birth family contact, and they might fear that birth family members might try to reclaim their child. However, our clinical experience has been that open adoptions often dissipate these fears and provide a place for the child to better understand the reasons for the adoption and their own history. Research has found that openness has resulted in less fear on behalf of the adoptive parent, greater empathy for the birth parents, and stronger communication between the adoptive parents and their child. Zhang and Michael state: “Watching Sam develop a relationship with his birth mother and father, seeing how much he enjoys seeing them, that has been powerful for all of us.” They have wondered if Sam’s birth parents might feel some sadness that they are not parenting Sam, but they feel this is offset by the possibility that “they could conceivably have a lifelong relationship with him.” They add, “It is always clear that they love him, and they seem to feel happy he’s thriving.” Susan knows that sometimes adoptive parents worry that their children will “like their birth parent more than them.” But, she points out, “A parent can love more than one child; why can’t a child love more than one parent?” Christina adds, “At the end of the day, my parents knew they weren’t going anywhere. They told me, ‘We believe you have a big enough heart to love all four of us’.”

Research suggests that adolescents who have ongoing contact with birth family members are more satisfied with their adoption than those who have no contact. As teens begin to grapple with identity issues and wonder about their histories, contact with birth family members allows them to better understand their stories, including the reasons for their adoption. Christina states it has also been helpful to be able to ask her birth mother questions about their family history. For example, when Christina was struggling with anxiety and depression and considering medication, it was helpful to talk to her birth mother about her own history of anxiety and depression and which medications worked for her. A 2006 study published in Child Welfare , “Adolescents’ Feelings about Openness in Adoption: Implications for Adoption Agencies,” interviewed 152 adolescents and found that those who had ongoing contact with their birth parents were more satisfied with their adoptions than those that had no contact. The growing use by teens of social media and the internet as well as the rise in DNA testing have drastically changed the landscape of birth family contact. The majority of teens have access to the internet and use a social networking site. Some of these teens might search for birth family members without accessing the support or help of their adoptive families or professionals. Susan remembers sneaking into her parents’ bedroom when they were out and looking at her adoption records. She had no one to talk with about what she saw in these records due to the atmosphere of secrecy in her home.

Challenges and Benefits of Open Adoptions

There are many challenges to open adoptions. A birth parent may disappear for a while with no explanation. They might not follow through with the visitation plans. There are many possible reasons for this withdrawal, including relapse, incarceration, shame and sadness. There are also cases where openness is not appropriate. Christina’s birth father, who she describes as having very poor boundaries around their contact, kept trying to meet her while in and out of jail, and her parents needed to set strict boundaries and at times limit or stop contact until it was appropriate for Christina. Through it all, it is helpful to remember the goal of this contact: meeting the needs of the child. Helping the child process his or her feelings about these meetings and changes in their frequency is essential. It is important to remember that everyone involved has their own journey, with its ups and downs. People change over the years, and children’s developmental needs evolve. Feelings of loss, grief and identity concerns can be persistent. Susan remembers that she was always a bit immature for her age, and she struggled with social skills. “I always felt there was something wrong with me.” She recognizes that her birth family’s circumstances might not have been appropriate for regular visitation, however she feels that some type of contact would have been helpful. Though it might have been best to limit contact to letters, she feels those would have been helpful to answer some of her questions. She recommends “giving children their story from the beginning.” Every story is different, and as we’ve demonstrated in our book Adoption Is a Lifelong Journey , children can be given more information as they grow.

Zhang and Michael spoke about the challenges of open adoption as well as the benefits. They think it is important to “be honest with yourself about your emotions. Not all visits will feel positive and that’s OK.” They remember feeling “a bit threatened” during the early visits, and it took some time to become really comfortable. They had to remind themselves, “These are his birth parents, they love him and want to be in his life.” They recommend keeping the “big picture” in mind and remembering, “This is not about you. It’s only about the child.” They stress the importance of seeking help and support to get through the more difficult times. Zhang and Michael have felt that the support they have received through BPAR has been invaluable as they navigate their son’s adoption journey. They have found it especially therapeutic to talk with other adoptive parents through the parent group at BPAR .

Conclusions About How to Navigate an Open Adoption

So what is the best way to navigate an open adoption? It is helpful to see birth family contact as a “continuum of choices about the amount of contact and shared information between the child and birth family.” (CASE webinar, Navigating Relationships in Open Adoption). Adults can provide new information about birth family over different developmental stages. The relationship and the variables can unfold over time, as more trust develops. Remember that the plan for family contact can change as the child grows or birth family circumstances shift, and the primary focus is managing this process with the best interests of the child in mind.

Written by Erica Kramer, MSW Boston Post Adoption Resources

Berge, Jerica, Mendenhall, Tai J., Wrobel, Gretchen M., Grotevant, Harold D. and McRoy, Ruth G. 2006. Adolescents’ Feelings about Openness in Adoption: Implications for Adoption Agencies.

Duxbury, Micky. Making Room in Our Hearts . Routledge, 2006.

Henry, Martha and Pollack, Daniel. Adoption in the United States: A Reference for Families, Professionals and Students . Oxford University Press, 2009

Siegel, Deborah H., Smith, Susan Livingston. Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Openness in Adoption From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections. March, 2012 https://www.adoptioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2012_03_OpennessInAdoption.pdf .

Singer, Ellen. C.A.S.E. webinar Navigating Relationships in Open Adoption . July, 2019.

About Erica Kramer, MSW

Erica Kramer, MSW, is the former Operations and Intake Director at Boston Post Adoption Resources.

Adoptive Families

Building Your Family – The Infertility and Adoption Guide

Join Archives Adoption Guide State Laws Directory September 6, 2024

Understanding open adoption, open adoption can mean different things for different families. parents should consider their child's needs when deciding on an open adoption..

Living with Openness

A family in an open adoption waits for the arrival of the birth mother

When California residents Kim and Carl Felder adopted their son, Robbie, they got to know his birth mother, Tony, very well. The relationship grew so close, in fact, that Tony lived with the Felders for a while before Robbie was born.

But when Robbie was about three years old, Kim recalls, “Tony literally disappeared. And it just about crushed me.” Kim wondered where Tony was and whether she was alright.

Robbie, too, wondered aloud why his birth mother didn’t call or write. Tony did resurface a few years later, and Robbie spoke to her on the phone. He asked her to write, but no letter ever came.

[Free Webinar: Openness in Adoption—From Fearful to Fearless]

“The sad part was that Tony didn’t follow through,” Kim says. “Every day we went to the mailbox.”

Eventually, she had to put her arms around her then seven-year-old son and explain that some things were hard for Tony to do, that this was why she looked to Kim and Carl to be his “everyday” parents. “He cried and cried, and it was very sad,” she said. “But that is the reality of our life.”

The empty mailbox is just one example of the challenges that families in open adoptions may face. In recent years, we have embraced the concept of open adoption with gusto — yet the journey, for some, has proved to be unexpectedly bumpy. Lack of support, a sudden change in the life of either the adoptive or biological family, logistical pressures — all can complicate matters. Add to that the emotionally charged issues at stake-parenthood, power, identity — and open adoption can make for some combustible family dynamics.

To be sure, open adoption gets rave reviews from the many social workers and families who champion it. Since the mid-1970s, open adoptions have been widely accepted as more compassionate and enlightened than the secretive adoptions of a previous generation. Indeed, the confidentiality that once defined adoption is no longer the norm. While international adoptions remain mostly closed, as do many public agency adoptions, domestic adoptions increasingly involve contact between adoptive parents and birth parents.

The good news is that recent research debunks many of the myths that once stigmatized openness. Children in open adoptions have no confusion as to who their parents are, and birth mothers do not have trouble moving on.

[10 Ways to Build Trust with Prospective Birth Parents]

If anything, openness appears to help kids understand adoption; relieve the fears of adoptive parents; and help birth mothers resolve their grief, according to researchers Harold D. Grotevant and Ruth G. McRoy. “Many of the fears about open adoption do not seem to be a problem,” said Grotevant, a professor at the University of Minnesota and co-author with McRoy of Openness in Adoption: Exploring Family Connections.

Grotevant, however, sounded a note of caution to those who portray it as a panacea. The children of open adoption do not have higher self-esteem than those in closed adoptions, he observed. For children in each group, self-esteem is about the same, his research found. He stressed that more research is needed to assess the impact of open adoption on adolescents. (The research he did with McRoy studies children up to age 12.)

Degrees of Openness

For many families, open adoption remains controversial and misunderstood. Even among experts, definitions of “open adoption” vary wildly. In its simplest sense, an open adoption is one in which the adopting parents and the birth mother (and possibly the birth father) have some form of contact, directly or through an agency or lawyer.

At one extreme are the families who exchange letters and pictures but have never met. At the other are the children whose adoptive and birth families socialize at least once a month or more.

[Free Download: Infertility and Adoption Guide]

Most open adoptions lie somewhere in the middle, according to Grotevant and McRoy, exchanging letters, pictures, and phone calls, and having face-to-face meetings once or twice a year. Whatever their situation, many families report that relatives and friends condemn openness, and voice fears that the arrangement will make the birth parent want the child back.

“The challenge we have is getting the media and people outside our immediate family to understand that open adoption is the best choice we’ve ever made,” said Jill Dillon, a resident of southern Oregon, whose daughter, Carly, is eight years old. “We feel that it’s a healthy, safe way for our child to grow up, knowing her birth family and her ‘real’ family, as we think of ourselves.”

Carly’s father, Doyle, knows about closed adoption firsthand: he was adopted and didn’t find his birth parents until he was 33. “He certainly wanted Carly to know more about her background than he did,” said Jill.

Carly talks on the phone with her birth mother, exchanges pictures and letters, and sees her about three or four times a year. She has also had several visits with her birth father. Last summer, Carly was a flower girl in her birth mother’s wedding.

Challenges for Children

For children in open adoptions, the toughest challenge may come when a birth parent who’s been visiting or calling suddenly vanishes or drifts away. The trigger can be a move to a new job, a marriage, or a personal problem, such as drugs or alcohol. In some cases, a birth mother may not feel worthy of contact, or she may get the message from the adoptive parents that she’s not welcome.

Laura Miller, of Long Beach, California, was committed to an open adoption for her now 13-year-old son, in part because she had seen her adopted brother suffer from lack of knowledge. But Miller has had to work hard to keep her son’s birth mother in their lives.

“Although I’m very open, [his birth mother] drops into and out of our lives as she needs to,” Miller said. After one long absence, when her son was nine years old, she paid for his birth mother to fly from Colorado to California and stay with them for ten days. Miller doesn’t give up, she said, “because I think we need to honor the pieces that we didn’t provide in the makeup of the child.”

Experts say that some social workers initially pushed open adoption as a benefit to birth mothers. This turned out to be a mistake.

“A lot of birth parents went into it thinking it was a privilege to them,” said Brenda Romanchik, executive director of Insight: Open Adoption Resources and Support, an adoption education and support organization in Royal Oak, Michigan. “So when things got tough, they thought, this isn’t working for me, so I’m going to leave. They didn’t take the child into account.”

Occasionally birth parents experiencing shame or sadness just have to retreat for a while. In rare cases, when safety is an issue, adoptive families may have to cut off contact. A child whose biological parent disappears experiences a double whammy. He wonders why he was placed to begin with, then feels rejected again because a birth mother no longer visits.

“Children occasionally have some pain when the birth parents opt out,” acknowledged Sharon Kaplan Roszia, who, with Lois Melina, authored The Open Adoption Experience. “I have to remind parents when that happens, that, as long as their door is open, they are practicing open adoption.”

Adoptive families who have lost touch with a birth parent should establish contact with other members of the child’s biological family if they can, such as birth grandparents, Roszia suggested.

In the early days of open adoption, Roszia noted, the conventional wisdom was that adoptive parents would be the ones to drift away. That has not turned out to be the case. “I think the people who have disappeared most often have been the families of origin.” she said.

Roszia and other professionals advise families to be flexible, to recognize that all family relationships change over time. What worked for a child at infancy may not work when that child starts school or enters the middle years.

“When kids begin to understand reproduction, they may become sad to realize that their adoptive mother is not the one who gave birth to them,” said Romanchik. It’s important for adoptive parents to validate those feelings, she noted, without anxiety that they are somehow betraying the birth mother.

Parents may also wonder how to react when kids start voicing their preferences regarding birth parent contact. Letting a young child call the shots in an open adoption is probably a bad idea. (After all, small children don’t get to decide when to visit grandparents or other relatives.) But a child of 12 may be ready to make some decisions about whether or when to meet with birth parents. “The older a child gets, the larger the role they should have,” Grotevant advised.

Things can also get tricky if a child’s adoptive and biological parents have different values or expectations. Karen Chavoie had to bite her tongue recently when her 13-year-old daughter, Kendall, came back from a shopping trip with her birth mother, Stefani.

“Some of the things they came back with, I really didn’t agree with,” said Chavoie, who lives in Portland, Oregon. “I felt they were a bit too grown-up for Kendall.”

A generation gap played a role. Chavoie is 47, her husband, Rob Holliday, is 45, while Stefani is 28. (She gave birth to Kendall at age 15.) As do many adoptive parents, Chavoie and Holliday took on something of a parental role with their daughter’s birth mother. This was not always easy, Chavoie acknowledged.

“If you have a certain amount of closeness with your child’s birth parents, you’re going to fall into their lives,” Chavoie said. “And it becomes a matter of stepping back and letting them make their choices.”

If adoptive parents end up “parenting” a birth mother, too, she may eventually push them away, and this could hurt the child. Conversely, it may not be appropriate for adoptive parents to confide to a birth mother about how their child is grappling with adoption.

Putting the Children First

Most importantly, experts say, biological and adoptive parents must remember that open adoption is about meeting the needs of children, not adults. Openness does not simply wipe away the feelings of grief, fear, or insecurity that can swirl around an adoptive placement.

“It removes the mystery, but it doesn’t remove the grief,” said Claude Riedel, a psychologist and family therapist who co-directs the Adoptive Family Counseling Center in Minnesota. “The reality is that, at certain stages, it’s normal to have questions: why did you choose not to parent me, not to keep me? And there may be complexities: have you kept your other children, but not me?”

Now that the first open-adoption generation is under way, social workers are becoming more aware of the role of siblings in these arrangements. An adoptive child’s relationships with biological siblings need to be taken into account. And two children adopted into the same family may have different degrees of openness with their birth mothers. Openness may also affect decisions about family size.

Sue and Dean Heinzman, who live in Maryland, are huge fans of their son’s birth mother, Carly. The Heinzmans and their son, Ben, now three, socialize regularly with Carly and her extended family. Yet that very closeness has made a second domestic adoption seem daunting to them.

“I couldn’t be involved with another family,” Sue says. “I just can’t add umpteen more people in my life.” At the same time, the Heinzmans are thrilled to have hit it off so well with their son’s birth mother. “I love this open adoption,” she said. “I love Carly.”

Sue Heinzman’s enthusiasm for openness was echoed by virtually every family interviewed for this story. Even Kim Felder, whose empty mailbox made her son so sad, would not have it any other way. Robbie is one of four children adopted by the Felders since 1987, all of them involved some form of openness. And Kim knows the pain of closed adoption firsthand: she placed her son, Jim, for adoption 24 years ago, reuniting with him when he was 18.

“My kids are of all different races and religious backgrounds, and it has been awesome to have that resource in our family,” said Kim. “It gives them a sense of their history, their ethnicity, and of who they are.”

Everything you need to know about the adoption process, delivered monthly to your inbox.

Ask AF: Letting a Preteen Take the Lead in a Birth Parent Relationship

author Lynn Sollitto with her children's birth mother

“A New Path in Our Adoption Journey”

“Sliding Doors”

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Open adoption: adoptive parents' reactions two decades later

Affiliation.

1 School of Social Work, Rhode Island College, Providence, RI, USA. [email protected]
PMID: 23409339
DOI: 10.1093/sw/sws053

Unlike in the past, most adoption agencies today offer birth parents and adoptive parents the opportunity to share identifying information and have contact with each other. To understand the impacts of different open adoption arrangements, a qualitative descriptive study using a snowball sample of 44 adoptive parents throughout New England began in 1988. Every seven years these parents who adopted infants in open adoptions have participated in tape-recorded interviews to explore their evolving reactions to their open adoption experiences. This article reports the results of in-depth interviews with these parents now that their children have reached young adulthood. This longitudinal research illuminates how open adoptions change over the course of childhood and adolescence, parents' feelings about open adoption, challenges that emerge in their relationships with their children's birth families, how those challenges are managed and viewed, and parents' advice for others living with open adoption and for clinical social work practice and policy. Findings reveal that regardless of the type of openness, these adoptive parents generally feel positive about knowing the birth parents and having contact with them, are comfortable with open adoption, and see it serving the child's best interests.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Silverchair Information Systems

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

[email protected]

Jan 15, 2018
15 min read

Literature Review of the Impact of Open Adoption on the Adoptee

This is a literature review of the empirical research on the impact of openness in adoption on adoptees placed in voluntary infant adoption. The review covers the research from 1990 to 2009, and concludes the empirical evidence shows that adoptees in open adoptions have better psychosocial outcomes than adoptees in semi-open and closed adoptions.

Keywords: open adoption, adoption, adoptees, infant adoption

A Literature Review of the Empirical Research on the

Impact of Openness in Adoption on Adoptees

This is a critical literature review of the empirical research about the impact of openness in adoption on adoptees placed in voluntary adoptions as infants. The most recent comprehensive literature review on this topic completed in 2001, covered research from 1990 to 1999 (Haugaard, Moed & West). Since then there are new findings from ongoing longitudinal research as well as a cross sectional study that add significantly to the knowledge base on this topic, and clarify some of the tentative findings in earlier research. This literature review covers the research from 1990 to 2009.

Secrecy in adoption is a relatively recent practice in the United States. Until the early 1900s, there was both informal adoption and legal adoption, but all of the records were public. At the turn of the century, however, there were many indigent children in need of homes and few willing adoptive parents. Potential adoptive parents feared the children would inherit criminal behavior or sexual promiscuity or a proclivity for poverty from their birth parents. To encourage adoption social workers launched a concerted effort to seal birth records including legislation to enforce this secrecy. By the 1950s, this was the law in almost every state in the country (Silber & Speedlin, 1998).

This began to change in the late 1970s and early 1980s as advocates for open adoption, including both social workers, adoptees, birthparents and adoptive parents, claimed secrecy was detrimental to all members of the adoption triad. In regards to the impact of secrecy on adoptees open adoption advocates argued that adoptees had a basic human right to know their biological origins, and furthermore that withholding this information negatively affected identity formation, and did not negatively influence bonding with adoptive parents (Silber & Martinez Dorner, 1990).

By the early 1980s, some adoption agencies were facilitating open adoptions. Nevertheless, it remained controversial. In 1989, the National Council on Adoption (NCOA) took a position opposing open adoption because there was little empirical evidence to support it (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997). Today the NCOA states that it supports the trend toward greater openness in adoption (“Mutual Consent,” 2009).

Definition of Terms

There is considerable debate in the literature about the definition of open adoption, and about the words used to signify different levels of openness in an adoption. For example, open adoption and fully disclosed adoption are synonyms as is semi-open adoption and mediated adoption. Closed adoption and confidential adoption are also equivalent terms. This literature review will use the terms open, semi-open and closed adoption.

The definition of open adoption includes situations as varied as face-to-face meetings between an adoptive family and birth family to exchanges of letters and phone calls as long as the contact is not mediated by a third party. Grotevant and McRoy (1998) conceptualized “openness as a spectrum involving different degrees and modes of contact and communication between adoptive family members and a child’s birth mother” and “subject to change over time” (p. 2). This definition also includes the possibility of contact even if it has not occurred. Siegel (2003) feels this definition is both too flexible and not flexible enough. She explains that contact should not be limited to just the birthmother and that contact with other birth relatives qualifies as an open adoption. On the other hand, she states that actual contact must have occurred to qualify as an open adoption. Although most researchers agree that openness falls on a continuum as defined by Grotevant & McRoy (1998), they also limit their definition of open adoption to Siegel’s (2003) definition as adoptions in which there has been direct contact whether in person, via mail, phone, or email between the adoptive and birth families. This literature review will also use open adoption to mean any sort of direct contact between adoptive and birth families, but is not inclusive of families where direct contact is possible but had not occurred.

There is no controversy regarding the definitions for semi-open and closed adoption. Semi-open adoption refers to situations in which in which a third party, usually an adoption agency, mediates contact between the adoptive and birth family, and there is no direct contact between the parties. In closed adoption there is no direct or indirect contact between adoptive and birth families (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Siegel, 1993; Crea & Barth, 2009).

An initial search on Academic Premier for “open adoption” resulted in 69 journal articles. A search on Social Services Abstracts for “open adoption” resulted in 65 peer reviewed journal articles. There was substantial overlap of the results from both databases. After eliminating all the articles relating to international adoptions, non-U.S. based adoptions and foster care there were 40 articles remaining. From this group 19 articles also met the following criteria: (1) had conclusions relating to outcomes for adopted children even if these outcomes were from the perspective of the adoptive parents; and (2) included outcomes for children placed in open, voluntary, infant adoptions. The vast majority of these articles are in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, there are two classic books on the subject written by open adoption advocates and practitioners, Kathleen Silber and her co-authors Phyllis Speedlin and Patricia Martinez Dorner.

The literature is quite diverse with both longitudinal and exploratory cross sectional studies. The research is also rich in both quantitative and qualitative studies, allowing for an in depth examination of the experience of open adoption.

Much of the research examines open adoption’s impact on all members of the adoption triad: birthparents, adoptive parents, and adoptee. This literature review focuses only on that part of each study that examines outcomes for adoptees.

Early Exploratory Studies

There are two important early cross-sectional studies by Gross (1993) and Etter (1993). Both studies used mixed methods with small samples and developed conclusions that were later replicated in large-scale longitudinal studies. Gross (1993) found that adoptive parents in open adoptions had a positive view of it and believed it was good for their child. Etter (1993) found that adoptive parents had high levels of satisfaction with open adoption and did not find the contact disruptive for themselves or their child.

Longitudinal Studies

There are three longitudinal studies on openness in adoption. One is a small qualitative study and the other two are large sample research projects. All of the studies started data collection in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The findings of the three studies are strikingly similar. Surprisingly, however, the researchers draw disparate conclusions from almost identical results. Therefore, this literature review will primarily focus on the results of these studies in order to evaluate the conclusions the researchers reached.

Siegel research. This longitudinal qualitative study is limited to the perceptions of outcomes for adoptees as seen by the 21 sets of adoptive parents interviewed in three Waves. The sample was not random as the researcher used a snowball sampling technique. The sample was composed almost entirely of White, middle to upper middle class, heterosexual, two parent families who adopted White children. The research included semi-structured interviews with the adoptive parents. Two different research associates coded and reviewed the interviews.

The adopted children were under a year during the first Wave of data collection (Siegel, 1993). They were six and seven years old during the second Wave (Siegel, 2003), and were 14 and 15 years old during the final phase (Siegel, 2008).

In the first Wave, the researcher found that adoptive parents were overwhelmingly and strikingly positive about open adoption often because they believed it was in the best interest of their child (Siegel, 1993). This trend continued in the second Wave of the study. Strikingly, no adoptive parents indicated they wished they had less openness. Any wish for a change in openness was for more contact, not less. Again, parents believed that openness was in the best interest of their child, but the researcher did not tackle this issue in depth (Siegel, 2003). In the third Wave, however, perhaps because the children were adolescents, adoptive parents were explicit in how they believed openness benefitted their children. All of the adoptive parents saw openness as helping their child deal with identity issues, and none felt that openness exacerbated the issues of adolescence. All of the adoptive parents expressed positive feelings about open adoption and noted that no child had run away to live with their birth family. Adoptive parents even felt positively about contact with birthparents who had mental health or substance abuse problems, noting that birthparents did not engage in threatening behaviors during contact, and that the benefits of contact was still important for their adolescent (Siegel, 2008).

Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project (MTARP). The MTARP is a large-scale longitudinal mixed methods study that has completed two Waves. As the total population of families in open, semi-open, and closed adoptions is unknown, the researchers developed an innovative sampling technique intended to minimize the impact of a non-random sample. They contacted 35 adoption agencies that facilitated voluntary infant adoptions with all three levels of openness. Each agency then stratified their total population so that the researchers could randomly select a representative sample of families for each level of openness.

The final sample included 190 adoptive parents, 171 adopted children and 169 birthmothers. The sample was overwhelmingly, White, Protestant, and middle or upper class, from 23 states representing all regions of the United States. It included representative samples of families in open, semi-open, and closed adoptions.

In the first Wave, the children were between the ages of 4 and 12 with two thirds between ages 5.5 and 8.5 years. Five measures examined adopted child outcomes: self-esteem, socio-emotional adjustment, understanding adoption, satisfaction with adoption, and curiosity about birthparents. There was no relationship found between adoption openness and self-esteem, either positively or negatively. There was also no relationship or a very weak positive relationship with adoptive father’s perceptions of socio-emotional adjustment and adoption openness. Not surprisingly, children’s understanding of adoption increased as they reported having more information about their birthparents. There was no relationship found between the satisfaction of adoptive parents with the adoption and the level of openness. Finally, all the children exhibited curiosity about their birthparents regardless of the level of openness, but girls were more curious than boys (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997). The two other studies using data from the first Wave MTARP research showed that adoptees in which their adoptive and birthparents had collaborative relationships were doing better on ratings of psychosocial adjustment (Grotevant, Ross, Marchel & McRoy, 1999; Grotevant, 2000).

During the second Wave of research, there were 177 adoptive parents and 152 adopted children from the first Wave participating in the study. The children were ages 11-21 years with most between 12.5 and 15.5 years. Five different sets of researchers used this data to investigate various outcomes for adoptive children and all of the findings build on and reinforce one another. The first finding was that adolescents who had contact with their birthparents maintained higher satisfaction with their contact status than those who did not. Not having contact with birthparents is generally, though not universally, associated with dissatisfaction with the amount of contact (Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2004; Mendenhall, Berge, Wrobel, Grotevant & McRoy, 2004). Also, adopted adolescents and adoptive parents who had contact with their birthmothers were the most satisfied of all the groups with the level of contact, and those with no contact were the least satisfied. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of all adopted adolescents and adoptive parents in all the groups wanted more contact with birth relatives in the future. The number of participants wanting to see contact decrease in the future was extremely low: only one adopted adolescent and two adoptive parents. In addition, none of the adopted adolescents who had contact with their birth mothers felt any fear, hatred, surprise, anger, or confusion about who their parents were (Grotevant, et al., 2007). The data also showed that adoptees in open adoptions reported significantly lower levels of externalizing behaviors than those in closed adoptions. Interestingly, adoptive parents reports showed no relationship between openness and externalizing behavior by the adolescents (Von Korff, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2006).

Finally, this second Wave of data also showed that adolescents who were satisfied with the contact they were having with their birthmothers had positive feelings toward them, felt the contact contributed positively to their identity formation, and had a desire to meet other birth relatives. Those who were not satisfied with their contact overwhelmingly wanted more contact, and felt gratitude toward their birthmother for the adoption plan. Those adolescents who were not satisfied because there was no contact with their birthmother had negative feelings toward their birthmother because the birthmother had not tried to contact them, very much wanted contacted, and often had made unsuccessful attempts to contact her. Finally, the smallest group consisted of adolescents who were satisfied with no contact. These adolescents generally felt their adoption status was unimportant, often because their family did not discuss the subject. They also felt fortunate to be adopted, but did not connect this to feelings of gratitude toward their birthmothers, and did not feel contact was necessary. They also had negative associations about what contact with their birthmother would be like (Berge, Mendenhall, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2006).

California Long-Range Adoption Study (CLAS). The CLAS is a very large-scale, longitudinal, quantitative research. There are four Waves to the study. The sample is not random, but its large size makes it more likely it is representative, but as it turned out an overwhelming majority of the sample was White and middle-class causing concern about how representative it truly was. Of the 4,916 children adopted in the California between July 1988 and June 1989, inclusive of public, private, and independent adoptions, a letter mailed to 2,589 of these adoptive families asked them to participate in the study. Of these, 1,219 families agreed to participate in the first Wave two years after adoption. Wave 2 included 764 families, four years post-adoption. Wave 3 only included 231families, all of who adopted from foster care, which is outside the parameters of this literature review. Wave 4 included 469 families, fourteen years post-adoption (Crea & Barth, 2009).

The first three Waves of the research consistently found that openness did not have any impact on parental satisfaction with the adoption or their feelings of closeness with their child (Berry, 1993, Berry, Cavazos Dylla, Barth & Needell, 1998; Frasch, Brooks & Barth, 2000). Wave 4 of the study found similar results. Crea & Barth (2009) found “Respondents’ perceptions of their children’s well-being over time had little to do with having an open relationship, although greater family well-being predicted openness. As such, this study adds to a body of research suggesting that open adoptions at least do no harm and may contribute positively to adoptive families well-being” (p. 618).

Recent Exploratory Study

Although the longitudinal studies provide a wealth of information on the topic of openness there continues to be ongoing exploratory research. The most important of these is Brodzinsky’s (2006) work showing that communicative openness about adoption in the family was extremely important in the adjustment of adopted children no matter what the degree of structural openness in the adoption. It also concluded that the study provided support for structurally open adoption because structural openness strongly correlated with communication openness.

All of the research is complementary and there are no serious discrepancies in the results. All of the studies support the hypothesis that adoptees in open adoptions have better outcomes than those in semi-open or closed adoptions. This includes evidence that adoptees in open adoptions report fewer externalizing behaviors, have better ratings of psychosocial adjustment, and believe that the contact helps with their identity formation. Furthermore, adoptees in open adoptions do not show any surprise, anger, or confusion about who their parents are. It is important to note that openness does not appear to affect self-esteem or how satisfied families are with the adoption or how close they feel to their child, either positively or negatively.

What is surprising is the level of caution expressed by some of the researchers regarding their findings. In particular, all of the researchers involved in the MTARP research are extremely reluctant to endorse open adoption, especially in the studies that include researchers Grotevant and McRoy. For example, in four different studies showing good outcomes for adoptees in open adoptions the researchers conclude that “openness decisions [should be made] on a case-by-case basis” and “that one size does not fit all” to argue against a blanket endorsement of open adoption (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997; Berge, et al., 2006; Von Korff, et al., 2006; Grotevant, et al., 2007). They base this conclusion on an extremely small subset of the adoptees and adoptive parent participants in the MTARP who were satisfied with having no contact with birth family, even though the research overwhelming shows the outcomes are much better for adoptees in open adoption. They also do not explore the reasons that these families are satisfied with no contact, which seem to include negative stereotypes about birthparents and discounting the importance of a person’s adoption status. Research has shown these to be untrue (Siegel, 2008; Brodzinsky, 2006).

Furthermore, Grotevant (2000) concludes that differences in levels of openness are minimally important in outcomes, but collaboration between birth and adoption families is very important. Children from collaborative relationships did better on ratings of psychosocial adjustment. Clearly, openness is required in order for adoptive and birth families to collaborate so it is baffling how openness could only be minimally important.

Despite these inconsistent conclusions from the researchers, the research results from the MTARP and all the other studies are very clear; open adoption provides the best outcome for adoptees.

It is also worth noting, that the longitudinal studies show stronger and stronger support by the adoptees for openness as they age and are able to express their opinions, even when adoptive parents relay what they perceive their children are thinking to researchers. The importance of this perspective is so important. Who knows better the impact of openness on adoptees than the adoptees themselves?

Limitations

All of the studies discussed above have some important limitations. Aside from Brodzinsky’s (2006) research, the participants in all the studies were limited primarily to White, middle and upper class, two-parent, heterosexual families. Although this sample homogeneity allowed for easy comparisons among the studies and strengthened their internal validity, it is does limit the applicability of the findings to other populations.

None of the studies was able to use a truly random sample, but the larger studies used various techniques to try to ensure a representative sample. Siegel’s (1993, 2003, 2008) work only used a very small snowball sample, and did not have a control group of adoptive families in closed adoptions. Interestingly, despite these sampling limitations all of the studies showed very similar results.

Another limitation of the research is that only the MTARP longitudinal studies (Grotevant & McRoy, 1997; Grotevant et al., 1999; Grotevant, 2000; Kohler, et al., 2004; Mendenhall, et al., 2004; Von Korff, et al., 2006; Berge et al., 2006; Grotevant, et al., 2007) and Brodzinsky (2006) study the adoptees to both directly measure outcomes and to get their perceptions of the impact of openness. This most critical voice, adoptees, is missing entirely from both the Siegel (1993, 2003, 2008) the CLAS studies (Berry, 2003; Berry et al., 1998; Frasch et al., 2000; Crea & Barth, 2009).

Future Research

The most important future research is to continue all three of the longitudinal studies now in process. As discussed the earlier, the more that adoptees are able to directly contribute to the research the better. Both longitudinal studies by Siegel and the CLAS would benefit by adding this to their research protocol.

In addition, this research needs replication with populations that are more diverse. This includes ethnic and racial minority families, families from working and lower class backgrounds, and LGBT families. Furthermore, research should also include transracially and internationally adopted children.

The empirical evidence shows that open adoption has the best outcomes for adoptees placed in voluntary infant adoptions. Most importantly, when adolescent adoptees participating in longitudinal studies speak about their experience they overwhelmingly say they want more, not less, contact with their birth families, and feel that the contact has had a positive impact on them. In addition, the evidence supports this view showing that adoptees in open adoptions report fewer externalizing behaviors, have better ratings of psychosocial adjustment, and believe that the contact helps with their identity formation. Furthermore, they do not show any surprise, anger, or confusion about whom their parents are.

This literature review was originally published in 2010. Since that time one of the most prominent researchers, Harold D. Govtevant, has become more outspoken in his support of open adoption. See his web site at:

www.childandfamilyblog.com

Berge, J.M, Mendenhall, T.J, Wrobel, G.M., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2006). Adolescents’ feelings about openness in adoption: Implications for adoption agencies. Child Welfare, 85(6), 1011-1039. doi: 0009-4021/2006/0501011-28

Berry, M. (1993). Adoptive parents’ perceptions of, and comfort with, open adoption. Child Welfare, 231-253. doi: 0009-4021/93/030231-23

Berry, M., Cavazos Dylla, D.J., Barth, R.P., & Needell, B. (1998). The role of open adoption in the adjustment of adopted children and their families. Children and Youth Services Review, 20(1/2), 151-171. doi: 0190-7409/98

Brodzinsky, D. (2006). Family structural openness and communication openness as predictors in adjustment of adopted children. Adoption Quarterly, 9(4), 1-18. doi:10.1300/J145v9n04_01

Crea, T.M, & Barth, R.P. (2009). Patterns and predictors of adoption openness and contact: 14 years postadoption. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 58, 607-620.

Etter, J. (1993). Levels of cooperation and satisfaction in 56 open adoptions. Child Welfare, 72(3), 258-267. doi: 0009-402/93/030257-11

Frasch, K.M., Brooks, D. & Barth, R.P. (2000). Openness and contact in foster care adoptions: An eight-year follow-up. Family Relations, 49, 435-446. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/585839

Gross, H.E. (1993). Open adoption: A research-based literature review and new data. Child Welfare 72(3), 269-284. doi: 0009-4021/93/030269-16

Grotevant, H.D. (2000). Openness in adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 4(1). doi: 10.1300/J145v4n01_04

Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (1997). The Minnesota/Texas adoption research project: Openness in adoption for development and relationships. Applied Developmental Science, 1(4), 168-186.

Grotevant, H.D, Miller Wrobel, G., Von Korff, L., Skinner, B., Newell, J. Friese, S. & McRoy, R.G. (2007). Many faces of openness in adoption: Perspectives of adopted adolescents and their parents. Adoption Quarterly, 10(3-4), 79-101. doi:10.1080/10926750802163204

Grotevant, H.D., Ross, N.M., Marchel, M.A., & McRoy, R.G. (1999). Adaptive behavior in adopted children: Predictors of early risk, collaboration in relationships within the adoptive kinship network, and openness arrangements. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(2), 231-247. doi: 10.1177/0743558499142005

Haugaard, J.J., Moed, A.M., & West, N.M. (2001). Outcomes of open adoptions. Adoption Quarterly, 4(3), 63-73.

Kohler, J.K., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2002). Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 93-104.

Mendenall, T.J., Berge, J.M, Wrobel, G.M., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2004). Adolescents’ satisfaction with contact in adoption. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(2), 175-104.

Mutual consent: Balancing the birthparent’s right to privacy with the adoptive person’s desire to know. (2009, March). Adoption Advocate. Retrieved from https://www.adoptioncouncil.org/infant-adoption/best-practices.html

Siegel, D.H. (1993). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive parents’ perceptions of advantages and disadvantages.

Social Work, 38(1), 15-23. doi: 0037-8046/93

Siegel, D.H. (2003). Open Adoption of Infants: Adoptive parents’ feelings seven years later. Social Work, 48(3), 409-419. doi: 0037-8046/03

Siegel, D.H. (2008). Open adoption and adolescence. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(3). doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.3762

Silber, K. & Speedlin. P. (1998). Dear Birthmother: Thank you for our baby. San Antonio, TX: Corona Publishing.

Silber, K. & Martinez Dorner, P. (1990). Children of Open Adoption. San Antonio, TX: Corona Publishing.

Von Korff, L., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2006). Openness arrangements and psychological adjustment in adolescent adoptees. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 531-534. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.531

#adoption #Openadoption #AnnWrixon

Open Adoption

Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids

When Adoption Connection opened its doors over 30 years ago, open adoption was starting to blossom, but still in its infancy. As one of the first adoption agencies focused on open adoption, we found ourselves working to correct three common misperceptions, many of which are still common today. They are: that the adopted child would be troubled and confused by contact with birth parents; that continued contact would exacerbate birth parents’ grief; and that adoptive parents would remain in constant fear of losing their child or children.

Although there has been plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, in the past few years more and more research has provided us with a rich and very hopeful look at the outcomes of open adoption for adoptive parents, birth parents, and most importantly, the adoptee.

We couldn’t be more pleased to see longitudinal research supporting what has been Adoption Connection’s practical experience all these years. After over two decades of study, researchers at Minnesota / Texas Adoption Research Project (MTARP) , have started to release their findings of the first longitudinal study of its kind. They have concluded that there are several benefits to open adoption and that formerly presumed drawbacks regarding childhood identity and familial discord are inaccurate.

In fact, a surprising outcome was discovered—in cases when family members were dissatisfied with contact, it was often because there was too little rather than too much.

Dr. Harold Grotevant , lead researcher of the MTARP, contends that adopted children intuitively understand the difference between their adoptive and birth parents. They understand that their adoptive parents are their primary caregivers (their mommies or daddies) and their birth parents have a special, yet different relevance and importance in their lives.

Birth parents are crucial to a developing child too, but not in the way that adoptive parents once feared. According to Dr. Grotevant,

“children are inherently and healthily curious about their origins. In the absence of real information, they often make up fantasies about their birth relatives, but with open adoption, they recognize their birth relatives as real people. They know their birth parents’ faces, their health history, their mannerisms, and their special talents, and they can hear first-hand why they were placed for adoption.”

Having concrete information and a real understanding of one’s origins, rather than a fantasy, eases the passage through some developmental milestones for many adopted children.

Benefits for Birth Parents

It is also apparent that birth parents are better off emotionally when some level of contact is assured. Open adoption skeptics feared birth mothers would be emotionally traumatized by visiting their adopted children and the repercussions of their grief would damage interpersonal relationships between all members of the triad. However, birth parents who have a tangible connection to their children, whether through photographs, video, or in person visits, have less unresolved grief 12-20 years later. They feel validated by their decision to have chosen open adoption and witness their children growing up in loving homes.

Benefits for Adoptive Parents

Open adoption benefits the adoptive parents too! We so often hear from adoptive parents who are surprised about the extent to which they both enjoy and are reassured by their relationship to their children’s birth parents.

Knowing for certain, via a real adult relationship with the birth parents that they are happy to see their children being raised well relieves anxiety and eases the adoptive parent’s journey in parenting.

Openness exists on a continuum .

In some cases birth parents receive pictures and a letter on an annual basis, some keep a password protected blog, some communicate regularly via text or Skype, and some live within close proximity of one another and attend birthdays and school plays. Sometimes the birthmother prefers substantial contact during the first year of the child’s life, only for it to taper off and occasional cease after a few years. In other cases, the birth parent’s extended family is also involved in the child’s life.

Emotional Openness Important to Open and Closed Adoptions Alike

There is an emotional component to openness as well. Those families with closed adoptions should be reassured by the notion that if the family is emotionally open to the child’s birth family and willing to both field and initiate discussions with their child about his or her birth family, they can help their child integrate his or her own adoption story even if birth parents are absent.

A conversation like, “It’s Mother’s Day. I always think about your tummy mommy on Mother’s Day. I wonder what she is doing today. Do you?” is a great example of what emotional openness can look like in an adoption where actual contact is closed.

Emotional openness is equally important for families with actual contact with birth families. Some children have physical access to their birth families but get the unspoken message from their adoptive parents that this contact is feared or merely tolerated, or that questions and deep discussions are not welcome. This sort of emotionally closed adoption negates some of the benefits of contact. Ultimately, adoptions vary widely in terms of circumstance, and not all families have the opportunity for openness. The best cases are those that include flexibility, good interpersonal skills, and a genuine commitment to maintaining healthy relationships.

Needing Someone Who Will Listen

Adoption and Secondary Infertility

San Francisco

Get Directions
415-449-3777
650-931-1860

Marin County

Sonoma county.

707-303-1530

Quick Links

Become a Caregiver

Connect with Us

Stay up-to-date, 1710 scott st. p.o. box 159004 san francisco, ca 94115, call 800-972-9225 or text 415-355-4636, want to adopt, call 415-359-2494.

Client Login
Find a Family

Center for Children and Youth
JFCS Holocaust Center
Rhoda Goldman Plaza
Seniors At Home

Adoption Connection is a program of JFCS

COVID-19: Vaccine Program | Testing | Visitor Guidelines | Information for Employees Notice of a Data Incident

Adoption Assistance Program

Openness in adoption.

Open adoption refers to a type of adoption in which birth and adoptive families have some form of initial and/or ongoing contact. Openness in adoption can provide a child or youth with valuable connections to his or her past. No single open arrangement, however, is right for everyone. Open adoption relationships, like all relationships, change and evolve as the individuals involved reach different stages in their lives. Communication and contact may increase or decrease at different times, reflecting varying needs, interests, and life situations of the children and youth who have been adopted, birth parents, and adoptive families.

While common openness fears and myths persist, today, most adopted children and youth know that they are adopted, and many adoptive families have had some contact with birth families. A national study of adoptive families in the United States found that in approximately one-third of all adoptive families, the adoptive parents or the adopted child or youth had some contact with the birth family after the adoption. Post adoption contact occurred more often in private domestic adoption (68 percent) as compared with adoption from foster care (39 percent) and international adoption (6 percent). A more recent study among U.S. adoption agencies reported that almost all (95 percent) of their domestic infant adoptions were open.

As with any relationship, there may be bumps and challenges along the way in the relationships between birth and adoptive families. Through careful consideration of options, a clear child-focused approach, a strong support system and commitment to making it work, and you can decide what level of openness is right for your family.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013) Openness in adoption: Building relationships between adoptive and birth families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

Featured Reading

The Open-Hearted Way to Open Adoption book cover

There are many resources on why to do open adoption, but what about how? Open adoption isn’t just something parents do when they exchange photos, send emails, or share a visit. It’s a lifestyle that may feel intrusive at times, be difficult or inconvenient at other times. Tensions can arise even in the best of circumstances. But knowing how to handle these situations and how to continue to make arrangements work for the child involved is paramount. This book offers readers the tools and the insight to do just that. It covers common open-adoption situations and how real families have navigated typical issues successfully. Like all useful parenting books, it provides parents with the tools to come to answers on their own, and answers questions that might not yet have come up.

Through their own stories and those of other families of open adoption, Lori and Crystal review the secrets to success, the pitfalls and challenges, the joys and triumphs. By putting the adopted child at the center, families can come to enjoy the benefits of open adoption and mitigate the challenges that may arise.

More than a how-to, this book shares a mindset—a heartset—that can be learned and internalized, so parents can choose to act out of love and honesty throughout their child’s growing up years, helping that child to grow up whole.

Online Learning

Maintaining Connections Online course offered by Adoption Learning Partners A fear of not being able to maintain connections with his/her birth families and past may cause a teen to react negatively to an adoptive family. Created by the Family Connections Project through Adoptions Unlimited, Inc., this course is designed to advise child welfare professionals on helping youth maintain contact with birth families and past connections.

Open Adoption 101: What to Consider, How to Establish, and Ways to Stay Connected Online course offered by Adoption Learning Partners Open adoption can be a scary and difficult relationship to understand. This course will explain open adoption, will help you to understand the expectant parent and birth parent perspectives, and will offer some strategies for making openness part of your everyday life.

Is That My Mom on Facebook? Online course offered by Adoption Learning Partners Online tools like Google and Facebook have revolutionized the way we look for information and connect with one another. Your teen (or even tween) may be searching for birth relatives online. He or she may also be approached online by a birth relative … or someone posing as one. This webinar will share strategies on talking to your children about searching and preparing them for possible outcomes. It will also identify safety risks and discuss how to avoid them.

Articles and Websites

A Deeper Conversation on Information Sharing in Adoption: Compromise Offers Promise and Keeps Promises Adoption Advocate No. 46 , National Council for Adoption, April 2012

Openness in Adoption: From Secrecy to Stigma to Knowledge and Connections Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, March 2012

Postadoption Contact Agreements Between Birth and Adoptive Families Child Welfare Information Gateway, May 2011

Recommend an article or other resource

Please note: The Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) does not promote or endorse any websites, organizations or individuals that may be linked from this site. The AAP does not guarantee the accuracy of the information or the appropriateness of advice for a particular situation. It is our intent to assist users in their search for reliable and useful sources of information pertaining to adoption, legal guardianship, and parenting.

Find adoption answers, support, training, or professional resources

Mission and Vision
Staff and Board
Internships
Media & Press Room
Job Openings for Adoption Professionals
Social Work CE
Training for Professionals
Pre-Adoptive Parents
Adoptive Parents
Adopted Persons
Birth Parents
Expectant Parents
School Supports and Resources
Adoption Advocate Publication

Adoption by the Numbers

Profiles in adoption.

Take Action
Upcoming Events
Adoption Hall of Fame
National Adoption Conference
Legacy Society
Families For All Development Fund
Family Formation Partners
Annual Report

Adoption Research

We provide accurate, reliable, and up-to-date reports that inform and equip professionals, policymakers, and the public at large to improve and strengthen adoption.

In 2021, we conducted the largest survey ever of adoptive parents. NCFA explored the profile of adoptive parents, their experiences, and what has changed in adoption over time.

In 2022, we surveyed birth parents across the U.S. and conducted focus groups with birth moms to better understand this diverse population, their decision-making and levels of satisfaction, their relationship with their birth children, experiences with stigma and support, and much more.

In 2023, we researched the experiences of adult adoptees through a nationwide survey.

The Importance of Adoption Research

Policymakers and legislators look to research-based facts and statistics to inform their decision-making. Professionals draw from the most recent studies and reports to better understand the needs of the populations they are serving and identify areas for growth in their work. Members of the media, authors, and other content creators look to NCFA's expertise to help them identify the most relevant and accurate information about adoption as they cover current events and raise awareness about stories and issues in adoption.

decorative image with a teal background and the shape of the United States with text that says "Adoption by the Numbers"

A comprehensive study of adoption data from 2019 and 2020 across all 50 states.

An ongoing research project to explore the demographic characteristics and personal experiences of adoptive parents, birth parents, and adoptees.

blue decorative image with white graph and chart icons

General Adoption Statistics & Data

Quick links to the most recent national statistics

Trends by type of adoption
Adoptions from Foster Care
Intercountry Adoptions
Nationally Representative Data on Adoption Children in the United States

Start typing & press 'enter'

Research on Open Adoption

A longitudinal study is a type of research that observes the same data in a repeated fashion. In these cases, adoptive parents were asked to respond to researchers about the impact of openness on psychological health and growth. The results were overwhelmingly positive for open adoption.

The Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project , or MTARP, found that the self-esteem of children between the ages of four and 12 was not impacted in any way by either open or closed adoption. Likewise, the parents of these children were not more or less satisfied by open adoptions. However, adoptees who had relationships with birth parents did prove to be more psychologically adjusted better than in closed adoptions.

MTARP carried out another round of research, this time with children who were ages 11 to 21. The research found that all children wanted to know more about their biological parents. Those in open adoptions were much more satisfied in this area than those in closed adoptions. They also did not feel hatred, anger, or confusion about their birth parents. Conversely, most children in closed adoptions held negativity toward their birth mothers. Though they did not know and had never met these women, they universally wanted to meet their biological mothers. Many had even tried to contact these women without success.

The California Long-Range Adoption Study , or CLAS, included three waves of study. These three waves took place two, four, and seven years after each adoption was finalized. Like the MTARP study, CLAS found adoptive parents were just as happy and as close with their children in closed adoptions as they were in open ones. The adoptive parents often wish for a change in contact with the biological mothers. In almost all cases, that change was to have more contact rather than less. By the third wave of the study, most adoptive parents stated they felt the open relationship had a positive impact on their child. None felt the relationships between birth parents and children were negative in any way.

Technology Adoption of Open Banking: Drivers and Barriers

Conference paper
First Online: 03 September 2024
Cite this conference paper

Jinky Dela Torre 40 &
Ryan Ebardo 40

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 1199))

Included in the following conference series:

International Conference on Advances in Computational Science and Engineering

Open Banking holds immense potential to revolutionize the banking industry through seamless transactions, better interoperability, and wider choices of banking services for customers. However, its diffusion across diverse economies has been gradual, and research has yet to fully elucidate the drivers and barriers critical for shaping future policies and technological design. A systematic review of 47 scholarly articles revealed that improved credit scoring mechanisms, potential for data monetization, and the development of a scalable business model are drivers of its adoption. On the other hand, lack of customer awareness, reluctance to share data, and concerns surrounding regulatory and security issues serve as primary barriers hindering the broad adoption of Open Banking. The findings of this comprehensive review bear significance not only for individual nations as they formulate regulatory policies but also for the broader context of crafting global frameworks for digital trade and finance. By addressing these drivers and barriers, policymakers and industry stakeholders can work collaboratively to expedite the adoption of Open Banking, ultimately realizing its transformative potential in the financial sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Laplante P, Kshetri N (2021) Open banking: definition and description. Computer 54(10):122–128. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2021.3055909

Article Google Scholar

Kassab M, Laplante PA (2022) Open banking: what it is, where it’s at, and where it’s going. Computer 55(1):53–63. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2021.3108402

Gonçalves AV, de Araujo FO (2022) The implementation of Open Banking in Brazil: an overview from the perspectives of professionals from large retail banks. Braz J Oper Prod Manag 19(4), Art. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.1661.2022

Grassi L, Figini N, Fedeli L (2022) How does a data strategy enable customer value? The case of FinTechs and traditional banks under the open finance framework. Financ Innov 8(1):75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00378-x

Premchand A, Choudhry A (2018) Open Banking & APIs for transformation in: banking. In: International conference on communication, computing and Internet of Things (IC3IOT), pp 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3IoT.2018.8668107

Assala K, Bylykbashi S, Lee J-Y, Hikkerova L (2022) Assessing perceptions of open banking: the case of digital natives in France. Gestion 2000 39(4):45–65. https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.394.0045

Ashofteh A, Bravo JM (2021) A conservative approach for online credit scoring. Expert Syst Appl 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114835

Koldobika G, de Araluze B, Cassinello Plaza N (2022) Open banking: a bibliometric analysis-driven definition. PLoS ONE 17(10):e0275496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275496

Nanaeva Z, Aysan AF, Shirazi NS (2021) Open banking in Europe: the effect of the revised payment services directive on Solarisbank and Insha. J Payments Strategy Syst 15(4):432–444

Rastogi S, Sharma A, Panse C (2020) Open banking and inclusive growth in India. Indian J Ecol 47:78–82

Google Scholar

Omarini A (2020) FinTech: a New Hedge for a financial re-intermediation. Strategy and risk perspectives. Front Artif Intell 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00063

Bashapi O, Morapedi T (2022) Collaborative Open Innovation through an Open API Approach to enable the development of financial technology infrastructure: case of Botswana. In: 2022 IST-Africa conference (IST-Africa), pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.23919/IST-Africa56635.2022.9845617

Adke V, Bakhshi P, Askari M (2022) Impact of disruptive technologies on customer experience management In ASEAN: a review. In: IEEE International conference on computing, ICOCO. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp 364–368. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOCO56118.2022.10031882

He Z, Huang J, Zhou J (2023) Open banking: credit market competition when borrowers own the data. J Financ Econ 147(2):449–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.12.003

Hjelkrem LO, Lange PED (2023) Explaining deep learning models for credit scoring with SHAP: a case study using open banking data. J Risk Finan Manage 16(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16040221

Borgogno O, Colangelo G (2020) Consumer inertia and competition-sensitive data governance: the case of open banking. SSRN Scholarly Paper 3513514. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3513514

Leary KO, O’Reilly P, Nagle T, Filelis-Papadopoulos C, Dehghani M (2021) The sustainable value of open banking: insights from an open data lens. Presented at the Hawaii international conference on system sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.713

Romanova I, Grima S, Spiteri J, Kudinska M (2018) The payment services Directive II and competitiveness: the perspective of European Fintech Companies. ERSJ XXI(2):3–22. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/981

Bär F, Mortimer-Schutts I (2020) Innovation in open banking: lessons from the recent wave of payment institutions that have been authorised to provide payment initiation and account information services. J Payments Strategy Syst 14(3):268–285

Daiy AK, Shen KY, Huang JY, Lin TMY (2021) A hybrid MCDM model for evaluating open banking business partners. Mathematics 9(6):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060587

Lynn T, Rosati P, Cummins M (2020) Exploring open banking and banking-as-a-platform: opportunities and risks for emerging markets. In: Klonowski D (ed) Entrepreneurial finance in emerging markets: exploring tools, techniques, and innovative technologies. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46220-8_20

Omarini AE (2018) Banks and Fintechs: how to develop a digital open banking approach for the bank’s future. IBR 11(9):23. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v11n9p23

Quang Trung N, Van Thanh N, Viet Tinh N, Tam Husain S (2022) Fuzzy decision model: evaluating and selecting open banking business partners. Comput, Mater Continua 72(3):4557–4570. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2022.022417

Ramdani B, Rothwell B, Boukrami E (2020) Open banking: the emergence of new digital business models. Int J Innov Technol Manage 17(05):2050033. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877020500339

Abubakar L, Handayani T (2022) The urgency of open application programming interface standardization in the implementation of open banking to customer data protection for the advancement of Indonesian banking. Padjadjaran J Ilmu Hukum 9(1):67–88. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v9n1.a4

Aytaş B, Öztaner SM, Şener E (2021) Open banking: opening up the ‘walled gardens.’ J Payments Strategy Syst 15(4):419–431

Fracassi C, Magnuson W (2021) Data autonomy. Vanderbilt Law Rev 74(2):327–383

Zeller B, Dahdal A (2021) Open banking and open data in Australia: global context, innovation and consumer protection. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3766076

Wang H, Ma S, Dai H-N, Imran M, Wang T (2020) Blockchain-based data privacy management with Nudge theory in open banking. Futur Gener Comput Syst 110:812–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.09.010

Paneque M, Roldán-García MDM, García-Nieto J (2023) A semantic model for enhancing data-driven open banking services. Appl Sci 13(3):1447

Sivathanu B (2019) An empirical study on the intention to use open banking in India. Inf Resour Manage J (IRMJ) 32(3):27–47

Quatrochi G, da Silva ALG, Cassiolato JE (2022) Banks 4.0 in Brazil: possibilities to ensure Fintechs financing role through its market positioning. Innov Dev 1–21

Faes A et al (2022) Collaborate or Perish: a conceptual framework for banks and FinTechs partnerships. In: ECIE 2022 17th European conference on innovation and entrepreneurship. Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited

Long G, Tan Y, Jiang J, Zhang C (2020) Federated learning for open banking. Federated learning: privacy and incentive. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 240–254

Chapter Google Scholar

Smith T, Geradin D (2022) Maintaining a level playing field when Big Tech disrupts the financial services sector. Eur Competition J 18(1):129–167

Babin R, Smith D (2022) Open banking and regulation: please advise the government. J Inf Technol Teaching Cases 12(2):108–114

Bispo AAA (2020) Open banking and the decentralization of payments in the EU: untwining the PSD2. Eur Data Prot L Rev 6:586

Patki A, Sople V (2022) Open banking ecosystem: the Indian perspective. Indian J Financ 16(5):24–40

Scraping S, Open banking. APIs, and liability issues

He Z, Huang J, Zhou J (2023) Open banking: credit market competition when borrowers own the data. J Financ Econ 147(2):449–474

Gozman D, Hedman J, Olsen KS (2018) Open banking: emergent roles, risks & opportunities

Ferretti F (2022) Open banking: Gordian legal knots in the uncomfortable cohabitation between the PSD2 and the GDPR. Eur Rev Private Law 30(1)

Mansfield-Devine S (2016) Open banking: opportunity and danger. Comput Fraud Secur 2016(10):8–13

Dinckol D, Ozcan P, Zachariadis M (2023) Regulatory standards and consequences for industry architecture: the case of UK Open Banking. Res Policy 52(6):104760

De Pascalis, F. (2022). The journey to open finance: learning from the open banking movement. Eur Bus Law Rev 33(3)

Buckley RP, Arner DW, Zetzsche DA, Weber RH (2020) The road to RegTech: the (astonishing) example of the European Union. J Bank Regul 21:26–36

Chan R, Troshani I, Rao Hill S, Hoffmann A (2022) Towards an understanding of consumers’ FinTech adoption: the case of open banking. Int J Bank Mark 40(4):886–917

Grabowski M (2022) Virtual IBAN as a Service in the Law of the European Union and Poland. J Risk Financ Manag 15(12):566

Pooley H (2020) Why banks are missing an opportunity to capture the lucrative small and medium enterprise market. J Payments Strategy Syst 13(4):337–351

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

De La Salle University, Taft Avenue, 2401, Manila, Philippines

Jinky Dela Torre & Ryan Ebardo

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinky Dela Torre .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Technology Park Malaysia, Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Vinesh Thiruchelvam

Faculty of Computing and Informatics, Creative Advanced Machine Intelligence Research Centre, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia

Rayner Alfred

Higher Colleges of Technology, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Zamhar Iswandono Bin Awang Ismail

Department of Informatics, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia

Haviluddin Haviluddin

School of Engineering and Technology, Sunway University, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

Aslina Baharum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Torre, J.D., Ebardo, R. (2024). Technology Adoption of Open Banking: Drivers and Barriers. In: Thiruchelvam, V., Alfred, R., Ismail, Z.I.B.A., Haviluddin, H., Baharum, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advances in Computational Science and Engineering. ICACSE 2023. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 1199. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2977-7_34

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2977-7_34

Published : 03 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-2976-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-2977-7

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Open access
Published: 06 September 2024

When do shoppers prefer using QR codes? Empirical evidence from Vietnam

Man The Nguyen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7406-7388 1 , 2 &
Tho Alang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1681-3896 1 , 2

Future Business Journal volume 10 , Article number: 105 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

This research aimed to explore the factors influencing the behavioural intention to use over-the-counter (OTC) QR codes for purchasing products in Vietnamese supermarkets. The study included 996 consumers and employed a questionnaire-based survey method to test the hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Drawing on the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and signalling theory, the findings identified five key factors that positively affected the intention to use OTC QR codes: perceived usefulness of OTC QR codes (e.g., for payment and traceability), attitude, customer satisfaction, and supply chain transparency. Additionally, the perceived usefulness of OTC QR codes positively impacted attitude and customer satisfaction, while its usefulness for traceability enhanced supply chain transparency. The study also identified the moderating influence of personal innovativeness on the relationship between perceived usefulness of OTC QR codes for payment and attitude and customer satisfaction. Furthermore, the moderating role of electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-Word-of-Mouth) in the relationship between customer satisfaction, attitude, and behavioural intention was discovered. This research contributes to the existing literature by expanding our understanding of the perceived usefulness of OTC QR codes and elucidating the various mechanisms through which their both functionalities could encourage consumer adoption in the context of Vietnamese supermarkets.

Introduction

Due to the increasing reliance of technology-savvy individuals, specifically early adopters, on their smartphones for banking and shopping as well as communication, conventional financial transactions have transitioned to mobile platforms in developing nations. As a result, smartphones have emerged as the most commonly utilized devices for over-the-counter mobile payments. One notable characteristic of this payment method is that over-the-counter mobile payments are executed electronically via scanning over-the-counter QR codes, thereby eliminating the need for physical payment components [ 32 , 61 ]. Over-the-counter mobile payments are even thought to be the demise of cash [ 63 ]. In addition, the quality of the goods has become an increasingly crucial component in determining whether or not a consumer intends to make a purchase in the present global market. The widespread dissemination of unfavourable events regarding fraudulent and substandard products/items through the media has resulted in a decline in consumer confidence in the products. Additionally, consumers' worries regarding the origin of the products have risen as a result of this dissemination [ 105 ]. Nevertheless, as a consequence of the information asymmetry present in the market, the instances of product adulteration and substandard goods are not uncommon. Such circumstances can incite a crisis of confidence among the market, ultimately culminating in market failure [ 80 ]. Traceability systems are effective instruments for reducing the information asymmetry associated with moral hazard and adverse selection in product systems, and for monitoring product supply chain quality. Hence, the implementation of a traceability system assumes a critical strategic significance in the pursuit of perpetual quality enhancement [ 93 ]. QR code (Quick response) technology is progressively being implemented in the manufacturing sector to ensure the traceability of information pertaining to food supply chain [ 73 ]. Consumers conveniently utilize QR code labels to acquire critical product supply chain information, including nutritional composition, country of origin, and additional details [ 78 , 99 ].

Google's analysis indicates that Vietnam, in its transition to a market economy, is experiencing rapid digital economic growth in South-east Asia. In 2022, the growth rate is projected to reach 28%, and in 2023, it is expected to reach 19%. This growth rate is 3.5 times faster than the GDP growth rate. Footnote 1 Remarkable gains are obtained via the implementation of cutting-edge technology such as mobile payment and information tracing. For example, the numbers that were released in 2024 by Statista Footnote 2 indicate that China is now in the lead with a penetration rate rating of 37.97% in the “Mobile POS Payments” area of the FinTech industry. Vietnam is in second place with a penetration rate ranking of 29.25%. Italy, on the other hand, finds itself at the bottom of the table with 8.59%, demonstrating a gap of 29.38% points in comparison with China. This illustrates that there is a growing need for people in developing nations like Vietnam to use mobile payments as a means of payment. The QR (Quick response) code, which was formerly employed as a means of accessing information or websites, is now considered to be a key type of contactless mobile payment in Vietnam [ 71 ]. It is also a quick and secure manner of payment that customers are becoming more and more used to, particularly in grocery stores and convenience stores [ 26 ]. In line with the figures by Yahoo Finance, Footnote 3 the Global QR Code Payment Market has experienced substantial growth, attaining a valuation of USD 10.28 billion in 2022. It is projected to continue expanding at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.03% through 2028. According to Visa's Consumer Payment Attitudes Study 2023, Footnote 4 88% of respondents have attempted to use cashless payments. Additionally, 62% of Vietnamese consumers now utilize QR codes for payment, representing a significant increase from 35% in 2021.

Also, in accordance with Vietnamese Prime Minister's Decision 645/QD-TTg dated May 15 of the Prime Minister endorsed the national e-commerce development programmes for the period of 2020–2021. A primary objective of the programme is to assist and develop enterprises in utilizing digital technology solutions (e.g., QR code and barcode) for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of products, establishing online brands, and conducting business in the digital environment. Science and Digital Technology (Ministry of Industry and Trade, Department of E-Commerce, and Digital Economy) has developed and implemented a QR code-based system for authenticating products in e-commerce (truyxuat.gov.vn). Footnote 5 By consistently scanning QR codes to access product information and parameters with each transaction, customers are thus effectively pressuring firms to prioritize the provision of clear and high-quality information to meet their needs. Although QR code was introduced to consumers as a tool of payment in Vietnam, consumer experience for multi-functional perspectives of QR codes is increasing at the present time as its use is encouraged due to various reasons (information tracing, QR code mobile payment, etc.)

Recent years have witnessed the implementation of experimental studies on QR codes, according to a review of the pertinent literature. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [ 45 , 101 ] and Theory of Planned Behaviour [ 16 , 64 , 101 ] served as the main foundation for these studies. However, previous studies primarily concentrated on the single function of QR code rather than on the multi-functional capabilities of this technology for determining the behavioural intention to use QR codes. Consequently, the present study holds considerable importance as it tackles an urgent concern concerning the influence of technology based on multi-functional QR codes (specifically, traceability, and payment) on the behavioural intention to use it by consumers in the context of purchasing supermarket’s products.

Through the integration of the signalling theory and the theory of reasoned action, this research endeavour will address this deficiency by incorporating supplementary factors including customer satisfaction, attitude, supply chain transparency, and demographic variables. To interpret this theoretical integration, several rationales have been proposed. First, consumers' attitudes towards a behaviour may be positively influenced by QR codes as a signal (e.g., scanning the QR code). If a QR code guarantees a benefit, such as exclusive information, a discount, or essential product information, it may reinforce positive attitudes towards its use [ 18 ]. Clear and consistent signalling can improve the efficacy of QR codes. For example, the consistent provision of valuable and pertinent information by QR codes will reinforce positive consumer behaviour [ 56 ]. This study also makes a scholarly contribution to the field of traceability by identifying empirical pathways that connect the use of QR codes for traceability to supply chain transparency, and from supply chain transparency to the behavioural intention of using QR codes in purchasing products from supermarkets. Consequently, this research will provide practitioners and businesses with a more comprehensive understanding of the behavioural intention to utilize QR codes when purchasing groceries from supermarkets and develop approaches to expand the product's reach in Vietnam and similar emerging market cases of countries. In addition, knowledge regarding the utilization of moderators for e-Word-of-Mouth and personal innovativeness in the QR code domain remains limited. As a result, we broadened our model by revealing the moderating effect of e-WOM and personal innovativeness to gain additional insights from these integrated frameworks. Briefly, this research examines the following questions: 1. How does the perceived usefulness of QR codes (e.g., both functionalities of payment and traceability) influence supply chain transparency, attitude, customer satisfaction, and behavioural intention? 2. How do supply chain transparency, attitude, and customer satisfaction affect behavioural intention? 3. How is the moderating effect of personal innovativeness on the relationship between the perceived usefulness of QR codes and attitude and customer satisfaction? 4. How is the moderating effect of e-Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM) on the relationship between attitude, customer satisfaction, and behavioural intention?

Theoretical background

The concept of qr code.

Among the various auto-ID technologies, QR code technology stands out as one of the most significant advancements. Originally developed to support production lines in the automotive sector, its application has broadened considerably with the widespread adoption of mobile devices. QR codes are now extensively utilized across diverse commercial fields, including commerce, retail, marketing, logistics, education, tourism, and entertainment [ 43 , 44 , 91 , 96 , 108 ]. The increasing dependence on smartphones, which consumers carry with them constantly, has driven marketers to continuously devise innovative strategies to enhance customer engagement [ 13 , 86 ]. QR codes, characterized by their two-dimensional matrix barcodes, can encode various types of data such as plain text, SMS (Short Message Service), and URL (Uniform Resource Locator), while requiring only about one-tenth of the space of a traditional barcode [ 26 ].

The adoption of various functional codes significantly enhances the perception of rapid interactions, thereby fostering improved consumer engagement across multiple companies. For instance, a simple scanning method can provide customers with easier access to advertisements, promotions, and other current information related to products or services, thereby fostering a deeper level of engagement. Retailers also benefit from the use of small QR codes to label advertisements on products. This practice allows them to connect with other media or printed platforms at a lower cost while facilitating prompt consumer engagement [ 4 , 53 ].

QR code payment systems provide businesses with additional avenues to deepen their understanding of the consumer market, extending beyond the realm of advertisements. The streamlined and efficient nature of QR code payments also promotes an increase in transaction volume [ 32 ]. Furthermore, the deployment of QR codes in commercial settings, such as on shelves, showcases, posters, and product packaging, is considered as a particularly effective strategy for conveying timely product and brand information to consumers. This effectiveness stems from the QR codes' capability to deliver interactive, targeted, and relevant information precisely when consumers are poised to make a purchase [ 21 ].

Theory of reasoned action (TRA)

The theory of reasoned action (TRA), proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein in 1980, was developed to elucidate the model of behavioural intention, emphasizing the pivotal role of an individual's own willingness in determining rational behaviour. According to TRA, subjective norms and attitudes collaboratively shape the intention to engage in a specific behaviour, thereby influencing the decision to perform that behaviour. This study employed the theory of reasoned action to construct a practical model examining the factors influencing food consumers' use of QR codes when purchasing products from supermarkets.

In recent years, TRA has been widely applied to investigate customers' acceptance of new technologies [ 104 ] and has served as the foundation for the development of the technology acceptance model [ 30 ]. However, within the context of this study, the concept of attitude was of primary focus, as numerous researchers contend that attitude is crucial for understanding consumer behaviour [ 98 ]. Attitude is deemed a critical factor in the success of marketing strategies because human behaviour is often driven by an individual's attitude towards a specific activity [ 62 ].

Ajzen [ 7 ] posits that general attitudes cannot accurately predict behaviour in specific contexts. Consequently, Chang et al. [ 25 ] argue that the theory of reasoned action is particularly suited for predicting and explaining human behaviour in specific contexts. This implies that emphasizing "attitude towards a specific behaviour" is more significant than general attitudes towards a related topic within the framework of the theory of reasoned action.

Signalling theory

According to Connelly et al. [ 29 ], signalling theory seeks to elucidate the behaviour of two parties when they have access to disparate information. Zmud et al. [ 109 ] proposed that signallers have the advantage of leveraging available information to influence the beliefs and actions of information receivers. Thus, the core focus of signalling theory is on the analysis and application of various types of signalling information [ 67 , 83 ]. In the context of consumer goods, information asymmetry is a significant issue, highlighting the unequal access to information regarding product quality [ 84 ]. To address information asymmetry, primary methods of providing signalling information to potential buyers include the use of logos, labels, and quality illustrations that convey hygiene standards and ingredient details [ 9 ]. These methods enable buyers to evaluate and differentiate the reputation and reliability of sellers, ranging from low to high levels [ 20 ]. For instance, Mavlanova et al. [ 67 ] showed that sellers often refer to the website attributes of online retailers when making purchasing decisions. Despite these efforts, challenges related to information asymmetry between buyers and sellers persist in various markets due to uncertainties in product and seller information [ 90 ]. The food market is particularly vulnerable to fraudulent activities, often experiencing scandals that erode consumer trust and pose potential risks to health and well-being [ 66 ].

Signalling theory has been applied to the food industry with the integration of blockchain technology [ 3 ]. Packaging and nutritional labels on packaged foods serve as crucial sources of information regarding their nutritional content [ 70 ]. These labels provide details such as energy values, protein, fat, carbohydrate, dietary fibre, sodium, vitamins, and minerals, as well as the origin of ingredients and products. The food industry is increasingly prioritizing food quality and safety [ 51 ].

This situation can potentially be addressed by enabling the prompt availability of reliable information that can be shared among multiple participants in a network. To evaluate the impact on consumers' attitudes and intentions, it is essential to explore their perceptions of the technology and its implications. Consequently, this study examines whether indicating the use of blockchain-based information can influence consumers' purchase intentions and investigates the moderating roles of word-of-mouth and personal innovativeness in this process.

Research gaps in previous research

There exists a significant gap in the literature concerning the impact of QR codes' multi-functional capabilities (e.g., integrating payment and traceability functions) on consumers' behavioural intentions to use QR codes for making purchase decisions in supermarkets. Previous research has primarily focused on single-function applications of QR codes, such as payment. For example, Hamzah et al. [ 39 ] investigate the role of consumer-brand relationships, particularly brand image, as a moderating factor in consumers’ continued use of QR code e-wallets in over-the-counter (OTC) retail settings. Utilizing protection motivation theory (PMT), Hamzah [ 38 ] examines the psychological concerns of retail merchants regarding the potential transmission of COVID-19 through banknotes, which influences their adoption of QR-based mobile payment (m-payment) services. Similarly, Ramli et al. [ 76 ] analyse brand equity components—perceived value, brand image, and brand awareness—to provide a comprehensive understanding of consumers' intentions to use QR code e-wallets (QREW) in the OTC retail environment.

Existing studies typically address the fundamental functionality and applications of QR codes. Despite their widespread usage, there is a paucity of research on the integration of QR codes into critical sectors such as food product supply chains. Treiblmaier and Garaus [ 90 ] contend that providing customers with information about the origin and delivery of goods helps reduce information asymmetry and mitigate health risks. This enhanced transparency allows consumers to more effectively evaluate the characteristics of a product. Consequently, exploring the synergistic potential of QR codes could reveal novel research avenues for innovative applications in emerging domains, such as the OTC retail sector within the supermarket industry. Furthermore, the moderating influence of electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) and personal innovativeness on the adoption of QR codes across various sectors, including food supply chains, pharmaceuticals, and entertainment, remains substantially under-investigated [ 43 ]. This emphasizes the necessity for scholarly inquiry into these factors as major moderators within the framework of QR code technology adoption.

Hypotheses development

QR code technology, regarded as a facet of blockchain innovation, aims to enhance identity management within the retail industry by facilitating the storage and dissemination of data among relevant stakeholders such as suppliers and customers [ 22 ]. This technology has significantly transformed the global goods system [ 46 ], enabling parties within the food supply chain to verify the authenticity of information and enhance the efficacy of food recalls [ 60 ]. The assurance of traceability and verification within the food supply chain is essential for maintaining clear communication and transparent data sharing at each stage, particularly addressing concerns related to food quality and safety [ 100 ].

Chen and Huang [ 28 ] emphasize the importance of data transparency within the food industry as fundamental to fostering consumer trust and preventing opportunistic behaviours by producers, thereby bolstering consumer engagement and laying the foundation for their purchasing decisions. This transparency enables brands to build enhanced credibility, encouraging consumers to favour producers who demonstrate greater levels of information disclosure [ 22 ]. Consumers tend to prefer producers who offer detailed information about ingredients and processes over those who do not.

Consequently, transparency regarding the food supply chain plays a crucial role in shaping consumer buying behaviours and brand preferences [ 69 ]. Drawing on signalling theory, which posits that clear and straightforward communication is beneficial in contexts of uncertainty, we suggest that the adoption of blockchain technology via QR codes acts as a signal of trustworthiness and data security within the supply chain. This signalling mechanism positively influences the quality and safety of products in the market, which, in turn, impacts consumer purchasing intentions. Additionally, conducting transactions via QR code provides users with the ability to track payment details, such as expenditure, product pricing, and account balances. Based on these insights, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

The perceived usefulness of QR codes for traceability results in the transparency of food supply chain.

According to Kasilingam [ 50 ], the perceived usefulness of mobile internet significantly influences individuals' intentions to utilize it. A prominent benefit of QR code payments is their potential to diminish transaction costs, both temporal and monetary. By employing QR code-based payments, consumers can expedite transactions using their mobile devices equipped with cameras, thereby circumventing the need for cash exchanges. Compared to traditional cash transactions, QR code payments facilitate a more fluid and efficient interaction experience, benefiting both the payer and the establishments adopting this method. Additionally, the perceived usefulness of QR codes in tracking information enhances users' ability to acquire and verify precise details about the food product supply chain [ 19 ].

McDougall and Levesque [ 68 ] highlight the significance of perceived value (usefulness) in cultivating positive consumer attitudes towards products or services. Consequently, the greater the perceived usefulness of QR codes, the more favourable the customer attitude towards adopting this technology. Therefore, this study posits the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2a

There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness of QR codes for payment and users' attitude towards it.

Hypothesis 2b

There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness of QR codes for traceability and users' attitude towards it.

Existing literature establishes a connection between the perceived usefulness of a specific technology and customer satisfaction, attributing this relationship to the convenience and functionality offered by technological interactions on smartphones, which can deliver significant value and thus enhance user satisfaction [ 97 ]. For example, the research by Amin et al. [ 12 ] demonstrated a positive association between perceived usefulness and user satisfaction among mobile users in Malaysia. In a similar vein, Li and Fang [ 59 ] posited that the ongoing intent to utilize mobile branded applications is driven by satisfaction and attachment, with the perceived usefulness of these apps acting as a key factor in fostering user satisfaction. In the context of user satisfaction with the functionalities of payment and traceability, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a

There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness of QR codes for payment and users' satisfaction towards it.

Hypothesis 3b

There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness of QR codes for traceability and users' satisfaction towards it.

Several studies have empirically examined the connections between perceived usefulness and behavioural intention. To illustrate, Abdullah et al. [ 2 ] discovered the favourable influence of the perceived usefulness of e-portfolios on the intention to use them, while Mailizar et al. [ 65 ] uncovered the enabling role of the perceived usefulness of e-learning in shaping the intention to use it. For the association between perceived usefulness and behavioural intention, this study thus put forward:

Hypothesis 4a

There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness of QR codes for payment and behavioural intention to use QR codes.

Hypothesis 4b

There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness of QR codes for traceability and behavioural intention to use QR codes.

Regarding the transparency of the food supply chain, when users utilize a QR code on a food product label to access detailed supply chain information, this action can enhance their trust in the scanning tool [ 58 ]. Trust is a crucial determinant of both behavioural intention and actual usage behaviour [ 34 ]. Within the realm of blockchain technology, trust arises not merely among participants but from the integrity of the information embedded in the blockchain system, such as a QR code [ 49 ]. The decentralized nature and the assured data integrity of blockchain technology foster confidence in transactions among participants who may not have pre-existing relationships, as they can depend on the veracity of the information recorded on the blockchain [ 34 ]. Consequently, this study posits that the application of QR codes for traceability on product labels is likely to increase trust in the food supply chain, thereby enhancing behavioural intention to utilize this technology. The hypothesis proposed is as follows:

Hypothesis 5

There is a positive relationship between supply chain transparency and behavioural intention to use QR codes.

Numerous scholarly inquiries have elucidated the relationship between attitude and behavioural intention. For instance, Kasilingam [ 50 ] documented a positive influence of attitudes towards smartphone chatbots on the intent to use them. Similarly, Kamble et al. [ 49 ] highlighted the critical role of attitudes towards blockchain technology within Indian supply chains, noting that such attitudes significantly catalyse the intention to adopt this innovative technology. Drawing on these empirical insights, this study constructs the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6

There is a positive relationship between users’ attitude and behavioural intention to use QR codes.

The academic literature robustly substantiates the premise that customer satisfaction significantly influences positive behavioural intentions, demonstrating a direct and positive correlation between these constructs [ 40 , 81 ]. This theoretical perspective is further corroborated by findings from several studies [ 24 , 33 , 74 ], which collectively affirm the advantageous effects of customer satisfaction on behavioural intentions. Consequently, informed by this body of evidence, the present study advances the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7

There is a positive relationship between users’ satisfaction and behavioural intention to use QR codes.

Certain individuals exhibit a natural propensity to embrace new technologies and innovations, while others demonstrate resistance or reluctance towards change [ 14 ]. According to Agarwal and Prasad [ 6 ], innovativeness is defined as the degree to which an individual is open to new ideas and adopts innovative options before others. Anwar et al. [ 14 ] suggest that innovativeness may act as a moderating factor in technology adoption behaviours, implying that individuals with higher innovativeness levels are more likely to adopt innovative services and develop more favourable perceptions than those with lower innovativeness levels. Consequently, innovativeness enhances the readiness to undertake risks associated with adopting new services (e.g., QR codes), with more innovative users being more receptive to such risks, embracing them sooner and thus facilitating their broader adoption. These users are also expected to experience greater perceived satisfaction [ 79 ].

Extensive research has acknowledged the moderating role of personal innovativeness in the relationship between perceived usefulness and satisfaction or attitudes towards adopting specific technologies. For instance, Chen [ 27 ] found that as the perceived usefulness of Mobile Learning Apps as effective educational tools increased, so did students' satisfaction levels, particularly among those with higher personal innovativeness. In the context of smartwatch adoption, Krey et al. [ 54 ] identified through empirical research that personal innovativeness exerts a negative moderating effect on the relationship between perceived usefulness and attitude.

Hypothesis 8a

Personal innovativeness moderates the relationship between users’ perceived usefulness of QR code (for payment) and satisfaction, such that the higher the personal innovativeness, the stronger the relationship.

Hypothesis 8b

Personal innovativeness moderates the relationship between perceived usefulness of QR code (for traceability) and satisfaction, such that the higher the personal innovativeness, the stronger the relationship.

Hypothesis 9a

Personal innovativeness moderates the relationship between perceived usefulness of QR code (for payment) and attitude, such that the higher the personal innovativeness, the stronger the relationship.

Hypothesis 9b

Personal innovativeness moderates the relationship between perceived usefulness of QR code (for traceability) and attitude, such that the higher the personal innovativeness, the stronger the relationship.

Word-of-mouth (WOM) represents a fundamental form of human interaction that involves the sharing of opinions between two or more individuals regarding various products and services available in the market [ 94 ]. Historically, WOM has been recognized as one of the earliest methods for disseminating opinions about marketplace offerings [ 37 ], and it remains one of the most effective channels through which consumers exchange information [ 31 ]. Electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) extends these interactions to the digital domain, involving the discussion of product features and service experiences across various online platforms. Consumers contribute to e-WOM by sharing their direct experiences via media channels such as blogs and social networks, thereby generating reviews and recommendations.

Given the inherent risks associated with purchasing decisions, consumers strive to mitigate these by collecting information from a variety of sources prior to finalizing their purchases [ 15 ]. In an online environment, this often involves seeking insights into the quality of products through platforms designed to facilitate the exchange of opinions and information among users [ 10 ]. The available information typically includes consumer experiences, found in blogs, social media posts, online evaluations, and recommendations [ 47 ]. The credibility of WOM information is enhanced when users engage by reviewing, endorsing, and expressing satisfaction through comments, contributing to its significant influence due to its personal nature [ 48 ]. This influence is pivotal in shaping the determination of the intent to utilize online technology for various purposes [ 106 ].

In light of e-WOM characteristics, it is often regarded as a moderating variable within structured models. For example, Al Halbusi et al. [ 11 ] noted that in environments characterized by positive e-WOM, customers generally report higher satisfaction with online purchases and a stronger intention to continue using a website. Furthermore, when users proactively seek advisory reviews or feedback on social networks, their attitudes towards using specific technologies are more likely to positively influence their behavioural intentions [ 55 , 57 ]. Therefore, this research formulates the following hypotheses (Fig. 1 ):

The research conceptual framework

Hypothesis 10

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM) moderates the relationship between users' satisfaction and the behavioural intention to use QR codes, such that the higher the e-WOM, the stronger the relationship.

Hypothesis 11

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM) moderates the relationship between users' attitude and their behavioural intention to use QR codes, such that the higher the e-WOM, the stronger the relationship.

Research method

Data collection.

The primary data for this study were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. Respondents were purposively sampled from various supermarkets in Ho Chi Minh City. In purposive sampling, researchers selectively choose participants who meet specific criteria relevant to the research question or objectives. This method relies on the researcher's judgement rather than random selection, which can introduce bias but is necessary when specific participant types are needed to effectively address the research question [ 23 ]. However, a significant limitation of purposive sampling is its limited generalizability due to the selective nature of the sample, which may render the findings less applicable to the broader population, thus constraining the research's overall external validity [ 5 ].

To mitigate these limitations, a precise and clear set of criteria for participant selection was established to minimize subjectivity. Eligibility required participants to have familiarity with QR codes, possess online banking or e-wallet capabilities for QR code payments, and own a smartphone capable of scanning QR codes [ 38 , 39 , 76 ]. The survey also assessed whether participants were first-time users of QR codes during their purchasing journey, discontinuing the survey for those without prior QR code experience. Additionally, a detailed methodology description was provided to align with the study objectives.

Further objectivity was ensured by involving other researchers in the selection process to validate the sample criteria and selections, thereby fostering diverse perspectives. A pilot study involving 125 participants was conducted to assess and refine the sampling criteria and process. Feedback from this pilot was crucial for identifying any overlooked biases and informed adjustments to improve the methodology, particularly in areas concerning supply chain transparency and perceived usefulness for traceability.

Finally, to ensure the reliability of the data collected, research assistants were consulted to review the questionnaire, which was divided into two sections: demographic data collection and the main survey consisting of 32 items across eight constructs. The seven-point Likert scale used ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), facilitating an evaluation of consumer acceptance of the studied constructs.

For the research context, Ho Chi Minh City is recognized as a pivotal hub for the adoption of advanced technologies within Vietnam's economic and social sectors. This makes Ho Chi Minh City an ideal location for sampling purposes. The data collection process employs the supermarket-intercept method, capitalizing on the widespread popularity of supermarkets among the target consumer demographic. Participants were surveyed at the exit points of these retail establishments [ 82 ].

The data collection focused on major supermarkets in Ho Chi Minh City, including Winmart, Co. opmart, AEON malls, Top Markets, and Satrafoods, as well as convenience stores such as Circle K, 7-Eleven, Mini Stops, GS25, and Family Mart. The sample included various well-known brands available in these supermarkets and convenience stores, such as Vietnam Dairy Product JSC, Minh Phu Seafood JSC, Acecook Vietnam JSC, Vissan Joint Stock Company, Dalat Gap Store, 3Sach Food, Organicfood, and Vietgreen Food.

Between June 2023 and August 2023, data were collected from respondents using a self-administered questionnaire. A total of 1,031 surveys were distributed, with 1,005 completed and returned, yielding a response rate of 97.47%. After the survey period, researchers meticulously screened the questionnaires, excluding those with apparent patterns or excessively short response times. Additionally, nine questionnaires were incomplete and thus deemed invalid. Ultimately, 996 valid questionnaires were retained for analysis, resulting in a recovery rate of 99.10%. Demographic information, including gender, age, education, and monthly income, was also collected and is summarized in Table 1 . The gender distribution was balanced, while the age group of 24 to less than 44 years constituted the majority. The largest proportion of respondents held a bachelor's degree, and the monthly income categories were evenly distributed.

Data analysis

The study utilized Smart-PLS 4.0 for data analysis, employing partial least squares (PLS) modelling to validate both structural and measurement models. PLS was chosen for its robustness in addressing residual variances in endogenous constructs and its minimal identification issues [ 41 ]. Additionally, PLS is advantageous in consumer research data, which often does not meet the criteria for multivariate normality [ 42 ]. Although PLS-SEM and covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) are statistically distinct, PLS provides reliable approximations when CB-SEM assumptions, such as normality, are violated. Previous studies have shown that PLS is resilient to issues like omitted variable bias and skewness in regressors [ 17 ]. To test for common method bias (CMB), Harman’s one-factor analysis was conducted. This test assesses whether the majority of variance is attributable to a single factor. If a single factor explains less than 50% of the variance, CMB is less likely [ 85 ]. The analysis revealed that a single factor accounted for 15.88% of the total variance, well below the critical threshold for CMB.

The reliability of the measurement model was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficients, which ranged from 0.70 to 0.91, exceeding the generally accepted threshold of 0.70. Table @@ 4 (in appendix) presents the constructs' reliability, validity, and item loadings, all of which surpass permissible thresholds, corroborating previous findings. The average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.5, and composite reliability (CR) was greater than 0.7. Table 2 illustrates the correlation between the square root of the AVE and various factors for each construct, with correlation coefficients being less than the square root of each factor's AVE, demonstrating satisfactory discriminant validity. In summary, the measurement model exhibited strong discriminant validity, convergent validity, and reliability.

Table 3 and Fig. 2 display the model coefficients and the model paths along with their significance, respectively. Among the 11 hypotheses, nine receive full support. The findings suggest that the influence of QR codes’ perceived usefulness for traceability on supply chain transparency ( β = 0.077, p -value < 0.05) and behavioural intention ( β = 0.123, p -value < 0.001) is statistically significant, confirming the hypotheses H1 and H4b. Likewise, there is a positive correlation between QR codes’ perceived usefulness for traceability and attitude ( β = 0.084, p -value < 0.05), as well as customer satisfaction ( β = 0.068, p -value < 0.05), providing support for H2b and H3b. In the case of QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment, it has a favourable impact on attitude ( β = 0.079, p -value < 0.05), behavioural intention ( β = 0.087, p -value < 0.05), and customer satisfaction ( β = 0.081, p -value < 0.01). Consequently, hypotheses H2a, 4a, and H3a find support.

Model paths

Regarding other hypothesized connections, attitude exhibits a positive correlation with behavioural intention ( β = 0.102, p -value < 0.01), and simultaneously, customer satisfaction is positively linked with behavioural intention ( β = 0.076, p -value < 0.01). As a result, this supports and reinforces hypotheses H6 and H7. Moreover, supply chain transparency has a positive impact on behavioural intention ( β = 0.074, p -value < 0.05), which results in supporting H5. Regarding the moderation analysis, it is observed that personal innovativeness positively moderates the connections between QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment and attitude ( β = 0.093, p -value < 0.05) and between QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment and customer satisfaction ( β = 0.070, p -value < 0.05). Consequently, H9 and H8a are fully supported. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the enhancing effect of personal innovativeness on the positive slope of the relationships between QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment and attitude and between QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment and customer satisfaction.

The moderating effect of personal innovativeness on the relationship between QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment and attitude

The moderating effect of personal innovativeness on the relationship between QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment and customer satisfaction

In the same way, electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM) positively moderates the relationships between attitude and behavioural intention ( β = 0.078, p -value < 0.05) and between customer satisfaction and behavioural intention ( β = 0.081, p -value < 0.05). This provides additional support for H10 and H11. Likewise, Figs. 5 and 6 both illustrate the augmenting impact of electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM) on the positive slope of the relationships between attitude and behavioural intention, as well as between customer satisfaction and behavioural intention.

The moderating effect of e-Word-of-Mouth on the relationship between attitude and behavioural intention

This study does not identify any support for the moderating impact of personal innovativeness on the connection between QR code’s perceived usefulness for traceability and attitude ( p -value = 0.995) and between QR code’s perceived usefulness for traceability and customer satisfaction ( p -value = 0.727). Consequently, H8b and H9b are dismissed. Concerning other control factors, this study does not observe any connections between demographic variables and behavioural intention.

Implications of findings

The elucidation of the tripartite interrelations among attitude, perceived usefulness of QR codes, and behavioural intention reinforces the theory of reasoned action concerning the connection between attitude and behavioural intention in adoption contexts [ 8 ]. The demonstrated pathway from perceived usefulness of QR codes to customer satisfaction, and subsequently to behavioural intention, corroborates the findings of Rezvani et al. [ 77 ]. These findings indicate that consumers exhibit higher levels of satisfaction with QR codes and a stronger intention to use them when they perceive significant value, such as for payment and traceability purposes.

Consequently, the pathway from the perceived usefulness of QR codes to customer satisfaction and attitude, and subsequently to the behavioural intention to use them, is well-supported. Perceived usefulness enhances customer satisfaction and their attitude by improving user experience and meeting customer needs. In turn, higher satisfaction and positive attitudes lead to stronger behavioural intention to use QR codes, driven by positive experience and loyalty.

This study also aimed to identify indicators within the triangular pathway linking QR codes' perceived usefulness for traceability to supply chain transparency, and subsequently to the behavioural intention to utilize the technology. These findings reinforce the research by Tran and Nguyen [ 88 ], which highlights the potential of blockchain technology (including QR codes) to enhance product history visibility within blockchain-enabled supply chain management frameworks. Additionally, these results align with signalling theory, elucidating how QR code technology aids in mitigating the information asymmetry faced by consumers.

In summary, the perceived usefulness of QR codes for traceability enhances supply chain transparency by providing real-time, accurate, and accessible information throughout the supply chain. This increased transparency builds trust and confidence among stakeholders, leading to a stronger behavioural intention to use QR codes. By understanding and leveraging this pathway, supply chain managers and organizations can enhance the adoption and effectiveness of QR codes, ultimately leading to more transparent, trustworthy, and efficient supply chain operations.

The results regarding the moderating effect of personal innovativeness (PI) on the relationship between the perceived usefulness of QR codes for payment and consumer satisfaction are consistent with the findings of Chen [ 27 ]. Specifically, consumers with higher levels of personal innovativeness exhibit greater satisfaction with QR codes. These findings support Chen's [ 27 ] conclusion that consumers with higher PI are more favourable towards QR codes. In contrast, the results diverge from those of Krey et al. [ 54 ], who suggested that more risk-taking and innovative individuals have less favourable perceptions of the usefulness of applied technology. The current research indicates that forward-thinking and innovative consumers are more likely to perceive QR codes favourably due to their practical benefits.

However, the study did not find similar results regarding the moderating effect of PI for the perceived usefulness of QR codes for traceability. Consequently, there is no significant difference in the perceived usefulness of QR codes for tracing product supply chain information among consumers with varying degrees of personal innovativeness. Such results can be justified by the fact that the tangible advantages of QR codes, such as rapid access to traceability data and the capacity to verify the legitimacy of products, are equally applicable to all users, reducing the significance of personal innovativeness as a moderating factor. Therefore, the differential impact of personal innovativeness is reduced as QR codes become the norm in supply chains, and their value in promoting transparency is recognized universally.

A significant finding is the moderating effect of electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) on the relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioural intention, corroborating the observations of Al Halbusi et al. [ 11 ]. Similarly, in line with the research of Zamil et al. [ 102 ], e-WOM has been shown to moderate the relationship between attitude and behavioural intention. This suggests that consumers with a positive attitude towards QR codes are more inclined to use them, influenced by the advantageous information they obtain through e-WOM. Collectively, e-WOM amplifies the impact of customer satisfaction by providing additional information, social validation, and trust, thereby affecting behavioural intentions. This phenomenon is particularly pertinent in digital marketing and e-commerce, where consumer decisions are significantly shaped by online reviews and recommendations.

Theoretical contributions

By synthesizing the theories of signalling and reasoned action, this study aims to advance the use of QR codes for supermarket purchases. Incorporating insights from Vietnam, it enriches the research on QR codes in developing countries, with findings potentially applicable to other emerging markets. Traceability has received considerable attention in scholarly literature on information systems, supply chain management, and food research. Previous studies have highlighted benefits such as reduced shrinkage and costs and improved efficiency and quality control [ 35 , 75 ]. However, there is limited research on consumer perspectives regarding traceability systems [ 90 ]. This paper addresses this gap by examining the role of QR codes in product supply chain traceability at supermarkets through the lens of signalling theory. We argue that QR code labels act as external indicators of product quality and origin. This research enhances the literature on the perceived usefulness of QR codes for traceability [ 22 , 100 ] by explaining how this perceived usefulness leads to supply chain transparency, which in turn affects the behavioural intention to use QR codes for purchases at supermarkets. The integration of fintech, marketing, and supply chain literature provides interdisciplinary insights into QR code technologies and their applications, as suggested by Treiblmaier [ 89 ], Treiblmaier, and Garaus [ 90 ].

Unlike previous studies focusing on specific QR code functions such as payment [ 92 ] or traceability [ 52 ], this research is among the first to integrate these functionalities to analyse consumer’s use of QR codes in Vietnamese supermarkets. There is limited knowledge about the concurrent application of the theory of reasoned action and signalling theory in examining QR code usage behaviour for these two functions. The theory of reasoned action explains how QR codes enhance perceived usefulness, fostering positive attitudes, and customer satisfaction, which subsequently influences the intention to use QR codes for purchases. Simultaneously, signalling theory demonstrates the perceived usefulness of QR codes in providing product supply chain information, reducing consumer uncertainty about supermarket products. Consequently, this study contributes to the existing literature on QR codes [ 38 , 39 , 76 ] by developing a multi-functional perspective of QR code technology within the over-the-counter retail sector.

Moreover, this study explores the moderating role of e-WOM in QR code technology. It posits that consumer engagement with online guidance strengthens the relationship between attitudes and satisfaction with QR codes and the intention to use them. This research also extends the literature by examining the moderating influence of personal innovativeness in technology adoption, building on the work of Chen [ 27 ]. It investigates how personal innovativeness moderates the relationship between the perceived usefulness of QR codes and customer’s attitudes and satisfaction.

Overall, this study is a pioneering effort to employ personal innovativeness and e-WOM as moderators in the relationships between the perceived usefulness of QR codes, customer’s attitudes, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions. The growing importance of QR code services and the influence of social media highlight the need to investigate these variables and the factors affecting QR code adoption in Vietnam [ 36 , 72 , 95 ]. This research could serve as a foundational model for future studies exploring factors influencing consumer attitudes, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions towards QR code technology in purchasing decisions.

Practical contributions

Firstly, the study's findings demonstrate that the use of QR codes has a positive impact on consumer attitudes and satisfaction, particularly in the context of supply chain information traceability. This effect is especially pronounced for products that provide consumers with reliable recording of supply chain information through QR code technology. QR code labels, which are easily attached to products, have already become common practice in the retail industry. Additionally, QR code-based payments are straightforward for consumers amidst the ongoing digital transformation in the banking and fintech sectors. This form of digital payment, especially when offered in retail supermarkets, enhances customer convenience. Consequently, the implementation of QR code technology requires minimal additional effort from supermarkets and organizations once a technological solution has been established and operationalized. However, realizing the benefits of QR codes depends on proactive communication from companies and banks to educate the public.

Secondly, our findings indicate that QR codes play a significant role in enhancing the transparency of product supply chain information, which in turn motivates consumers to adopt QR code technology for their purchases. This insight is particularly important for companies seeking to transparently communicate their efforts to secure food product supply chains. To establish credibility, companies can provide consumers with access to safety-related product information, thereby enabling active consumer engagement in the supply chain. Companies might also implement policies that specify the extent of consumer awareness regarding existing traceability systems. Furthermore, companies should encourage consumers about the use of QR codes on product packaging to offer detailed information such as ingredients, usage instructions, and nutritional facts, which can build trust and enhance customer satisfaction. Thus, the implementation of QR codes can allow consumers to trace the product's journey from origin to shelf, thereby reinforcing transparency and demonstrating a commitment to quality and ethical sourcing.

Thirdly, supermarkets can leverage QR codes to actively facilitate consumer purchases, particularly for those inclined to explore and assess new technologies and innovations. This approach aids in the rapid formation of new habits and builds trust in products already available in supermarkets. QR code technology shifts the reliability of information from individual entities or organizations to a network of technology and organizations within the supply chain. It can also be employed for digital payment transactions. Organizations can readily capitalize on the diverse possibilities presented by QR code technology to foster a favourable perception among consumers. This study not only illustrates the benefits of employing QR code technology for traceability and payment in supermarkets but also delineates effective methods for conveying these advantages to consumers. Supermarkets should promote the sharing and exchange of product supply chain information among consumers through the internet, social media, and mobile communication. Facilitating online conversations enables electronic Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM) to disseminate information globally and rapidly.

Fourthly, businesses should also implement interactive marketing strategies, encompassing both promotions and discounts as well as gamification elements. For promotions and discounts, businesses can generate QR codes that direct consumers to exclusive discounts or promotional materials. These codes should be strategically placed on posters, flyers, and social media platforms to drive traffic and stimulate participation. Regarding gamification, companies can integrate QR codes into gamified experiences, such as scavenger hunts or reward-based activities, to enhance engagement and foster brand interaction.

Finally, in a broader context, our research provides essential insights for policymakers and society at large. It is recommended that the government mandates businesses to transparently disclose the data collected through QR codes and its intended use. Furthermore, explicit user consent should be obtained prior to any data collection. Regulators should also enforce that businesses offer clear information regarding the purpose of the QR code, ensuring that users are aware of the outcomes of scanning it. Additionally, the government should conduct regular audits and compliance checks to ensure adherence to QR code regulations, with non-compliance resulting in appropriate penalties or sanctions.

Limitations and future research directions

Like every empirical study, our research possesses specific limitations, emphasizing the need for further comprehensive investigations and replication studies to other contexts to retest our findings in the future. At first, our findings are based on samples that were easily accessible. It is advised that future studies use quota sampling methods to confirm the applicability of our results to various age, economic, and educational categories. Furthermore, integrating purposive sampling with other sampling methodologies, such as random sampling or stratified sampling, can mitigate the selection bias inherent in purposive sampling. This combination allows for a more balanced and representative sample.

Secondly, this research investigated the attitudes of exclusively retail consumers towards QR codes application for payment and traceability using self-reported data. There is a potential overestimation of their acceptance of this technology. Therefore, subsequent studies should include objective measures, such as the actual usage frequency, to more precisely assess consumer adoption of QR codes for payment and traceability.

Thirdly, this study examined the adoption of QR codes for payment and traceability within the context of an emerging economy characterized by high levels of compliance with government-imposed regulations. Future research could benefit from conducting comparative studies across different countries that adhere to distinct societal and cultural norms. The nuances of national culture could provide valuable insights into how societal behaviours differ across contexts. In Vietnam, the majority of the population complied with the mandatory use of an app called “VNeID,” allowing their personal data to be utilized by the government for identity recognition. This situation stands in stark contrast to that of some individualistic Western countries, where such measures are often perceived as infringements on civil liberties and basic human rights [ 38 ].

Fourthly, the integration of QR codes with emerging technologies such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and the Internet of Things (IoT) has been the subject of limited research. Consequently, future studies should focus on the technical challenges and advantages associated with these integrations, as well as potential novel use cases. Furthermore, existing literature frequently neglects the psychological factors influencing scan rates and consumer engagement. Additional research is necessary to comprehend the psychological and behavioural aspects that drive consumer interaction with QR codes. This includes investigating factors such as design, placement, and contextual relevance that impact consumer’s response and marketing effectiveness.

Fifthly, it is imperative for future research to prioritize the development of QR code-based blockchain technology that addresses users' needs for information and payment. Conducting qualitative research through focus groups could be a productive approach to identify the specific information and payment methods that consumers require to facilitate their purchasing decisions. With this understanding, user interfaces that effectively convey QR code-based technology can be developed, promoting its implementation in retail supermarkets and enhancing the overall consumer experience. Additionally, future studies should further analyse the influence of internal and external factors, such as privacy, security, trust, government incentives, and e-loyalty, to fully elucidate the driving mechanisms behind consumers’ adoption behaviour of QR code-based technologies.

Drawing on the theory of reasoned action and signalling theory, this research aims to identify the determinants that influence the behavioural intention to use QR codes for purchasing products at Vietnamese supermarkets. Our study reveals that consumer adoption of QR code technology can be significantly predicted by factors such as supply chain transparency, customer satisfaction, perceived usefulness of QR codes (including payment and traceability), and attitudes towards using QR code technology. The results illustrate the pathways from the perceived usefulness of QR codes to supply chain transparency, attitudes, and customer satisfaction, ultimately leading to the behavioural intention to use QR codes. Additionally, personal innovativeness and e-Word-of-Mouth are found to moderate the following relationships: (1) the perceived usefulness of QR codes for payment and customer satisfaction, attitude, and (2) customer satisfaction, attitude, and behavioural intention to use QR codes. This research advances the existing body of knowledge on the behavioural intention to use QR codes. We propose that our analysis has the potential to stimulate further empirical research on QR codes and their impacts within the existing literature. Given the widespread use of QR codes, it is crucial to understand the factors that influence individuals' intentions to use them and how supermarkets can effectively leverage this technology to achieve their objectives.

Availability of data and materials

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

Vietnam News, Vietnam’s digital economy is the fastest growing in Southeast Asia. Available from https://www.vietnam.vn/en/kinh-te-so-viet-nam-phat-trien-nhanh-nhat-dong-nam-a-trong-2-nam-lien-tiep/

Statista (2024), Penetration rate of mobile POS payments in 34 countries worldwide in 2022. Available from https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1256541/mobile-pos-payment-penetration-rate-by-country#statisticContainer

Yahoo Finance (2024), Global QR Code Payment Market Outlook 2023-2028: Rising Demand for Convenient and Secure Payment Solutions. Available from https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-qr-code-payment-market-164800389.html

The Visa Consumer Payment Attitudes Study was prepared by CLEAR M&C Saatchi in October–November 2023, surveyed among 6,550 consumers in Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia. The study conducted interviews with 1.000 Vietnamese consumers across the country who are working part or full time with a demographic mix that sought to create a representative mix of ages (18-65), genders and income levels.

Industry and Trade Newspaper (2023), traceability by QRCode: Transparency of product quality, protecting consumers’ interests. Available from https://www.vietnam.vn/en/truy-xuat-nguon-goc-bang-qrcode-minh-bach-chat-luong-san-pham-bao-ve-quyen-loi-nguoi-tieu-dung/ .

Abbreviations

Electric word-of-mouth

Quick response codes

Theory of reasoned action

Customer satisfaction

Behavioural intention

Personal innovativeness

Supply chain transparency

QR code’s perceived usefulness for traceability

QR code’s perceived usefulness for payment

Average variance extract

Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach reliability

Abdul Rabu SN, Hussin H, Bervell B (2019) QR code utilization in a large classroom: higher education students’ initial perceptions. Educ Inf Technol 24(1):359–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9779-2

Article Google Scholar

Abdullah F, Ward R, Ahmed E (2016) Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Comput Hum Behav 63:75–90

Acciarini C, Cappa F, Di Costanzo G, Prisco M, Sardo F, Stazzone A, Stoto C (2023) Blockchain technology to protect label information: the effects on purchase intentions in the food industry. Comput Ind Eng 180:109276

Acuti D, Vocino A, Mazzoli V, Donvito R (2022) The effects of QR delivered content on perceived product value. J Strateg Mark 30(5):510–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2020.1813794

Andrade C (2020) The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian J Psychol Med 43(1):86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000

Agarwal R, Prasad J (1998) A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf Syst Res 9(2):204–215

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predictiing social behavior. Prentice-hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Google Scholar

Akdeniz MB, Talay MB (2013) Cultural variations in the use of marketing signals: a multilevel analysis of the motion picture industry. J Acad Mark Sci 41:601–624

Aksoy NC, Alan AK, Kabadayi ET, Dagistanli HS (2021) How do people adopt information on social media? The role of e-WOM in revealing travel itineraries. Int J Internet Market Advert 15(5–6):550–569. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2021.118258

Al Halbusi H, Al-Sulaiti K, Abbas J, Al-Sulaiti I (2022) Assessing factors influencing technology adoption for online purchasing amid COVID-19 in Qatar: moderating role of word of mouth. Front Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.942527

Amin M, Rezaei S, Abolghasemi M (2014) User satisfaction with mobile websites: the impact of perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and trust. Nankai Bus Rev Int 5(3):258–274

Amirmokhtar Radi S, Shokouhyar S (2021) Toward consumer perception of cellphones sustainability: a social media analytics. Sustain Prod Consumpt 25:217–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.08.012

Anwar A, Thongpapanl-Tek N, Ashraf AR (2021) Strategic imperatives of mobile commerce in developing countries: the influence of consumer innovativeness, ubiquity, perceived value, risk, and cost on usage. J Strateg Mark 29(8):722–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2020.1786847

Astill J, Dara RA, Campbell M, Farber JM, Fraser EDG, Sharif S, Yada RY (2019) Transparency in food supply chains: A review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci & Technol 91:240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.024

Ausawanetmanee P, Thavorn J, Chandrachai A, Klongthong W, Vchirawongwin V, Ekgasit S (2024) Consumer acceptance of an innovative Bio-QR code traceability system for edible bird’s nest. J Open Innovat: Technol, Market, Complexity 10(1):100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100169

Avkiran NK (2018) An in-depth discussion and illustration of partial least squares structural equation modelling in health care. Health Care Manag Sci 21(3):401–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-017-9393-7

Bashir H (2022) Leveraging technology to communicate sustainability-related product information: evidence from the field. J Cleaner Product 362:132508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132508

Baralla G, Pinna A, Tonelli R, Marchesi M, Ibba S (2021) Ensuring transparency and traceability of food local products: a blockchain application to a Smart Tourism Region. Concurr Comput: Pract Exper 33(1):e5857

Boulding W, Kirmani A (1993) A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? J Consumer Res 20(1):111–123

Bradford H, McKernan C, Elliott C, Dean M (2022) Consumer purchase intention towards a quick response (QR) code for antibiotic information: an exploratory study. Npj Sci Food 6(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-022-00136-4

Bumblauskas D, Mann A, Dugan B, Rittmer J (2020) A blockchain use case in food distribution: do you know where your food has been? Int J Inform Manag 52:102008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.004

Campbell S, Greenwood M, Prior S, Shearer T, Walkem K, Young S, Bywaters D, Walker K (2020) Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. J Res Nurs 25(8):652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206

Cham TH, Lim YM, Sigala M (2022) Marketing and social influences, hospital branding, and medical tourists’ behavioral intention: before- and after-service consumption perspective. Int J Tour Res 24(1):140–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2489

Chang HY, Hsu YS, Wu HK, Tsai CC (2018) Students’ development of socio-scientific reasoning in a mobile augmented reality learning environment. Int J Sci Educ 40(12):1410–1431

Chang V, Chen W, Xu QA, Xiong C (2021) Towards the customers’ intention to use QR codes in mobile payments. J Glob Inform Manag (JGIM) 29(6):1–21. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.20211101.oa37

Chen J (2022) Adoption of M-learning apps: a sequential mediation analysis and the moderating role of personal innovativeness in information technology. Comput Human Behav Rep 8:100237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100237

Chen MF, Huang CH (2013) The impacts of the food traceability system and consumer involvement on consumers’ purchase intentions toward fast foods. Food Contr 33(2):313–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.03.022

Connelly BL, Certo ST, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR (2011) Signaling theory: a review and assessment. J Manag 37(1):39–67

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

Donthu N, Kumar S, Pandey N, Pandey N, Mishra A (2021) Mapping the electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) research: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. J Bus Res 135:758–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.015

Eren BA (2022) QR code m-payment from a customer experience perspective. J Finan Serv Market. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-022-00186-5

Foroughi B, Iranmanesh M, Gholipour HF, Hyun SS (2019) Examining relationships among process quality, outcome quality, delight, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in fitness centres in Malaysia. Int J Sports Mark Spons 20(3):374–389. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-2018-0078

Francisco K, Swanson D (2018) The supply chain has no clothes: technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics 2(1):2

George RV, Harsh HO, Ray P, Babu AK (2019) Food quality traceability prototype for restaurants using blockchain and food quality data index. J Cleaner Product 240:118021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118021

Ghali-Zinoubi Z (2023) Online retailers’ perceived ethics and consumer repetitive purchases under the moderating role of reputation: a commitment-trust theory perspective. SAGE Open 13(4):21582440231207180. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231207181

Goyette I, Ricard L, Bergeron J, Marticotte F (2010) e-WOM Scale: word-of-mouth measurement scale for e-services context. Canadian J Administr Sci /Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration 27(1):5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.129

Hamzah MI (2023) Fear of COVID-19 disease and QR-based mobile payment adoption: a protection motivation perspective. J Finan Serv Market. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-023-00246-4

Hamzah MI, Ramli FAA, Shaw N (2023) The moderating influence of brand image on consumers’ adoption of QR-code e-wallets. J Retail Consum Serv 73:103326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103326

Han H, Ryu K (2009) The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. J Hospital Tour Res 33(4):487–510

Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Market Theory Pract 19(2):139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

Hair JF Jr, Matthews LM, Matthews RL, Sarstedt M (2017) PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int J Multivar Data Anal 1(2):107–123

Hernando R, Macías JA (2023) Development of usable applications featuring QR codes for enhancing interaction and acceptance: a case study. Behav Inform Technol 42(4):360–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.2022209

Hu J, Ren J, Zheng J, Li Z, Xiao X (2020) A quasi-experimental study examining QR code-based video education program on anxiety, adherence, and satisfaction in coronary angiography patients. Contemp Nurse 56(5–6):428–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2020.1813043

Iskender A, Sirakaya-Turk E, Cardenas D, Hikmet N (2022) Restaurant patrons’ intentions toward QR code menus in the US during COVID-19: acceptance of technology adoption model (ATAM). J Foodserv Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2022.2133518

Jadhav R, Shaikh A, Jawale MA, Pawar AB, William P (2022) System for identifying fake product using blockchain technology. In: 2022 7th International conference on communication and electronics systems (ICCES), pp. 851–854. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCES54183.2022.9835866

Jattamart A, Kwangsawad A, Boonkasem K (2019) Factors influencing the intentions of customer with regard to the use of E-WOM behaviour to promote the use of E-commerce websites. In: 2019 4th Technology innovation management and engineering science international conference (TIMES-iCON), pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIMES-iCON47539.2019.9024662

Jung H, Hwang J (2023) The information characteristics of YouTube tourism content and their impacts on user satisfaction and intention to visit and share information: the moderating role of word-of-mouth information acceptance. Asia Pacif J Tour Res 28(2):143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2023.2207692

Kamble S, Gunasekaran A, Arha H (2019) Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int J Prod Res 57(7):2009–2033

Kasilingam DL (2020) Understanding the attitude and intention to use smartphone chatbots for shopping. Technology in Society 62:101280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101280

Kayikci Y, Subramanian N, Dora M, Bhatia MS (2022) Food supply chain in the era of Industry 4.0: blockchain technology implementation opportunities and impediments from the perspective of people, process, performance, and technology. Prod Plann Contr 33(2–3):301–321

Kim YG, Woo E (2016) Consumer acceptance of a quick response (QR) code for the food traceability system: application of an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Food Res Int 85:266–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.05.002

Kjeldsen K, Nodeland M, Fagerstrøm A, Pawar S (2023) The relative impact of QR codes on omnichannel customer experience and purchase intention. Procedia Comput Sci 219:1049–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.383

Krey N, Chuah SHW, Ramayah T, Rauschnabel PA (2019) How functional and emotional ads drive smartwatch adoption. Internet Res 29(3):578–602. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0534

Kumar S, Prakash G, Gupta B, Cappiello G (2023) How e-WOM influences consumers’ purchase intention towards private label brands on e-commerce platforms: Investigation through IAM (Information Adoption Model) and ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) Models. Technol Forecast Social Change 187:122199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122199

Le MTH (2024) Fostering product quality and Brand Trust by QR code traceability and customer reviews: the moderating role of brand reputation in Blockchain. J High Technol Manag Res 35(1):100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2024.100492

Lee-sook M, An H (2018) A study of antecedents influencing e-WOM for online lecture website Online. Inf Rev 42(7):1048–1064. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2017-0275

Lefebvre S, Cook LA, Griffiths MA (2019) Consumer perceptions of genetically modified foods: a mixed-method approach. J Consum Mark 36(1):113–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-12-2016-2043

Li CY, Fang YH (2019) Predicting continuance intention toward mobile branded apps through satisfaction and attachment. Telemat Inform 43:101248

Liu H, Ma R, He G, Lamrabet A, Fu S (2023) The impact of blockchain technology on the online purchase behavior of green agricultural products. J Retail Consumer Serv 74:103387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103387

Liu Y, Luo J, Zhang L (2021) The effects of mobile payment on consumer behavior. J Consum Behav 20(3):512–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1880

Loudon DL, Della Bitta AJ (1984) Consumer behavior: concepts and applications. McGraw-Hill College, New York

Lupo-Pasini F (2020) Is it a wonderful life? Cashless societies and monetary exclusion. Rev Bank Fin L 40:153

Mac TN, Phipps DJ, Parkinson J, Cassimatis M, Hamilton K (2023) Using an integrated social cognition model to identify the determinants of QR code check-in compliance behaviors in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Health Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053231209880

Mailizar M, Burg D, Maulina S (2021) Examining university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: an extended TAM model. Educ Inf Technol 26(6):7057–7077

Mao D, Wang F, Hao Z, Li H (2018) Credit evaluation system based on blockchain for multiple stakeholders in the food supply chain. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(8):1627

Mavlanova T, Benbunan-Fich R, Koufaris M (2012) Signaling theory and information asymmetry in online commerce. Inform Manag 49(5):240–247

McDougall GHG, Levesque T (2000) Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. J Serv Mark 14(5):392–410

Meydanoğlu ESB, Çilingirtürk AM, Böhm S, Klein M (2018) QR code advertising: a cross–country comparison of Turkish and German consumers. Int J Intern Market Advert 12(1):40–68. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2018.089201

Mhurchu CN, Eyles H, Jiang Y, Blakely T (2018) Do nutrition labels influence healthier food choices? Analysis of label viewing behaviour and subsequent food purchases in a labelling intervention trial. Appetite 121:360–365

Nguyen HY (2020) Fintech in Vietnam and Its Regulatory Approach. In: Fenwick M, Van Uytsel S, Ying B (eds) Regulating FinTech in Asia: Global Context, Local Perspectives. Springer, Singapore, pp 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5819-1_7

Chapter Google Scholar

Nguyen MS (2023) Factors affecting Gen Z’s intention to use QR Pay in Vietnam after Covid-19. Innov Mark 19(3):100

Peng Y, Zhang L, Song Z, Yan J, Li X, Li Z (2018) A QR code based tracing method for fresh pork quality in cold chain. J Food Process Eng 41(4):e12685. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.12685

Piramanayagam S, Sud S, Seal PP (2020) Relationship between tourists’ local food experiences cape, satisfaction and behavioral intention. Anatolia 31(2):316–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1747232

Qian J, Ruiz-Garcia L, Fan B, Robla Villalba JI, McCarthy U, Zhang B, Yu Q, Wu W (2020) Food traceability system from governmental, corporate, and consumer perspectives in the European Union and China: a comparative review. Trend Food Sci Technol 99:402–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.025

Ramli FAA, Hamzah MI, Wahab SN, Shekhar R (2023) Modeling the brand equity and usage intention of QR-code E-wallets. FinTech 2(2):205–220. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2020013

Rezvani S, Heidari S, Roustapisheh N, Dokhanian S (2022) The effectiveness of system quality, habit, and effort expectation on library application use intention: the mediating role of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user satisfaction. Int J Bus Inform Syst 1(1):1–18

Sanz-Valero J, Álvarez Sabucedo LM, Wanden-Berghe C, Santos Gago JM (2016) QR Codes: outlook for Food Science and Nutrition. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56(6):973–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.742865

Senali MG, Iranmanesh M, Ismail FN, Rahim NFA, Khoshkam M, Mirzaei M (2023) Determinants of intention to use e-wallet: personal innovativeness and propensity to trust as moderators. Int J Human-Comput Interact 39(12):2361–2373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2076309

Sgroi F, Piraino F, Garifo G, Modica F, Ingrassia M (2022) Information asymmetry in the agri-food sector and territorial marks: the case of the olive oil Val di Mazara PDO. J Agricult Food Res 9:100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100337

Slack NJ, Singh G, Ali J, Lata R, Mudaliar K, Swamy Y (2021) Influence of fast-food restaurant service quality and its dimensions on customer perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Br Food J 123(4):1324–1344. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2020-0771

Slack N, Singh G, Sharma S (2020) The effect of supermarket service quality dimensions and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty and disloyalty dimensions. Int J Qual Serv Sci 12(3):297–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-10-2019-0114

Spence M (2002) Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. Am Econ Rev 92(3):434–459

Stiglitz JE (2002) Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. Am Econ Rev 92(3):460–501

Singh N, Sinha N, Liébana-Cabanillas FJ (2020) Determining factors in the adoption and recommendation of mobile wallet services in India: analysis of the effect of innovativeness, stress to use and social influence. Int J Inform Manag 50:191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.022

Sun H, Zafar MZ, Hasan N (2022) Employing natural language processing as artificial intelligence for analyzing consumer opinion toward advertisement. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856663

Sun Y, Gonzalez-Jimenez H, Wang S (2021) Examining the relationships between e-WOM, consumer ethnocentrism and brand equity. J Bus Res 130:564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.040

Tran LTT, Nguyen PT (2021) Co-creating blockchain adoption: theory, practice and impact on usage behaviour. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 33(7):1667–1684. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-08-2020-0609

Treiblmaier H (2021) Beyond blockchain: how tokens trigger the internet of value and what marketing researchers need to know about them. J Mark Commun 29(3):238–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2021.2011375

Treiblmaier H, Garaus M (2023) Using blockchain to signal quality in the food supply chain: the impact on consumer purchase intentions and the moderating effect of brand familiarity. Int J Inf Manage 68:102514

Trivedi R, Teichert T, Hardeck D (2020) Effectiveness of pull-based print advertising with QR codes. Eur J Mark 54(1):145–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2018-0383

Türker C, Altay BC, Okumuş A (2022) Understanding user acceptance of QR code mobile payment systems in Turkey: An extended TAM. Technol Forecast Social Change 184:121968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121968

Uddin M (2021) Blockchain Medledger: Hyperledger fabric enabled drug traceability system for counterfeit drugs in pharmaceutical industry. Int J Pharmaceut 597:120235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120235

Verma S, Yadav N (2021) Past, present, and future of electronic word of mouth (EWOM). J Interact Market 53:111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.07.001

Vinh Loc C, Xuan Viet T, Hoang Viet T, Hoang Thao L, Hoang Viet N (2023) Deep learning based-approach for quick response code verification. Appl Intell 53(19):22700–22714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-04712-3

Vuksanović N, Demirović Bajrami D, Petrović MD, Grigorieva EM (2021) QR codes as a tool for receiving feedback about guests’ satisfaction at destinations. J Place Manag Dev 14(1):19–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-03-2020-0025

Wang Y, Lu T (2008) Analysis of mobile commerce value chain. In: Xu LD, Tjoa AM, Chaudhry SS (eds) Research and practical issues of enterprise information systems II. Springer, New York, pp 1277–1281

Wilkie WL (1994) Consumer behaviour. Wiley, Hobroken

Xiao X, Fu Z, Zhang Y, Peng Z, Zhang X (2017) SMS-CQ: a quality and safety traceability system for aquatic products in cold-chain integrated WSN and QR code. J Food Process Eng 40(1):112303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.12303

Xu Y, Li X, Zeng X, Cao J, Jiang W (2022) Application of blockchain technology in food safety control: current trends and future prospects. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 62(10):2800–2819. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1858752

Yadav P, Jain A, Kochhar K (2023) An integrated model for acceptance of QR code mobile payment a comparative study between male and female. In: Swaroop A, Polkowski Z, Correia SD, Virdee B (Eds), Proceedings of data analytics and management. Springer, Singapore, pp. 659–675

Zamil AMA, Ali S, Poulova P, Akbar M (2022) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? Multi-level modelling on the antecedents of mobile-wallet adoption and the moderating role of e-WoM during COVID-19. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002958

Zelbst PJ, Green KW, Sower VE, Bond PL (2020) The impact of RFID, IIoT, and Blockchain technologies on supply chain transparency. J Manuf Technol Manag 31(3):441–457. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2019-0118

Zhang J, Mao E (2020) Cash, credit, or phone? An empirical study on the adoption of mobile payments in the United States. Psychol Market 37(1):87–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21282

Zhang S, Liao J, Wu S, Zhong J, Xue X (2021) A Traceability public service cloud platform incorporating IDcode system and colorful QR code technology for important product. Math Probl Eng 2021:5535535. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5535535

Zhao Y, Wang L, Tang H, Zhang Y (2020) Electronic word-of-mouth and consumer purchase intentions in social e-commerce. Electr Commerce Res Appl 41:100980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100980

Zhao L, Lu Y, Zhang L, Chau PYK (2012) Assessing the effects of service quality and justice on customer satisfaction and the continuance intention of mobile value-added services: an empirical test of a multidimensional model. Dec Supp Syst 52(3):645–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.022

Zhu J, Chang Y, Zhu C (2022) Application of QR code recognition technology in modern power logistics management. In: Atiquzzaman M, Yen N, Xu Z (Eds) 2021 International conference on big data analytics for cyber-physical system in smart city. Springer Singapore, pp. 351–357

Zmud RW, Shaft T, Zheng W, Croes H (2010) Systematic differences in firm’s information technology signaling: Implications for research design. J Assoc Inf Syst 11(3):1

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was conducted independently and self-funded by the authors. No external funding or financial support was received for the completion of this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

International University, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam

Man The Nguyen & Tho Alang

Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City>, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MTN developed and identified the research gap, designed the research methodology, did the analysis, and wrote the paper. AT did the analysis and wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Man The Nguyen or Tho Alang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that we have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nguyen, M.T., Alang , T. When do shoppers prefer using QR codes? Empirical evidence from Vietnam. Futur Bus J 10 , 105 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00391-9

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2024

Accepted : 27 August 2024

Published : 06 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00391-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Over-the-counter QR codes
Traceability

IMAGES

Adoption 101: What is Open Adoption? [Infographic]
The Benefits of Open Adoption
Private Adoption Agency in TX
Research on Open Adoption
Open Adoption-Impact on Adoptee, Birth Parent, & Adoptive Parent
What Is Open Adoption? What You Need to Know

VIDEO

Your Choices, Your Path: Navigating Birth Father Involvement in Oklahoma Adoption
Research and Preparation Before Adoption
The Value of Adoption Competence 07 30 24
So Far To Find You

COMMENTS

10 Things that Scientific Research Says about Open Adoption
Here are 10 important facts and statistics about open adoption and its benefits for everyone in the adoption triad: 1. Today, closed adoptions are all but extinct; it's estimated that only 5 percent of modern adoptions are closed. 2. That means that 95 percent of today's adoptions involve some level of openness, whether they are mediated ...
PDF Open Adoption: Rethinking Family
Open Adoption RUDD ADOPTION RESEARCH PROGRAM at UMASS AMHERST • THE FUTURE OF ADOPTION: BEYOND SAFETY TO WELL-BEING 3 International Adoptions Although much less is known about contact in international adoptions, it is becoming more common. A number of factors add complexity to the desire for contact, including cultural ...
Open Adoption: A Research-Based Literature Review and New Data
Though by now there exists an extensive literature about open adoption , discussion of its effects based on research with families involved is in its early stages. This analysis reviews six empirical studies of open adoption. It also presents data from two new databases , one involving in-depth interviews with 32 adoptive and 16 associated ...
Bridging the Divide: Openness in Adoption and Post-adoption
The Existing Empirical Evidence. Although researchers have begun to examine empirically the benefits and consequences of open adoption (e.g., Berry, 1993; Berry, Dylla, Barth, & Needell, 1998; Grotevant et al., 1994; Von Korff, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2006), data remain scarce and the existing research has often yielded inconsistent results.For example, Blanton and Deschner (1990) reported that ...
Open Adoption
Open adoption is not shared parenting. Parental rights of the birth family are terminated, and the adoptive parents are the legal parents and the ones responsible for the care of the child who has been adopted. Open adoption was not always so commonplace, however. For much of the 20 th century, most private, unrelated adoptive placements were ...
Improving Open Adoptions
Improving Open Adoptions. Adoption Advocate No. 174 - This article covers what openness means in the context of adoption and how adoptive parents can, through openness, help adoptees integrate and heal. Lori Holden, adoptive parent, author, speaker, and podcaster, proposes three shifts adoptive parents can make—to better focus on what really ...
Adoption, Communication, and Family Networks: Current Research and
Open adoption practices have become normative in domestic adoption (H. D. Grotevant, Citation 2020). ... Adoption research tends to focus on adoptive parents' experiences (Colaner & Horstman, Citation 2021). More research is needed to give voice to birth family experiences, particularly birth father experiences, which are largely ...
Growing up in Open Adoption: Young Adults' Perspectives
Abstract. Most adoption agencies today allow a child's biological and adoptive families to know one another and maintain contact. This move toward openness instead of secrecy presents opportunities and challenges. The study reported here explores young adult adoptees' reactions to growing up in open adoptions.
Open Adoption
Openness in adoption has evolved over the last 25 years because of the input from adult adoptees and research by mental health professionals. Longitudinal adoption research has shown that open adoption is better for adoptees, adoptive parents, and birth parents.
Outcomes of Open Adoption from Care
"This book helps to fill some gaps in research about the longer-term outcomes of children adopted from out-of-home care. It brings together the findings from a constructive jigsaw of research methods, based on what was possible to obtain for adoptive parents and the children from case file records, an online survey, and interviews with both the adoptees and adoptive parents.
Open adoption: a review of the literature with recommendations to
As openness in adoption is still in its infancy, there has not been much systematic research on open adoption. This practice involves anything from sharing non-identifying information through an intermediary to regular face-to-face fully identifying information-sharing and contact between all members of the adoption triangle - the birthparent/s, the adoptive parents and the adoptees.
Open vs. Closed Adoptions: A Post Adoption Mental Health Perspective
Research on the Lifelong Impact of Open Adoption. The Donaldson Institute published a study in 2012 entitled "Openness in Adoption: From Secrecy and Stigma to Knowledge and Connections." The authors estimate that in 2012, only about 5% of domestic adoptions were closed adoptions.
Understanding Open Adoption
The children of open adoption do not have higher self-esteem than those in closed adoptions, he observed. For children in each group, self-esteem is about the same, his research found. He stressed that more research is needed to assess the impact of open adoption on adolescents. (The research he did with McRoy studies children up to age 12.)
Open adoption: adoptive parents' reactions two decades later
To understand the impacts of different open adoption arrangements, a qualitative descriptive study using a snowball sample of 44 adoptive parents throughout New England began in 1988. Every seven years these parents who adopted infants in open adoptions have participated in tape-recorded interviews to explore their evolving reactions to their ...
Open adoption
Open adoption has slowly become more common since research in the 1970s suggested that open adoption was better for children. In 1975 the tide began to change, and by the early 1990s open adoptions were offered by a majority of American adoption agencies. ...
Literature Review of the Impact of Open Adoption on the Adoptee
Impact of Openness in Adoption on Adoptees. This is a critical literature review of the empirical research about the impact of openness in adoption on adoptees placed in voluntary adoptions as infants. The most recent comprehensive literature review on this topic completed in 2001, covered research from 1990 to 1999 (Haugaard, Moed & West).
Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids
Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids. When Adoption Connection opened its doors over 30 years ago, open adoption was starting to blossom, but still in its infancy. As one of the first adoption agencies focused on open adoption, we found ourselves working to correct three common misperceptions, many of which are still ...
Openness in Adoption
The Open-Hearted Way to Open Adoption Lori Holden, 2013 Prior to 1990, fewer than 5 percent of domestic infant adoptions were open. In 2012, 90 percent or more of adoption agencies are recommending open adoption. Yet these agencies do not often or adequately prepare either adopting parents or birth parents for the road ahead of them!
Adoption Research
Adoption Research. We provide accurate, reliable, and up-to-date reports that inform and. equip professionals, policymakers, and the public at large to improve. and strengthen adoption. In 2021, we conducted the largest survey ever of adoptive parents. NCFA explored the profile of adoptive parents, their experiences, and what has changed in ...
Research on Open Adoption
Research on open adoption is not new. The most thorough studies were conducted in the 1980s and '90s. These were longitudinal studies that had amazing, almost identical results. A longitudinal study is a type of research that observes the same data in a repeated fashion. In these cases, adoptive parents were asked to respond to researchers ...
The Differences Between Open Adoption And Closed Adoption
Research shows open adoption may strengthen family relationships. According to this study, maintaining an open adoption enhances the relationship between a parent and child relationship while also helping the child understand different roles of their birth and adoptive families. 4. Closed adoption honors a desire for privacy.
6 Open Adoption Facts That Will Surprise You
1. Open Adoption Strengthens the Parent-Child Relationship. Research shows open adoption may strengthen family relationships. In this study, parents say maintaining an open adoption enhanced the parent-child relationship while also helping the child understand different roles of their birth and adoptive families. Source: Siegel, D. H. (2013).
(PDF) Review: Adoption research: Trends, topics, outcomes
Three historical trends in adoption. research are identified: the first focusing on risk in adoption and identifying adoptee-nonadoptee differences in adjustment; the second. examining the ...
Industry 4.0 adoption and eco‐product innovation capability
Open Access. Industry 4.0 adoption and eco-product innovation capability—Understanding the role of supply chain integration. Saumyaranjan Sahoo, ... Research Centre—Digital Circular Economy for Sustainable Development Goals (DCE-SDG), Jindal Global Business School, O P Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India ...
Technology Adoption of Open Banking: Drivers and Barriers
Open Banking is a financial ecosystem that provides third-party financial service providers open access to a consumer's banking informational and transactional data, from banks and nonbank financial entities through the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) [] to improve customer choices and experiences [].The customers that will benefit most from this mechanism are the ...
Adoption.
Adoption as a means of creating or expanding a family has undergone some remarkable changes in the past half century, resulting in considerable diversity in the constellation and dynamics of adoptive family life. These changes have been fueled by several societal forces including new adoption laws and regulations, research findings from emerging developmental science, and advocacy efforts by ...
When do shoppers prefer using QR codes? Empirical evidence from Vietnam
This research aimed to explore the factors influencing the behavioural intention to use over-the-counter (OTC) QR codes for purchasing products in Vietnamese supermarkets. The study included 996 consumers and employed a questionnaire-based survey method to test the hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Drawing on the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and ...

10 Things that Scientific Research Says about Open Adoption

To learn more about the benefits of open adoption and how it works with American Adoptions, call 1-800-ADOPTION now to speak with an adoption specialist.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Bridging the Divide: Openness in Adoption and Post-adoption Psychosocial Adjustment among Birth and Adoptive Parents

Misaki N. Natsuaki

Jenae Neiderhiser

Daniel S. Shaw

Georgette Villareal

Laura Scaramella

David Reiss

The Existing Empirical Evidence

Methodological Issues

Sample and Procedures

Measuring Openness in Adoption

Perceived Openness

Aggregated Openness Measure

Satisfaction with the adoption process

Post-adoption adjustment

Overview of Analyses

Descriptive and Correlational Analyses

The Effect of Openness in Adoption on Adoptive Parents’ Post-Adoption Adjustment and Satisfaction

The Effect of Openness on Birth Mothers’ Post-Adoption Adjustment and Satisfaction

A Subsidiary Analysis for Openness and Birth Fathers’ Adjustment

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Acknowledgments

Open Adoption

I Really Don’t Want an Open Adoption! – Weekend Wisdom

Free Courses

Expert-Based Training for Parents & Professionals

Open vs. Closed Adoptions: A Post Adoption Mental Health Perspective

BPAR’s Experience with Open and Closed Adoptions

Research on the Lifelong Impact of Open Adoption

Challenges and Benefits of Open Adoptions

Conclusions About How to Navigate an Open Adoption

About Erica Kramer, MSW

Adoptive Families

Join Archives Adoption Guide State Laws Directory September 6, 2024

Degrees of Openness

Challenges for Children

Putting the Children First

More articles like this

Ask AF: Letting a Preteen Take the Lead in a Birth Parent Relationship

“A New Path in Our Adoption Journey”

“Sliding Doors”

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Open adoption: adoptive parents' reactions two decades later

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Miscellaneous

Literature Review of the Impact of Open Adoption on the Adoptee

Recent Posts

Open Adoption: Research Finds No Confusion for Adopted Kids

Related Posts

Needing Someone Who Will Listen

Adoption and Secondary Infertility

San Francisco

Marin County

Quick Links

Connect with Us

Adoption Assistance Program

Featured Reading

Online Learning

Articles and Websites

Find adoption answers, support, training, or professional resources

Adoption by the Numbers

Adoption Research

The Importance of Adoption Research

General Adoption Statistics & Data

Start typing & press 'enter'

Research on Open Adoption

Technology Adoption of Open Banking: Drivers and Barriers

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Download citation