A Look at 'Genealogical Bewilderment' and 'Genetic Mirroring'
I received this question from a donor-conceived reader: “Any research on genetic mirroring or genetic bewilderment? Some of my colleagues are calling this pseudoscience.” I looked into the origins, scientific validity, and social usage of these terms. Here’s what I found.
Genealogical bewilderment: Psychological distress experienced by individuals who lack knowledge of one or both of their genetic parents. May relate to difficulties with identity formation and feelings of insecurity or incompleteness.
Genetic mirroring: The process of developing a sense of belonging by regularly seeing someone you are genetically related to and observing similarities.
An Acknowledgment: I’m not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or researcher. I’m trying to understand and contextualize concepts that circulate within the donor conception community. What I’m sharing reflects my current understanding based on available literature, community discussions, and my own lived experience. The psychological experiences donor-conceived people describe—whether we call them genealogical bewilderment, genetic mirroring, or something else entirely—deserve validation and support. I offer this exploration as an invitation to thoughtful conversation about how we name and navigate our individual and collective experiences.
Genealogical Bewilderment
In 1952, the Journal of Mental Health published a letter from psychiatrist E. Wellisch about his clinical observations of maladjustment in adopted children and adolescents. In it he wrote,
“May I draw attention to the observation that lack of knowledge of their real parents and ancestors can be a cause of maladjustment in children...
[P]ersons outside ourselves are essential for the development of our complete body-image. The most important persons in this respect are our real parents and the other members of our family. Knowledge of and definite relationship to his genealogy is therefore necessary for a child to build up his complete body-image and world-picture. It is an inalienable and entailed right of every person. There is an urge, a call in everybody to follow and fulfil the tradition of his family, race, nation, and the religious community into which he was born. The loss of this tradition is a deprivation which may result in the stunting of emotional development. …
[I]t is understandable that there are cases of maladjustment in children which show that the deprivation of a child’s knowledge of his genealogy can have harmful consequences. They can express themselves in a vague feeling within the child that some injustice was done to him. It may lead to an irrational rebellion against his adoptive parents, the world as a whole and eventually to delinquency. The problem deserves special studies and attention.”
The term “genealogical bewilderment” was coined by psychologist H.J. Sants in 1964 to describe the clinical effects observed in his young adopted patients. He defined it as a state of confusion and uncertainty resulting from a child’s lack of knowledge of one or both of “natural” parents that fundamentally undermines the child’s security and affects mental health. He described these children as preoccupied and obsessed, as if all their troubles would be solved by finding their missing genetic connection.
When Wellisch and Sants wrote about this concept in the 1950s and 1960s, they were among psychiatrists and psychologists trying to understand what they observed in their clinical work with adopted children and adolescents. Their writing reflected the theoretical approaches of their time, drawing heavily on psychoanalytic ideas about identity formation and the importance of early relationships. These were thoughtful observations from practitioners, but not necessarily systematic research findings.
At the same time as the Baby Scoop Era1 came to an end in the US in the 1970s, use of “genealogical bewilderment” expanded through popular publications like The Adoption Triangle. Adult adoptees and advocates used the term to help describe the psychological trauma caused by the era’s closed adoption practices. However, genealogical bewilderment never appeared in official diagnostic manuals.
In 1986, Humphrey and Humphrey conducted a review of 20 years of evidence related to adoption. They observed that people who “desperately searched” for their biological families usually had troubled relationships with their adoptive families, felt emotionally neglected at home, and had poor self-esteem. On the other hand, adopted children who grew up in loving, stable families might be curious about their origins, but were usually satisfied with basic information and didn't show signs of psychological problems. The Humphreys concluded that lacking knowledge about one or both of one’s genetic parents only becomes a problem (i.e., genealogical bewilderment) when the adoptive family relationships are already troubled or unsatisfying. The Humphreys also offered an opinion that donor conception might create potentially greater risk for genealogical bewilderment than adoption, since donor-conceived people might face permanent anonymity because of clinic practices (it wasn’t uncommon for clinics to use fresh sperm from more than one donor for multiple inseminations during a single cycle to increase pregnancy chances).
In 2012, Kimberly Leighton offered a critique of genealogical bewilderment. First, Leighton described how Wellisch's conception of genealogical bewilderment was rooted in concerns about race because he believed that individuals possess an inherent biological drive to reproduce within their specific racial "tradition," and that ignorance of one's genetic heritage disrupts this natural reproductive imperative. Second, Leighton positioned Sants as biased because of his theory that authentic belonging and identity formation required genetic relatedness, making adoptive family bonds inherently insufficient for complete psychological development.
When held to the same standards as other psychological conditions like depression and anxiety, genealogical bewilderment, as Wellisch and Sants first articulated, doesn’t hold up scientifically. There’s no substantial body of evidence demonstrating a causal relationship between a lack of knowledge about genetic roots and mental illness. There are no validated questionnaires or reliable ways to diagnose someone with genealogical bewilderment.
However, the phenomenon of experiencing confusion and uncertainty due to missing information about genetic relatives is a real one. Adoptees’ and donor-conceived people’s experiences of otherness and complex emotions during the search for identity and belonging — especially for those who experienced late disclosure or discovery — are well documented. Any psychological distress could be attributable to a complex interplay of factors related to identity formation in the absence of information about ancestry, feelings of loss and rejection, and layers of secrecy/avoidance versus openness within the family.
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the picture … you’ll see it with some DNA groups that show a family tree where half the leaves are blowing away… Your identity, it’s your heritage. You feel like you’re lost and you’ve had this heritage that you thought was yours for 60 years and it’s gone. (Respondent from Becker, 2024)
Genetic Mirroring
Mirroring is an established concept in child development. This term refers to how babies and children learn by copying what they see, such as when a baby smiles back at a parent's smile or when toddlers imitate actions and emotions. Scientists have also discovered that we're born with "mirror neurons", or brain cells that fire both when we do something and when we watch someone else do the same thing.
“Genetic mirroring” is described in the adoption and donor conception communities as developing a sense of belonging by regularly seeing someone you are genetically related to and observing similarities. The idea is that a lack of genetic mirroring in formative years contributes to a sense of otherness and potential maladjustment. From what I can tell, there is no formal recognition of when this term was coined, no research studies validating it as a developmental concept, and little peer-reviewed literature examining its correlational or causal role in donor conception.
While “genetic mirroring” lacks formal research validation, there are established psychological concepts that address similar phenomena. Family resemblance refers to similarities between close relatives and includes both genetic and environmental influences. Similarity-attraction affect is a psychological principle showing that humans are drawn to others who share their same attitudes, values, and interests. When donor-conceived people encounter genetic relatives, they might experience elements of family resemblance for the first time, suddenly seeing their own eyes, smile, or gestures reflected in another person, which could be profoundly meaningful. Finding physical similarities or shared traits could activate a sense of connection.
Now that I look in the mirror... I can’t see unsee my face shape… I mean, it’s always been this shape, but I’ve never seen it like this before. I just remember looking at [biological father’s] eyes and thinking, ‘Those are my eyes. And I’ve never seen my eyes before…’ I never saw that reflection before and I couldn’t stop staring at him, and he has the same… our same cheeks and same eyes… and I didn’t even know that I was missing that until I had it. (Respondent from Shepard, 2022)
Anecdotally, I can attest to experiencing something akin to this phenomenon myself. When I see my children’s genetic half-siblings, I often notice similarities to my own children and feel a strong emotional connection. I’m not related to these children or their families, but I feel a sense of familiarity. I can’t really explain it. Have I internalized bio-normative ideology? I don’t know. But dismissing the feeling as ‘false consciousness’ wouldn’t make it less real, just less examined.
Uptake in the Community
These two terms were embraced by donor-conceived people, in particular late-discovery and late-disclosure adults, as they became more organized and vocal from the 2000s onward. Donor-conceived people found in these concepts a vocabulary that resonated with their experiences. As ownership of the terms shifted from academia toward the affected people in both the adoption and donor conception communities, a significant transition occurred. What had been terms to apply to practitioners’ observations about maladjustment in children and adolescents following adoption became words for adults to validate and legitimize their own lived experiences. The clinical-sounding terminology provided weight and legitimacy to feelings that were overlooked or dismissed by their families, society, and the fertility industry.
The Latest Evolution
Today, these terms seem to be experiencing yet another evolution. Conservative political organizations and traditional family advocacy groups have begun appropriating this language to advance restrictive policy agendas. For example, The Heritage Foundation and Them Before Us use genealogical bewilderment and similar concepts in their advocacy to eliminate or restrict access to third-party reproduction, which disproportionately harms LGBTQ+, single-parent, and other marginalized families.
This creates a particularly troubling irony. Terms that are embraced by the donor-conceived community to legitimize feelings that have been dismissed are now being used as weapons against some of the very families to which they belong. The same clinical authority that made these concepts appealing to those seeking validation also makes them attractive to cultural and political advocates seeking to restrict reproductive choices.
So What?
For members of the donor-conceived community, it's worth weighing both the potential drawbacks and benefits of these terms.
Potential Drawbacks for the Community:
Pathologizing Curiosity and Invalidating Contentment: One of the primary criticisms is that using official-sounding terminology might transform what could be considered natural human curiosity about origins into a pathological condition. These terms could also be used to “other” donor-conceived people who genuinely feel complete without a genetic connection, suggesting they're in denial or psychologically stunted. (Note: I believe curiosity exists as a multidimensional spectrum rather than a binary trait, encompassing varying degrees of intensity, breadth, depth, and behavioral expression.)
Enabling Prescriptive Mandates: When taken to extremes, these concepts could be used to argue that all donor-conceived people "must" seek genetic connection and that families "must" facilitate genetic relative relationships regardless of individual preferences, family circumstances, or genetic relatives’ availability.
Undermining Parent Confidence: The suggestion that genetic mirroring is required for healthy development could make recipient parents feel their daily presence, love, and care is inherently insufficient, potentially damaging their confidence.
Oversimplifying Complex Experiences: Relying on these labels could obscure other contributing factors to any psychological distress, such as the quality of family relationships, circumstances around disclosure, social stigma about donor conception, broader identity development challenges, or life circumstances unrelated to genetic knowledge. Attributing difficulties primarily to a lack of genetic information may prevent addressing other important factors.
Limited Therapeutic Value: Mental health professionals often lack specific training to support donor-conceived people and their families effectively. This knowledge gap could lead to problematic treatment approaches that either pathologize normal variations in curiosity or default to genetic reunion as the primary solution, rather than employing broader wellbeing strategies that address individual needs within family systems. Without proper understanding of donor conception dynamics, therapists might misinterpret family functioning, impose their own assumptions about genetic relationships, or fail to recognize when curiosity levels reflect healthy individual differences rather than psychological distress requiring intervention.
Potential Benefits for the Community:
Building Shared Identity: Shared vocabulary allows people to quickly identify others who understand their feelings and builds solidarity within donor-conceived communities. These terms can help create a cohesive identity around common experiences.
Collective Advocacy Power: When arguing for changes to donor conception policies and practices, having recognized psychological concepts can strengthen advocacy efforts and make demands more legitimate to policymakers. Terminology like "genealogical bewilderment" and “genetic mirroring” might carry more weight in policy discussions than personal stories alone.
Challenging Dismissive Attitudes: Official-sounding terminology can help counter narratives that frame interest in genetic origins as mere "curiosity" or "ingratitude" toward raising parents.
Research and Philanthropic Attention: Having established terminology can encourage researchers to study donor conception experiences more seriously and funders to dedicate more resources, potentially leading to a better understanding and more effective support resources.
Supporting Healthy Family Communication: Understanding these concepts could help recipient parents recognize that curiosity about genetic origins often stems from typical developmental needs, encouraging more thoughtful disclosure decisions, reducing defensive responses to children's questions, and creating space for authentic family conversations about origins based on the child's actual expressed interests rather than parental fear or assumptions.
Now What?
The experiences and feelings of donor-conceived people across the lifespan are real and valid, and should not be dismissed or denied. Many experience a sense of mismatch or disconnection within their families, genuinely grapple with questions about their origins, feel curious about genetic connections, and find meaning in discovering or connecting with biological relatives. And many experience none of this. All of these feelings deserve acknowledgment, support, and understanding.
What merits careful consideration is the language the community chooses to articulate these narratives of curiosity, loss, discovery, and belonging. Terms like "genealogical bewilderment" and "genetic mirroring" carry the weight of authority despite lacking “gold standard” scientific validation. While these concepts provide shared vocabulary and advocacy leverage, they also carry risks that take on new urgency given how they're now being weaponized in both social and political contexts.
The evolution of these terms from clinical observations to community language to political weapons illustrates the complex relationship between practice and policy, between science and society. It reminds us that the language we choose to describe our experiences doesn't exist in a vacuum. It shapes not only how we understand ourselves, but how others understand and regulate us and our families.
Related Posts
Looking back to look forward: Revisiting the debate on disclosure in donor conception
When Secrets Surface: The Hidden Impact of Consumer DNA Testing
The Birds, the Bees, and Biases: What Makes Donor Conception Research So Complex?
Other Terms
Bio-essentialism: The belief that genetic or biological characteristics determine essential aspects of identity, behavior, and relationships. In donor conception contexts, this perspective views genetic relatedness as the fundamental basis for authentic family bonds and considers genetic information crucial for identity formation.
Bio-normative ideology: The assumption that certain biological characteristics, functions, or family structures are inherently "normal" or "natural" and should be privileged as the default. This framework typically positions traditional two-parent, genetically related families as the ideal standard and views donor conception as a deviation from normal reproduction.
Social constructionism: The theoretical framework arguing that many aspects of reality we take for granted—categories, meanings, identities, and relationships—are created through social processes, cultural practices, and historical contexts rather than being natural or inevitable. In family contexts, this perspective emphasizes that parenthood and family bonds are socially defined through care, commitment, and daily relationships rather than genetic connection.
“Unwanted” infants were separated from their mothers and placed for adoption, often against the mothers' will, to control population growth and ensure a supply of children for “approved” adoptive families.
Thank you, validating and inclusive at the same time! Great job with these complex terms
Clarification of terms and communications are important even within your own family. Insightful article!