Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

GenealogyGenealogy
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

2 August 2026

Discovering a New Genetic Family Relative in Mid to Later Life: Reconstructions of Identity and Self

,
and
1
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
2
Department of Gerontology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3, Canada
3
Gloria Gutman Gerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC V6B 4N6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genealogy2026, 10(3), 99;https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy10030099
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

There has been a significant rise in the number of individuals searching for genetic relatives using home-based DNA kits alongside online historical records, archival sources, and family stories. Initial studies suggest that these experiences can have profound psycho-social and emotional impacts on self and identity. However, research to date has not examined the experiences of older adults who uncover previously unknown relatives and how these discoveries influence their identities in later life. To address this gap, this study draws on life course and identity theories. We conduct three ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses to examine how age, the context of discovery, and the subsequent relationship with the newly discovered family member (or proxy) affect three conceptual identity domains: familial belonging, cultural identity, and sense of self/uniqueness. Data are drawn from an international online survey of 293 amateur genealogists aged 55 years and older who located a previously unknown close genetic relative within the past five years using DNA testing. We also synthesize and integrate emergent themes from 50 in-depth qualitative follow-up interviews. Findings show that reported identity changes are associated with stronger relationship quality, more frequent contact, emotionally driven motivations (compared to curiosity), and more complex searches, net of covariates. Qualitative data elucidate the expansive, fluid, and sometimes ambiguous nature of identity reconstruction following unexpected family discoveries today.

1. Introduction

Over the past century, significant transformations have occurred in family life throughout the world. Families are steadily taking on more diverse and variable forms and structures as life spans are becoming increasingly extended (Mitchell 2021). These shifts have been partly propelled by greater societal acceptability and visibility of non-traditional (i.e., non-nuclear, non-biological) families (Mitchell and Li 2022). Population aging and geographical mobility have also fueled novel opportunities to experience a wider range of social and family identities and extended generational ties as we grow older. Technological developments in medicine/biological science (e.g., increased life expectancy, genomic sequencing) and communications (e.g., Internet use, AI, and accessibility) also create unprecedented opportunities to forge new social identities and reassemble social selves, family memories, and generational bonds (Mitchell 2021).
The rapid growth of the family genealogy industry—spurred by rapid advancements in genetic testing and increasingly easy access to online data—provides an unprecedented platform to reconfigure relational identities based on newly discovered information about family history, kinship, lineage, and ethnic ancestry (Hatton 2019). Indeed, an expanding number of adults are searching for unknown relatives using DNA testing/databases, online historical public records and family stories (Regalado 2019; Stallard and de Groot 2020). Thus, against a backdrop of rising family diversity, blood relationships and genes have regained socio-cultural significance in defining and imagining new identities, selves, and family relationships (e.g., Dermott 2008; Gomes et al. 2021; Moore 2022; Nordqvist 2017; Otterstrom et al. 2021).
Substantial interest in family history and genealogical activities is further highlighted in surveys that document the widespread prevalence and motivations for these pursuits. One U.S. survey shows usage at 1/5 of adults (Consumer Reports 2020). Among those who take a home genetic test, the majority (71%) reported that they intended to investigate their ancestry, while 49% reported a curiosity about their genetic ethnic/racial makeup (National Poll on Healthy Aging 2018). Another study found that 36% of older adult users submit DNA tests to specifically locate/connect with previously unknown relatives (Graff 2019). For example, Prictor et al. (2025) document that, increasingly, people separated from their biological family through adoption or out-of-home care are using DNA testing and genetic genealogy websites to find family. Other studies and reports also show that family genealogy is growing as a leisure activity and is a rising hobby among all age groups, although older, well-educated individuals are more likely to purchase DNA kits than younger adults (e.g., see Abacus Data 2019; Regalado 2019; Robinson-Sweet 2021; Stallard and de Groot 2020). Thus, research on this topic is needed since it has high social relevance and significance for a large and growing segment of our rapidly aging population and since most adults have a high interest in their family ancestry and in genetic testing (Adler 2018).
Initial studies in this emergent field establish that this exploration can have profound psycho-social and emotional impacts on self, identity, and family history (e.g., see Mitchell and Kim 2023). Some work has dealt with explorations of racialized, Indigenous, socio-economic, gendered, social, and family/kinship identities (e.g., Bottero 2012, 2015; Hatton 2019; Lawton and Foeman 2017; Nash 2002; Nelson 2016; Nicolson 2019; Panofsky and Donovan 2019; Parham 2008; Robinson-Sweet 2021; Roth and Ivemark 2018; Roth and Lyon 2018; Scodari 2018; Strand and Källén 2021; TallBear 2013a, 2013b, 2014; Theunissen 2022; Tyler 2005, 2017; Zerubavel 2012). Yet, virtually no studies have focused on the experiences of older adults who have solved their family mysteries or uncovered a new one, and how it affects their identity in multiple domains. Indeed, Hackstaff (2009, p. 13) highlights distinct age-related issues by arguing that mid/later life lends itself to “identity expressions,” defined as the “reevaluation of self that acknowledges the significance of kin to one’s identity, reverence for ancestors, and a social responsibility to the future.”
Given these knowledge gaps, the purpose of this paper is to examine how the discovery and ‘reunion’ with a new close genetic relative (or proxy) affects changes in identity and reconstructions of self in later life. Specifically, using mixed-method data, we are interested in whether and how these experiences affect changes in three, sometimes interrelated, conceptual domains: familial belonging, cultural identity, and sense of self/uniqueness.

2. Theoretical and Conceptual Underpinnings and Literature Review

2.1. Family Belonging and the Discovery of a New Genetic Relative

Familial belonging is a key dimension of identity that encompasses feelings of inclusion within one’s family, including feelings of being paid attention to, understood, and of having fun together (King et al. 2018; Leake 2007). Across the life course, feelings of belonging are shaped through shared histories, continuous interaction, and the recognition of kinship ties, and are closely associated with psychological well-being, social integration, and meaning-making in later life (Haslam et al. 2014; Antonucci et al. 2014; Yin et al. 2020).
From a life course theoretical perspective, families are viewed as a historically embedded, dynamic, evolving system of individuals whose changing lives are interconnected across time, place, and generations (Elder et al. 2003; Mitchell 2021). For older adults in particular, family relationships often serve as central sources of continuity and support, making changes in family structure or membership especially salient for one’s sense of belonging (Antonucci et al. 2014; Haslam et al. 2014).
The growing use of direct-to-consumer DNA testing and genealogical research has introduced new pathways through which individuals may discover previously unknown genetic relatives, sometimes later in life. Existing research suggests that such discoveries can fundamentally reconfigure the understanding of kinship, encouraging individuals to reconsider who is included within the category of “family” and how family relationships are defined and enacted (Kramer 2011). Furthermore, they may redefine and reshape kinship relations. For example, previous studies on unexpected or “misattributed” parentage showed that exposure to a newly identified biological relative can challenge long-held beliefs on belonging and family membership. Such discoveries may also present opportunities for the formation of new configurations of connection, affiliation, and relational belonging (Grethel et al. 2023; Lawton et al. 2024). Consequently, genealogical exploration has been conceptualized not only as the acquisition of information but as a relational act that transforms boundaries between relatives and social relationships (Kramer 2011).
Given that individuals increasingly value family solidarity and intergenerational relations in later life, the identification of new genetic relatives may be critical to maintaining familial connections and promoting family legacy and a sense of generativity (Kramer 2011; Mitchell 2015; Rubinstein et al. 2015). For example, these discoveries may either support, disrupt, or complicate existing family narratives, thereby affecting how older adults perceive inclusion, exclusion, or emotional connections in relation to other family members within the broader family system (Nordqvist 2017; Panofsky and Donovan 2019).

2.2. Cultural Identity and Genetic Discovery

Cultural identity is defined as a sense of connection to shared ancestry, ethnicity, nationality, religion, and other larger collective histories, placing them in a larger social and cultural context (Phinney 2013; Parham 2008). While family membership links us to specific personal relationships, cultural identity is focused on symbolic membership and the stories woven around intergenerational connections to imagined or remembered groups (Anderson 2020; Nordqvist 2017). Genealogical and DNA research has been one of the important ways for individuals to engage with these cultural narratives.
Previous studies found that genetic findings may corroborate, complicate, or disrupt existing discourses on ethnicity and ancestry when the emergence of new relationships contrasts with existing traditions and cultural social constructions (Panofsky and Donovan 2019; Roth and Ivemark 2018; TallBear 2013a). While some individuals experience these discoveries as strengthening their sense of cultural and historical continuity, others may regard them as ambiguous, leading to more selective identification with newly revealed ancestral lineages (Nordqvist 2017; Strand and Källén 2021). However, as an identity process, later in life is often characterized by reflection and synthesis of personal and collective histories; thus, encounters with newly discovered genetic material may have important implications for how cultural identity is interpreted, embraced, or resisted. Therefore, identifying a new genetic relative may reshape older adults’ understandings of their cultural orientation, and indeed, the ‘tales’ that are often projected onto them regarding ancestry, and challenge long-standing assumptions about identity (Hackstaff 2009, 2010; Theunissen 2022).

2.3. Sense of Self/Uniqueness and Identity Reconstruction

Sense of self or uniqueness is one of the critical dimensions of personal identity and refers to individuals’ private sense of experiencing the self that can only be acknowledged by the individuals themselves (Şimşek and Yalınçetin 2010). As individuals reflect on their past experiences while seeking to integrate present meanings and future possibilities, identity often becomes salient, especially in later life (McAdams 2001; Whitbourne and Collins 1998). In this context, discovering a previously unknown close genetic relative may challenge an existing sense of self by introducing new biographical information that reshapes understandings of personal history and ancestral origins (Sneed and Whitbourne 2003; Zerubavel 2012).
Previous studies that examined identity disruption after unexpected family discoveries or updates found the reworking of plots of narrative, sense-making and selective incorporation on the quest to restore a coherent sense of self. They also found that individuals engaged in revision work (Haslam et al. 2014; Zerubavel 2012). These revisions can include reassessing personal characteristics, recasting past relationships, or renegotiating perceived singularity in light of newly recognized bio-relation ties. Adopted persons, for instance, have been found to experience significant potential for disruptions and ruptures in identity development and reconstructions of self. This may be due to aspects of their histories that were previously unknown to them, such as family health history information. Such information gaps may also be related to subsequent information seeking, as an additional form of identity exploration (e.g., see Grotevant et al. 2017). However, the link between the existence and filling of a gap in information seeking depends on contextual factors that may serve as barriers or facilitators to identity exploration.
In sum, as adults age in mid to later life and their self-concept becomes stable, their selves can be shaped by past experiences and reshaped by new ones. New identity construction processes may be uncomfortable yet still generative (Erikson 1994; Nash 2002; Stallard and de Groot 2020; Rubinstein et al. 2015). Furthermore, new genetic information can challenge individuals’ solid assumptions about the self but also provide chances for personal transformation, reinterpretation and better self-understanding as they assimilate newly acquired family knowledge back into their own family stories (Whitbourne and Collins 1998; Hackstaff 2009).

3. Methods

3.1. Sampling and Data

This study utilizes data collected from the first author’s Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada 4-year solo-funded project entitled “The Family Genealogists and Long-Lost Relatives Study”. The overarching objective of this project is to examine the psycho-social impacts of older-aged Canadian ‘amateur’ (unpaid) family genealogists studying their family history/lineage using DNA testing and databases, family stories, and public/private historical records. The emphasis is on those who have searched for, identified, and located a previously unknown immediate genetic relative (i.e., parent, sibling, child). One specific objective is to examine how genealogical discoveries affect identities and aging family relationships.
This mixed-methods study began with the launch of a Canadian survey using SurveyMonkey on 10 January 2024, and was later expanded to include an international audience on 7 August 2025. These combined datasets (n = 293) asked the same set of basic questions (only in English) related to their socio-demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, ethnic/racial and Indigenity status) and family background (e.g., the type of family that they grew up in, such as with both biological parents, a step or single parent, or with adoptive parent(s), family history research activities (e.g., amount of time spent, who they were searching for), search experiences and their psycho-social impacts following their discoveries. Follow-up qualitative interviews with 50 respondents recruited from the main study supplemented these data by providing more in-depth coverage of their experiences in core areas relevant to the project. These respondents were screened and selected to capture a diversity of experiences (for example, based on gender, race/ethnicity, type of search, and outcomes). It is also notable that we received a very high response rate in response to a question at the end of the survey asking if they might be interested in a follow-up interview (i.e., Would you be open to being contacted for a follow-up interview about your experiences with searching for and finding a long-lost family member?).
To participate in the study, we had several study criteria. Specifically, participants had to be aged 55 or older; have searched for and located a previously unknown immediate or closely related genetic relative (i.e., parent, grandparent, sibling) using DNA testing and databases within the past 5 years; had at least one meaningful contact experience (i.e., face to face visit, phone call) with that person or a proxy (because they were deceased, but genetically related to both). Follow-up interviews were conducted via Zoom with those who agreed to be re-contacted.
We used a wide variety of recruitment methods, including placing ads on numerous free family genealogy message boards and discussion/chat groups, and other special interest groups, genealogical societies/clubs, niche Facebook groups (sometimes with a small fee) and invited talks to various family historical and genealogical clubs and societies, and through referrals. The recruitment ad explains the study and criteria for participation and directs people to a secure survey link. Procedures for informed consent were strictly adhered to, per the university’s institutional ethical guidelines.
Recruitment occurred simultaneously across these multiple channels over an extended period. We acknowledge that recruiting primarily through genealogy-focused organizations and online communities likely resulted in a sample of individuals who were actively engaged in genealogical research and willing to discuss their experiences. As such, individuals with limited engagement in genealogy or those who choose to discontinue genealogical pursuits following an unexpected discovery may be underrepresented. Given the exploratory nature of the study, our recruitment sought to capture a broad range of perspectives among individuals who had experienced an unexpected genealogical discovery. These considerations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings.

3.2. Sample Descriptives

As shown in Table 1, the average age of the respondents was approximately 67.3 years, with participants ranging from ages 55 to 89. The sample was mostly female (79.0%), White (90.0%), and ever married (87.0%). Most respondents reported having more than a high school education (86.1%) and were retired (63.1%). With respect to genealogical experiences, most participants reported positive experiences following the discovery of the long-lost relatives (89.1%). Participants also reported different levels of frequency of contact with the newly identified relatives, ranging from minimum to none (e.g., less than once a year/never) to frequent communication (e.g., weekly/daily). For the current relationship quality, most participants reported very good/good (82.3%). In terms of search experiences (i.e., complexity of search), some participants found it difficult or complex (31.4%), while others found it neither easy nor difficult (27.2%). Personal curiosity was the most common motivation for engaging in genealogical research (78.2%), followed by emotional reasons (13.3%). Across the dependent variables, participants reported modest to moderate perceived impacts on familial belonging (M = 3.20, SD = 1.52), cultural identity (M = 2.95, SD = 1.65), and sense of self/uniqueness (M = 2.97, SD = 1.53). Missing values ranged from 6 to 34 (available upon request), and these cases were excluded for the OLS regression analyses, resulting in slightly different sub-sample sizes for each regression. It should be noted that we also ran the analyses imputing missing values using mean/median/mode imputation, and the results did not exhibit any changes to the substantive findings.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables (N = 293).

3.3. Data Analysis

For this study, we engaged in quantitative and thematic qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses focused on examining how the discovery of a previously unknown genetic relative affected three dimensions of identity: familial belonging, cultural identity, and sense of self/uniqueness. Three ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were estimated using each identity dimension as a separate dependent variable. The impact of finding a long-lost relative on participants’ sense of family belonging, sense of self, and cultural identity was analyzed using multiple OLS regression models in which aspects of the search for this genetic relative were entered as predictors of the self-reported impact on the three identity dimensions (family, self, and culture). The model included all predictors of interest in addition to demographics entered as control variables. Ordinal variables were either dichotomized or treated as continuous, depending on their distribution.
For the qualitative analysis, the interview recordings were transcribed and subsequently checked by the second author to remove identifying details and imported into NVivo 14 for data management and organization. We adopted an inductive reflexive thematic analysis approach, as outlined by Braun et al. (2019). Data analysis was led by the first two authors and proceeded iteratively through phases of familiarization with the data, inductive code generation, theme development, and refinement. This approach was selected to align with the study’s aim of examining how discovery and reunion with a new genetic relative shape identity in later life, while remaining attentive to familial belonging, cultural identity, and sense of self.
During familiarization, transcripts were read and re-read to support immersion in the dataset. Initial coding focused on identifying meaningful features of the data relevant to the primary research question, including expressions of belonging, cultural identification, and perceptions of self and uniqueness. These initial codes were developed independently before being shared with the research team for discussion. Through several iterative rounds of analysis, codes were reviewed, refined, combined, and, where appropriate, separated as patterns of shared meaning became more apparent across the dataset. Candidate themes were developed from these patterns and subsequently reviewed, refined, and clearly defined through continued engagement with the data. Throughout this process, the thematic structure evolved iteratively until the final themes represented coherent and conceptually distinct patterns of meaning that addressed the study aims.
Consistent with Braun et al.’s (2019) reflexive thematic analysis, analytic discussions focused on interpretation rather than on achieving coding consensus. Team meetings provided opportunities to critically examine assumptions, consider alternative interpretations of the data, and reflect on how the researchers’ disciplinary backgrounds and perspectives influenced analytic decisions. Reflexivity was therefore enacted throughout the analytic process by documenting evolving interpretations, revisiting coded data in light of team discussions, and continually refining the thematic structure to ensure that the final themes were strongly grounded in participants’ accounts while acknowledging the interpretive role of the researchers. This iterative, reflexive, and collaborative approach is consistent with the methodological principles of reflexive thematic analysis.

3.4. Dependent Variables for OLS Regressions

Three dependent variables were used to examine changes in identity in three core domains: Familial belonging (e.g., feeling included, spending time together, etc.); Cultural Identity (in terms of your known ethnic heritage/ancestral roots, such as nationality, ethnicity, race, religion); and Sense of Self/Uniqueness (who you are as a person, such as roles, attributes, behaviours and hobbies). The survey question posed to the participants was: “Generally speaking, how has this discovery changed or affected your sense of identity in the following categories? How much was that aspect of your sense of self affected, on a scale of 1–5, with 1 (not affected at all) to 5 (affected greatly)?”

3.5. Independent Variables

The independent variables included demographic characteristics and several measures related to participants’ genealogical search experiences and post-discovery relationships. Demographic variables included gender, age, education, ethnicity, marital status, and employment status. Gender was coded as female or male, education was dichotomized into high school or less versus more than high school, ethnicity was categorized as White versus non-White, marital status was coded as never married versus ever married, and employment status was coded as retired versus non-retired.
Several variables captured characteristics of the discovery and reunion process. Initial experiences after the discovery were dichotomized into very positive/positive versus neutral to very negative experiences. Both the frequency of contact and the complexity of search variables were treated as numerical variables in the regression analyses. Current relationship quality was dichotomized into very good/good versus ambivalent/poor/very poor. Their primary motivation for undertaking their search was posed as a question and included as a variable consisting of three categories: personal curiosity (i.e., to solve a family mystery), medical reasons/others (i.e., looking for an organ/blood donor, uncovering medical history, legal issues), and emotional reasons (i.e., searching for a place to belong, companionship, etc.). Descriptive statistics for all independent variables are presented in Table 1.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative

Results from the three OLS regression models are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. We report the standardized and unstandardized betas and significance levels based on the p-value. Overall, frequency of contact, relationship quality, search complexity, and emotionally driven motivations for research were identified as the most consistent predictors of identity-related outcomes.
Table 2. OLS Regression Model of Factors Associated with the Impact of Finding a Genetic Relative on the Sense of Familial Belonging (N = 252).
Table 3. OLS Regression Model of Factors Associated with the Impact of Finding a Genetic Relative on the Sense of Cultural Identity (N = 249).
Table 4. OLS Regression Model of Factors Associated with the Impact of Finding a Genetic Relative on the Sense of Self/Uniqueness (N = 250).
In Table 2, the model was statistically significant for familial belonging (Adjusted R2 = 0.239, p < 0.001). Higher current relationship quality was significantly associated with greater perceived impacts on familial belonging (b = 0.284, p < 0.001). More frequent contact with the newly discovered relatives was also associated with stronger impacts on familial belonging (b = 0.214, p < 0.01). In addition, participants who described their search motivations as emotional rather than based on personal curiosity reported significantly greater impacts on familial belonging (b = 0.215, p < 0.001). Greater search complexity was also positively associated with familial belonging (b = 0.130, p < 0.05).
Table 3 resulted in a statistically significant model for cultural identity (Adjusted R2 = 0.087, p < 0.001). It shows the regression model for cultural identity. Similar to the familial belonging model in Table 2, stronger current relationship quality was significantly associated with greater impacts on cultural identity (b = 0.171, p < 0.05). Participants reporting emotionally motivated searchers also experienced significantly stronger impacts on cultural identity (b = 0.192, p < 0.01) compared to those motivated primarily by personal curiosity. Search complexity was also positively associated with cultural identity outcomes (b = 0.149, p < 0.05).
Finally, Table 4 resulted in a statistically significant model for sense of self/uniqueness (Adjusted R2 = 0.151, p < 0.001). More frequent contact with the newly discovered relatives was associated with stronger perceived sense of self/uniqueness (b = 0.150, p < 0.05). Participants reporting good or very good current relationships also reported significantly greater impacts on sense of self/uniqueness compared to those with ambivalent, poor, or very poor relationships (b = 0.209, p < 0.01). Greater search complexity was positively associated with sense of self/uniqueness (b = 0.157, p < 0.01). In addition, emotionally motivated searches were associated with stronger impacts on sense of self/uniqueness compared to searches motivated by personal curiosity (b = 0.195, p < 0.01).
Across all three models, demographic variables including age, gender, education, ethnicity, marital status, and employment status were generally not significantly associated with the three outcome variables. Still, the findings suggest that relational and emotional aspects of the genealogical search process play a more important role in shaping identity reconstruction following the discovery of a previously unknown genetic relative in mid to later life, controlling for key demographic factors.

4.2. Qualitative Analysis

Reflexive thematic analysis of interview data explored how discovering a long-lost genetic relative reshaped participants’ understandings of self, family, and identity across the life course. Five interrelated themes were generated: (1) impacts on sense of self and identity; (2) impacts on cultural identity; (3) impacts on ethnic and racial identity; (4) reconstructions of family history and connection; and (5) familial belonging. Together, these themes illustrate identity as a dynamic, emotionally layered process, reconfigured through genetic discovery and reconnection in later life.

4.2.1. Impacts on Sense of Self and Identity

Across interviews, participants described the discovery of a close genetic relative or a proxy as profoundly altering their sense of self and personal identity. For many, particularly those who were adopted, reconnection with biological kin generated a powerful sense of belonging and coherence that had previously felt absent.
One participant reflected on long-standing feelings of difference within their adoptive family and described reunion as deeply affirming:
“I always felt like an alien; I didn’t fit in with my adoptive family whatsoever. Connecting with my bio family felt natural… the genetic mirror, being able to see who I’m related to… it was very powerful. It’s life-affirming.”
(03)
Participants frequently emphasized how reconnecting with genetic relatives provided a foundation that had been missing earlier in life, including medical histories, ancestral narratives, and a sense of continuity:
“It feels grounded… it has given a foundation to me that I never had. As I said, I didn’t have a medical background. I didn’t have a family. I didn’t have any history of whatsoever… it’s just given more of a context so that I feel more fulfilled as a person. You know, without it being kind of a made-up story.”
(06)
For others, reunion offered a sense of completion:
“It brought completion to me, knowing that there were people out there who were related to me.”
(09)
However, identity reconstruction was not uniformly straightforward. Some participants described emotional ambivalence and confusion as new information challenged long-held personal narratives:
“So, in my case, I was surprised, I was intrigued. I was excited but there were also times where I felt very strange, didn’t know my identity anymore. I felt like my history was all wrong now, you know, and it was very confusing at times.”
(45)
Overall, the genetic discovery prompted both affirmation and disruption, requiring participants to reconcile new identities with previously constructed selves.

4.2.2. Impacts on Cultural Identity

For many participants, discovering genetic relatives enabled renewed engagement with cultural identities that had previously been unknown, inaccessible, or unacknowledged. Participants described active efforts to learn cultural practices, languages, and traditions following discovery. Some participants who learned of Indigenous ancestry emphasized cultural reconnection:
“I’m trying to learn the culture… I make my own ribbon dresses, ribbon skirts now.”
(29)
Others described using language learning tools, digital platforms, and self-directed research to explore newly discovered cultural roots:
“I want to know everything Sweden, so I did Swedish on Duolingo… I watch YouTube videos about Sweden all the time. I’m always Googling about Sweden and I’m always looking at Sweden news…I have embraced it as part of my heritage.”
(20)
These efforts reflected a desire not only to acquire knowledge but to meaningfully integrate cultural identity into participants’ sense of self in later life.

4.2.3. Impacts on Ethnic and Racial Identity

Participants also described significant ethnic and racial identity shifts following DNA testing and genetic discovery. For some, learning of Indigenous ancestry revealed histories of forced separation and cultural erasure:
“Yeah, it’s confirmed. You’re Indigenous…I don’t know, you know, this was 60’s scoop. This is evidence that they purposely took me out of the culture and purposely did it so that they wouldn’t be Indigenous.”
(29)
However, discovering a racial or ethnic identity later in life also introduced feelings of uncertainty and ethical tension regarding belonging and legitimacy:
“I feel like pretending because I don’t feel that I fit…You feel like a fraud because you don’t know. But even though that they know that I don’t know anything, right.”
(29)
Others expressed confusion navigating social and political identity categories:
“… how everybody introduces themselves as a settler on the unceded territory and I’m totally confused on who I am because knowing my background, I can’t consider myself a settler now. And so, therefore, who am I?”
(31)
For some participants, genetic results disrupted assumed ethnic identities, prompting curiosity rather than full identity transformation:
“It didn’t change me, but it made me more curious… about where I came from, you know, I do all the research on it.”
(35)
These narratives highlight identity as an ongoing negotiation shaped by structural histories, social recognition, and personal meaning-making.

4.2.4. Reconstructions of Family History and Connection

Discovery of a genetic relative significantly reshaped participants’ understandings of family history and relational networks. Many described an expansion of family narratives and social connections, often experienced as positive and affirming:
“I now know I have more family than I thought I did. You know, doing DNA really opens the door for a lot of things. I’ve come to the realization my family is way bigger than I thought it was.”
(05)
Participants emphasized that genetic discovery did not erase existing family histories but rather broadened them:
“I don’t think it altered it in any negative way; it broadened it.”
(31)
For adopted participants, biological family histories gained new significance alongside adoptive family narratives:
“Well, it impacted my family history because now I have this adopted history that I lived for many years…but now my new family, I guess, has become my interest because it’s tangible… So, it is building on my life experience.”
(23)
These reconstructions allowed participants to situate themselves within expanded temporal and relational contexts.

4.2.5. Familial Belonging

Finally, participants described how reunion fostered feelings of familial belonging and relational closeness, particularly with siblings and extended kin. Many reported ease, comfort, and rapid emotional connection:
“It was almost an instant family connection.”
(09)
“There was just an instant, I’m home, you know, and there was an instant comfort. I would say that we have a very comfortable relationship.”
(06)
Shared discovery processes often strengthened emerging relationships:
“And I think that it brings us closer because we’re sharing, you know, certain new discoveries and new things about the family.”
(35)
Participants described integrating into existing family networks through gatherings, communication groups, and ongoing contact:
“And so, we stay in touch. Now we have a WhatsApp group session that has all of these cousins that are from.”
(09)
These accounts illustrate how a genetic discovery facilitated not only identity reconstruction but also the agentic and active incorporation into new selves and family systems, reshaping participants’ social worlds in mid to later life.

5. Discussion

The results of this mixed-method study reveal how genealogical discoveries in mid to later life can profoundly alter identities and selves, and often through dynamic and intense relational and emotional channels and networks. Interestingly, socio-demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, and education) did not surface as statistically significant predictors of identity/self and belonging changes.
These findings support the significance of kin to one’s identity and construction of self, and how genealogical exploration is not only about the acquisition of information (e.g., Hackstaff 2009; Mitchell and Kim 2023). Indeed, these findings highlight how amateur (unpaid) genealogical discoveries can be conceptualized as a relational and emotional act that transforms and extends social and geographical boundaries among relatives (Kramer 2011).
This study builds upon recent elaborations of life course and identity theory, moving from more simplistic models towards a more nuanced display of complexity. This idea is exemplified by Fasang et al.’s (2024) theoretical arguments showing the importance of incorporating moving dimensions of multiple interrelated dimensions of the life course (socio-cultural time and place, generations, linked lives) in studies of aging and human development. Our findings also highlight the need to further emphasize the interplay of temporality (past, present, future) and social change in life course and identity theorizing that transcends chronological age. For instance, age did not surface as a predictor of identity outcomes, yet time-related contexts were shown to shape discovery and identity experiences. This observation helps us to re-frame the life course as a non-linear biological clock, and as a dynamic negotiation of historical, social and biographical/narrative time.
Our study, with its focus on older adults amidst rapid population aging, thereby contributes to the development of integrating life course sociology and gerontological perspectives on subjective aging (e.g., also see Barrett and Barbee 2022). It also helps to build upon and refine identity theories (e.g., see Stryker and Burke 2000). It does so by illuminating how non-traditional, newly acquired forms of family and socio-cultural connections, as well as their imaginaries, subjectively shape older adults’ life course processes of self-verification and meaning-making.
Indeed, as technology-mediated opportunities to expand social lives, identities and selves continue to proliferate, life course and social identity theorizing will need to advance to incorporate these transformations in society and lifelong aging processes. For example, Christensen-Duerden et al.’s (2026) recent study on Latter Day Saint women’s identity development in midlife shows how identity formation is lifelong and can be viewed as a generative period of ongoing identity development. Their conceptual model also integrates identity disruption, ruptures, re-evaluation, and revision as a recursive process rather than a linear sequence. This perspective is consistent with our thematic analysis and a life course perspective that emphasizes the significance of historical and generational location and the ever-changing interdependencies and (dis)continuities of ‘linked lives.’
Moreover, our quantitative findings generally show how changes in familial belonging, cultural identity, and sense of uniqueness/identity in mid to later life are shaped by specific relational and emotional factors. Common predictors of greater changes in these domains include having a strong relationship with the newly discovered relative, having more frequent contact and if the search was motivated by emotionally driven reasons (versus curiosity, medical or other motivations), building upon previous research studies in this area (e.g., see Mitchell and Kim 2023).
Also, engaging in more challenging searches was more strongly associated with greater shifts in these domains. It is possible that this finding reflects how the difficulty and intensity of family historical genealogical research generate more changes in identity/self due to such aspects as closure, affirmation, and a stronger sense of belonging. More challenging searches may also be reflective of deeper, hidden family secrets, which may be more difficult to solve (and resolve) and therefore have greater psycho-social consequences (e.g., see Camilleri and Scerri 2025).
The results of our thematic analysis elaborate on these findings by exposing more nuanced and layered processes, building upon previous studies in this area (e.g., see Mitchell and Kim 2023). Identity and reconstructions of self also emerged as relational and historically situated as a result of the genetic knowledge and social connections, but also as a dynamically negotiated and renegotiated ‘meaning-making’ journey. Indeed, our qualitative accounts demonstrate that discovering and reuniting with a close genetic relative or a proxy in later life initiates an intricate and fluid process of identity and self-reconstruction. Notably, participants described simultaneous experiences of grounding and disruption, cultural re-engagement and uncertainty, and expanded familial belonging. Moreover, while most participants reported more positive, longer-term outcomes, some initial reactions and impacts on self/identity may have been met with more ambivalence. Yet, these feelings tended to dissipate and resolve over time as new relationships developed and widened to include a larger social network of relational actors.

6. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research

This timely and innovative study highlights how discovering and connecting with a previously unknown close genetic level in mid/later life can profoundly shift identities (familial, cultural) and selves. Our findings also reveal how changes in identity and selves are fluid, relational and emotionally layered. While this research makes an important contribution to this area of inquiry, several limitations should be noted. While the study is international in scope, only English-speaking participants could take part, and our study mainly includes the experiences of those living in North America. Our sample is also relatively homogeneous, comprising a disproportionately high percentage of older, white, heterosexual English-speaking women from Canada. Thus, our findings may have limited generalizability to many other cultural, ethnic/racialized and socio-demographic groups and support the need to include more diverse populations.
A significant minority of our participants (almost one in 10) reported an Indigenous identity, and typically these individuals experienced adoption as children (by white families) due to forced family separation and breakups. This occurred due to the legacies of colonialism and settler-assimilationist policies (e.g., the residential school system and the “60s Scoop) that were instituted in Canada (and many other parts of the world) to control this population. Indeed, Indigenous identity issues have become central to current societal discourses on self-identification, citizenship rights, and identity politics (see Pearl 2022).
However, as noted by TallBear (2013b) in her groundbreaking book, Native American DNA, genealogy is anything but transparent and neutral. Under the guise of scientific objectivity, she asserts that DNA can be used to classify and define Indigeneity in terms of settler colonial logic. She also warns that Commercial DNA tests use colonial, continental categories rather than understanding tribal and community/social affiliations. Therefore, future research could benefit from a more nuanced, in-depth, Indigenous-informed, and culturally sensitive approach to studying meanings of family, kinship and aspects of relationality and emotionality.
Additionally, our study may be limited by under-reporting. Those with more negative or traumatic experiences may have been less inclined to participate in our study. For example, people with more recent and disappointing experiences associated with certain kinds of discoveries may have been reluctant to participate. Thus, the timing and context of the discovery and reunion might matter. This conclusion is supported by Grethel et al. (2023), showing that temporal trauma, grief, and loss are common outcomes during the initial finding of an unknown parent, and that isolation, shame, and a lack of emotional support are prevalent during this early temporal period of adjustment.
Future research is needed to address these knowledge gaps, as well as to focus on more age-related identity issues, opportunities, and challenges. It would be interesting to compare experiences at different stages of the life course, since identities and discoveries may be affected by life stage positions and other transitional events and circumstances. For example, some limited research shows that younger adults are more likely than those over the age of 50 to report that their results altered how they see their racial or ethnic identity (Graff 2019). Donor-conceived younger adults may also be more interested in finding genetic relatives to learn more about their medical histories during family planning than older adults (Drewniak et al. 2026). Older adults may also be dealing with work, marital status or health-related changes (e.g., retirement, widowhood, mobility), which may prompt an interest and the time availability to engage in new hobbies or leisure interests related to identity expressions, generativity, and family legacy.
We also need to disentangle the many different pathways and motivations to find genetic relatives (e.g., misappropriated parentage versus adoption) and within certain groups. These varying situations may produce unique discovery/reunion experiences and life course trajectories. For example, Canada was one of four countries that received a percentage of many AmerAsian Vietnamese children evacuated from Vietnam in 1975 (Brookfield 2009). Overall, international adoption (including transracial/transcultural adoptions) began to rise in the 1970s, and this raises important discussions about racial and cultural identity and cultural socialization processes (Lee 2008). A recent study (Castner and Foli 2022), for example, found that a history of adoption and a strong ethnic or racial identity are associated with health-related risk and protective factors for psycho-social, academic, and health behaviour outcomes.
This research also emphasizes the need for more longitudinal, multi-method and comparative work. It also underscores the need to include multiple family member perspectives, diverse family structures and subjectivities, and relational meanings. For example, researchers need to include the viewpoints of those residing in families of origin and of newly discovered extended ‘family’ members. Nonetheless, the present study offers some intriguing insights and contributions to an area of study that has been understudied but is of high and growing social significance. Indeed, with rapid population aging and growing access to online digital records and resources and home-based DNA kits, our meanings and experiences of family, as well as who we are and how/where we belong, will continue to be transformed through rapidly evolving technologically mediated relational networks of social relations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.A.M.; Methodology, B.A.M. and A.E.O.; Formal analysis, B.A.M. and A.E.O.; Writing—original draft, B.A.M., A.E.O. and B.K.; Writing—review & editing, B.A.M., A.E.O. and B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by [Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada] grant number 435-2023-0203.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Simon Fraser University Research Ethics Board (protocol code 30001709 and date of approval 2 November 2023).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abacus Data. 2019. Canadian DNA Test Survey. Available online: http://fopl.ca/news/canadian-dna-test-survey (accessed on 26 July 2021).
  2. Adler, Sarah. 2018. Over Half of Older Adults Interested in Genetic Testing. AARP. Available online: https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/genetic-testing-for-older-adults/ (accessed on 24 September 2021).
  3. Anderson, Benedict. 2020. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. In The New Social Theory Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 282–88. [Google Scholar]
  4. Antonucci, Toni C., Kristine J. Ajrouch, and Kira S. Birditt. 2014. The Convoy Model: Explaining Social Relations from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. The Gerontologist 54: 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Barrett, Anne E., and Harry Barbee. 2022. The Subjective Life Course Framework: Integrating Life Course Sociology with Gerontological Perspectives on Subjective Aging. Advances in Life Course Research 51: 100448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Bottero, Wendy. 2012. Who Do You Think They Were? How Family Historians Make Sense of Social Position and in quality in the Past. The British Journal of Sociology 63: 54–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Bottero, Wendy. 2015. Practicing Family History: ‘Identity’ as a Category of Social Practice. The British Journal of Sociology 66: 534–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Braun, Virginia, Victoria Clarke, Nikki Hayfield, and Gareth Terry. 2019. Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Edited by Pranee Liamputtong. Singapore: Springer, pp. 843–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Brookfield, Tarah. 2009. Maverick Mothers and Mercy Flights: Canada’s Controversial Introduction to International Adoption. Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 19: 307–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Camilleri, Rosienne, and Clarissa Sammut Scerri. 2025. Beyond the Surface: An Exploration of Family Secrets as Entry Points into Complex Family Dynamics. In Contemporary Family Therapy. Singapore: Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Castner, Jessica, and Karen J. Foli. 2022. Racial Identity and Transcultural Adoption. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 27: 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Christensen-Duerden, Chenae, Sarah M. Coyne, Loren Marks, Erin K. Holmes, and Ashley Larsen Gibby. 2026. I Worked Really Hard to Know Who I Am: A Qualitative Study of Identity Development in Latter-Day Saint Women in Midlife. Genealogy 10: 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Consumer Reports. 2020. Home Genetic Testing: A Nationally Representative Multi-Mode Survey. Available online: https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/Consumer%20Reports%20Home%20Genetic%20Tesing%20October%202020 (accessed on 21 July 2021).
  14. Dermott, Esther. 2008. Intimate Fatherhood: A Sociological Analysis. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Drewniak, Daniel, Petra Thorn, and Tanja Krones. 2026. Identity Experiences of Adults Conceived via Anonymous Sperm Donation: A Qualitative Study. SSM-Research in Health 2: 100763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Elder, Glen H., Jr., Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, and Robert Crosnoe. 2003. The Emergence and Development of Life Course Theory. In Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Springer, pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  17. Erikson, Erik H. 1994. Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W. W. Norton. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fasang, Anette E., Rob J. Gruijters, and Zachary Van Winkle. 2024. The Life Course Boat: A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Variation in Family Lives across Time, Place, and Social Location. Journal of Marriage and Family 86: 1586–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Gomes, Cláudia, Sara Palomo-Díez, Ana María López-Parra, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2021. Genealogy: The Tree Where History Meets Genetics. Genealogy 5: 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Graff, Nikki. 2019. Mail-in DNA Results Bring Surprises about Family History for Many Users. Pew Research Center. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/06/mail-in-dna-test-results-bring-surprises-about-family-history-for-many-users (accessed on 24 September 2021).
  21. Grethel, Melissa, Jane Lewis, Richard Freeman, and Chris Stone. 2023. Discovery of Unexpected Paternity after Direct to-Consumer DNA Testing and Its Impact on Identity. Family Relations 72: 2022–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Grotevant, Harold, Albert Y. H. Lo, Lisa Fiorenzo, and Nora D. Dunbar. 2017. Adoptive Identity and Adjustment from Adolescence to Emerging Adulthood: A Person-Centered Approach. Developmental Psychology 53: 2195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Hackstaff, Karla B. 2009. Turning Points for Aging Genealogists: Claiming Identities and Histories in Time. Qualitative Sociology Review 5: 130–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Hackstaff, Karla B. 2010. Family Genealogy: A Sociological Imagination Reveals Intersectional Relations. Sociology Compass 4: 658–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Haslam, Catherine, S. Alexander Haslam, Renate Ysseldyk, Laura G. McCloskey, Katrin Pfisterer, and Sam G. Brown. 2014. Social Identification Moderates Cognitive Health and Well-Being Following Story- and Song-Based Reminiscence. Aging & Mental Health 18: 425–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Hatton, Stephen B. 2019. History, Kinship, Identity, and Technology: Toward Answering the Question ‘What Is (Family) Genealogy?’. Genealogy 3: 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. King, Valarie, Lisa M. Boyd, and Brian Pragg. 2018. Parent–Adolescent Closeness, Family Belonging, and Adolescent Well-Being across Family Structures. Journal of Family Issues 39: 2007–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Kramer, Anne M. 2011. Kinship, Affinity and Connectedness: Exploring the Role of Genealogy in Personal Lives. Sociology 45: 379–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Lawton, Brittany, and Anita Foeman. 2017. Shifting Winds: Using Ancestry DNA to Explore Multiracial Individuals’ Patterns of Articulating Racial Identity. Identity 17: 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Lawton, Brittany L., Laura C. Pyott, Kelsey R. Deyerin, and Anita K. Foeman. 2024. Experiences of Misattributed Parentage Communities: Impacts of Discovering New Familial Kinships. Journal of Family History 49: 75–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Leake, Vicki S. 2007. Personal, Familial, and Systemic Factors Associated with Family Belonging for Stepfamily Adolescents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 47: 135–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Lee, Richard M. 2008. The Transracial Adoption Paradox: History, Research, and Counseling Implications of Cultural Socialization. The Counseling Psychologist 36: 711–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. McAdams, Dan P. 2001. The Psychology of Life Stories. Review of General Psychology 5: 100–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mitchell, Barbara A. 2015. Intergenerational and Family Ties of Baby Boomers. In The Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging. Edited by Susan K. Whitbourne. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Mitchell, Barbara A. 2021. Family Matters: An Introduction to Family Sociology in Canada, 4th ed. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mitchell, Barbara A., and Boah Kim. 2023. Amateur Family Genealogists Researching Their Family History: A Scoping Review of Motivations and Psychosocial Impacts. Genealogy 8: 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Mitchell, Barbara A., and Lijun Li. 2022. Diversity in Canadian Families: Choices, Constraints, and Social Policy Dimensions. In The Changing Face of Families. Edited by Marina Alder and Karl Lenz. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  38. Moore, Susan M. 2022. How Ancestor Research Affects Self-Understanding and Well-Being: Introduction to the Special Issue. Genealogy 6: 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Nash, Catherine. 2002. Genealogical Identities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20: 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. National Poll on Healthy Aging. 2018. Older Adults’ Views on Genetic Testing. Available online: https://www.healthyagingpoll.org/reports-more/report/older-adults-views-genetic-testing (accessed on 26 July 2021).
  41. Nelson, Alondra. 2016. The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation After the Genome. Boston: Beacon Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nicolson, Paula. 2019. Genealogy, Psychology, and Identity: Tales from a Family Tree. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nordqvist, Paula. 2017. Genetic Thinking and Everyday Living: On Family Practices and Family Imaginaries. The Sociological Review 65: 865–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Otterstrom, Samuel, Brian E. Bunker, and Michael A. Farnsworth. 2021. Development of the Genealogical FamilySearch Database. Genealogy 5: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Panofsky, Aaron, and Joan Donovan. 2019. Genetic Ancestry Testing among White Nationalists. Social Studies of Science 49: 653–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Parham, Angel Adams. 2008. Race, Memory and Family History. Social Identities 14: 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Pearl, Tamara (Baldhead). 2022. A Path Through Difficult Conversations about Indigenous Identity. CBA National Magazine. Available online: https://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/the-practice/legal-education-130b0f89e7181e5aa0370046d9448dd3/2022/let-s-find-a-path-through-difficult-conversations-about-indigenous-identity (accessed on 18 July 2026).
  48. Phinney, Jean S. 2013. Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults. In Ethnic Identity. London: Routledge, pp. 73–99. [Google Scholar]
  49. Prictor, Megan, Olivia Kowalishin, and Jeanette Conrick. 2025. Drawing a Blank: Contract Terms in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Family Tracing after Adoption or Out-of-Home Care. Adoption & Fostering 49: 421–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Regalado, Antonio. 2019. More than 26 Million People Have Taken an At-Home Ancestry Test. Cambridge: MIT Technology Review. [Google Scholar]
  51. Robinson-Sweet, Ashleigh. 2021. Ancestry.com Race Stories. The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion 5: 79–96. [Google Scholar]
  52. Roth, Wendy D., and Benjamin Ivemark. 2018. Genetic Options. American Journal of Sociology 124: 150–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  53. Roth, Wendy D., and Kelly Lyon. 2018. Genetic Ancestry Tests and Race. In Reconsidering Race. Edited by Kazuko Suzuki and Diego von Vacano. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–69. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rubinstein, Robert L., Laura M. Girling, Kate de Medeiros, Michael Brazda, and Susan Hannum. 2015. Extending the Framework of Generativity Theory Through Research: A Qualitative Study. The Gerontologist 55: 548–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  55. Scodari, Christine. 2018. Alternate Roots: Ethnicity, Race, and Identity in Genealogy Media. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sneed, Joel R., and Susan K. Whitbourne. 2003. Identity Processing in Middle and Later Adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 58: P313–P319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Stallard, Matthew, and Jerome de Groot. 2020. DNA and the New Family History. Journal of Family History 45: 274–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Strand, Daniel, and Anna Källén. 2021. I Am a Viking! New Genetics and Society 40: 520–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Stryker, Sheldon, and Peter J. Burke. 2000. The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 284–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Şimşek, Ömer F., and Burak Yalınçetin. 2010. I Feel Unique, Therefore I Am. Personality and Individual Differences 49: 576–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. TallBear, Kim. 2013a. Genomic Articulations of Indigeneity. Social Studies of Science 43: 509–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. TallBear, Kim. 2013b. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]
  63. TallBear, Kim. 2014. The Emergence, Politics and Marketplace of Native American DNA. In Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society. Edited by Daniel Lee Kleinman and Kelly Moore. London: Routledge, pp. 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  64. Theunissen, Cornelia A. 2022. The Effects of DNA Test Results on Biological and Family Identities. Genealogy 6: 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Tyler, Katharine. 2005. The Genealogical Imagination. The Sociological Review 53: 475–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Tyler, Katharine. 2017. A New Research Agenda for Genetic Ancestry Tests. Genealogy 2: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Whitbourne, Susan K., and Kathleen J. Collins. 1998. Identity Processes and Perceptions of Physical Functioning. Psychotherapy 35: 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Yin, Zikai, Song, Liu, Ellen W. Clayton, and Bradley A. Malin. 2020. Health and Kinship Matter: Learning About Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing User Experiences via Online Discussions. PLoS ONE 15: e0238644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  69. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 2012. Ancestors and Relatives: Genealogy, Identity, and Community. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Juvenile Literature and Libraries: Metadata Assignment, Discoverability, and the Preservation of Intergenerational Memory
Previous
Anthropological Linguistic Study of Names as Representations of Family and Community Origins and Identity Among the Igbo of Southeastern Nigeria
Next