3.5: Institutionalisation Flashcards
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer
The likely effects of institutionalisation include:
1. Affectionless psychopathy
2. Anaclitic depression
3. Deprivation dwarfism
4. Delinquency
5. Low IQ
,as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
What happened to one group of 15 children?
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
What happened to the second group of children?
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
What happened to both groups at age 12?
Both groups were tested at age 12
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at age 12 and what?
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
What does this link to?
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
Why does this link to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory?
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so what?
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
What is this further supported by?
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, why?
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
Example
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
First AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
Example
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
What did the researchers not interfere with?
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
What does this mean?
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a what?
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
What does this mean?
This means that the findings are not valid
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, what?
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: What?
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
Why is this methodologically better?
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but what?
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
Third AO3 PEEL paragraph
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that the long-term effects are not yet clear
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that the long-term effects are not yet clear.
Studies have found some lasting effects of institutionalisation, in particular for who?
Studies have found some lasting effects of institutionalisation, in particular for those adopted late
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that the long-term effects are not yet clear.
Studies have found some lasting effects of institutionalisation, in particular for those adopted late, but what?
Studies have found some lasting effects of institutionalisation, in particular for those adopted late, but it is too soon to say with certainty whether children suffered short or long-term effects
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that the long-term effects are not yet clear.
Studies have found some lasting effects of institutionalisation, in particular for those adopted late, but it is too soon to say with certainty whether children suffered short or long-term effects.
Example
For example, early-adopted/fostered children who appear to have no issues now may experience emotional problems as adults
Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Refer to the studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.
The likely effects of institutionalisation include affectionless psychopathy, anaclitic depression, deprivation dwarfism, delinquency and low IQ, as found by Bowlby’s 44 thieves study and Goldfarb’s study.
Goldfarb compared 2 groups of children in an orphanage.
One group of 15 children stayed in the orphanage for a few months, but were then fostered.
The second group of children remained in the orphanage until they were 2 or 3 years old.
Both groups were tested at 12 years old and the second group of children scored less well on IQ tests, were more aggressive and not as socially advanced.
This links to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory, because the second group of children had a lack of an internal working model and an attachment didn’t form within the critical (sensitive) period, so the child would be damaged, socially, emotionally and intellectually.
This is further supported by Romanian orphan studies, because Rutter et al’s ERA project found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is evidence that the adverse effects of institutionalisation can be overcome with adequate substitute care.
For example, Tizard and Hodges found that institutional care has long-lasting effects, but that the development of close attachments is possible with loving care, as provided by adoptive parents.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
To control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that the long-term effects are not yet clear.
Studies have found some lasting effects of institutionalisation, in particular for those adopted late, but it is too soon to say with certainty whether children suffered short or long-term effects.
For example, early-adopted/fostered children who appear to have no issues now may experience emotional problems as adults.
What does this imply?
This implies that we cannot draw effective conclusions about the effects of institutionalisation
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
What served as a control group?
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
What did they find?
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
Example
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
When did these differences remain?
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al)
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, what did those children adopted after 6 months show?
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include what?
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include:
- Attention-seeking
- Clinginess
- Social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both who?
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include:
- Attention-seeking
- Clinginess
- Social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
What did those children adopted before 6 months rarely display?
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
Who were they compared to?
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
What percentage of institutionalised children did the description of disinhibited attachment apply to?
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to what?
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
First AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped do what?
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to do what?
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
What did this also help to do?
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
What is a weakness of longitudinal studies however?
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
Example
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors whilst they were there
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as what, whilst they were there?
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
What did the researchers not interfere with?
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
What does this mean?
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a what?
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
What does this mean?
This means that the findings are not valid
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
Third AO3 PEEL paragraph
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: What?
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
Why is this methodologically better?
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but what?
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that research related to the effects of institutionalisation has real-life application
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that research related to the effects of institutionalisation has real-life application.
What has it enhanced our understanding of?
It has enhanced our understanding of the effects of institutionalisation
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that research related to the effects of institutionalisation has real-life application.
It has enhanced our understanding of the effects of institutionalisation.
What have such results led to?
Such results have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions (Langton)
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that research related to the effects of institutionalisation has real-life application.
It has enhanced our understanding of the effects of institutionalisation.
Such results have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions (Langton).
Example
For example, orphanages and children’s homes now ensure that perhaps only one or two people play a central role for a child, so that the chances of children displaying disinhibited attachment are reduced
Discuss research related to the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks).
Rutter et al’s ERA project was that physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain.
A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time served as a control group.
They found that the mean IQ decreased for adopted children the later they were adopted.
For example, the mean IQ of those adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared to 77 for those adopted after 2 years.
These differences remained at age 16 (Beckett et al).
However, those children adopted after 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment, for which symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar.
Those children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 Romanian orphans aged 12 - 31 months who had spent 90% on average of their lives in institutional care.
They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution.
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children, as opposed to less than 20% of the control group.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one strength of Rutter’s Romanian orphan study was that it was a longitudinal study, which helped measure the lives of the children over many years to truly understand the lasting differences that occurred in orphans.
This also helped to identify consistent changes that may disappear over time, but be mistakenly concluded to be definite due to institutionalisation.
A weakness with longitudinal studies however, is that a number of factors and extraneous variables may affect the results.
For example, the Romanian orphans may actually display poor development not due to institutionalisation, but other factors, such as poor cognitive stimulation, whilst they were there.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that one of the methodological issues for Rutter et al’s ERA project is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions.
The researchers did not interfere with the adoption process.
This means that those children adopted early may have been the more sociable ones, a confounding variable.
This means that the findings are not valid.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that to control such variables, another major investigation of fostering vs institutional care did use random allocation: In the Bucharest Early Intervention project, Romanian orphans were randomly allocated to fostering or institutional care.
This is methodologically better, because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents, but it raises ethical issues.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that research related to the effects of institutionalisation has real-life application.
It has enhanced our understanding of the effects of institutionalisation.
Such results have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions (Langton).
For example, orphanages and children’s homes now ensure that perhaps only one or two people play a central role for a child, so that the chances of children displaying disinhibited attachment are reduced.
What does this show?
This shows that research related to the effects of institutionalisation has been immensely valuable in practical terms
