Institutionalisation Flashcards
What is Institutionalisation?
Institutionalisation refers to when children are cared for by the state. Extended stays in institutions, such as in children’s homes and hospitals are thought to alter behaviour. As such facilities are unable to provide the same level of physical and emotional care to young children as families, institutionalisation is thought to influence childhood development negatively.
Romanian Orphan Studies: Effects of Institutionalisation
During the 1990s, the unveiling of political events in Romania allowed psychologists to study the effects of institutionalisation. The Western world became aware that record numbers of children had been placed in orphanages as parents could not cope with the strict government rules. Under dictatorship, abortion was banned and couples were required to birth large numbers of children in a bid to boost the population. At the end of the 30 years of this regime, it was found that around 170,000 abandoned children were living in privation in 600 state-operated orphanages.They lacked physical and emotional care from the staff, and many of the children were malnourished and abused. Many of these children were adopted into loving, Western families, and the varying ages at adoption allowed researchers to conduct experiments.
ERA - Rutter and Songua-Barke (2010) - Aim
To examine the long-term effects of institutionalisation in a longitudinal study, beginning in the early 1990s, called the ERA (English and Romanian Adoptees).
ERA - Rutter and Songua-Barke (2010) - Method
- Longitudinal study.
- Natural experiment.
- 165 children who had spent their early years in a Romanian orphanage formed the experimental group.
- 111 of these children were adopted before the age of 2 years, while the remaining 54 were adopted by the age of 4 years.
- They were compared to a control group of 52 British children, who were adopted before they were 6 months old.
- The social, cognitive and physical development of all infants were examined at regular intervals (age 4, 6, 11 and 15) and interviews were conducted with adoptive parents and teachers.
ERA - Rutter and Songua-Barke (2010) - Findings
- At the point of adoption, the Romanian orphans showed delayed development on all elements of social, cognitive and physical progress.
- They were physically smaller, weighed less on average and many were classified as mentally retarded.
- However, almost all of the Romanian orphans who were adopted before the age of 6 months caught up on these measures of development when compared to the British control group.
- The Romanian children who were adopted after 6 months continued to show significant deficits in terms of social, cognitive and physical development. They were more likely to experience difficulties making or maintaining peer relationships and were often categorised as having disinhibited attachment disorder.
ERA - Rutter and Songua-Barke (2010) - Conclusion
Institutionalisation can have severe long-term effects on development, especially if children are not provided with adequate emotional caregiving, i.e. adopted by two year old.
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project: Zeenah et al. (2005) - Aim
To investigate attachment type of children who had spent most of their life in institutional care.
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project: Zeenah et al. (2005) - Methods
- A sample of almost 100 children aged between 12-31 months, 90% of whom had spent most of their lives in an orphanage, were compared to a control group who had never been institutionalised.
- Using the Strange Situation methodology, the researchers assessed the infants’ attachment type.
- Additionally, the carers in the institution and parents of the children from the control group were asked about several aspects of the child’s behaviour, including clinging, attention seeking and appropriateness of behaviour towards adults (to determine if disinhibited attachment disorder was present).
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project: Zeenah et al. (2005) - Findings
- Zeenah et al. found that 74% of the control group were classified as securely attached to their caregivers.
- Conversely, 19% of infants from the experimental group, who had spent most of their life in institutional care, were deemed to have a secure attachment. In fact, 65% of these infants appeared to have a disinhibited attachment.
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project: Zeenah et al. (2005) - Conclusion
Infants who spend their early years in institutional care, with the absence of a primary attachment figure to provide consistent and sensitive emotional caregiving, are less likely to develop a secure attachment and are far more likely, as a result, to experience a disinhibited attachment.
Strength
Point: One strength of Romanian orphan studies is their real-world application, particularly in improving child welfare practices within social services.
Evidence: Research findings from these studies have influenced adoption policies by highlighting the importance of early attachment formation. Historically, it was common practice for mothers to keep their babies for extended periods before adoption, in order to prevent potentially missing the critical window for healthy attachment. However, following such research, adoption now often occurs as early as one week after birth. Singer et al. (1985) found that children adopted early can form attachments that are just as secure as those in biologically related families.
Justification: This demonstrates how insights from institutionalisation studies have directly informed policy and practice, leading to better outcomes for vulnerable children. By understanding the effects of delayed attachment, social workers and caregivers can act earlier to prevent emotional and developmental issues.
Implication: This enhances the practical value of Romanian orphan studies, as they have led to lasting, beneficial changes in adoption systems and child welfare services, improving the long-term wellbeing of countless children.
Counterargument: Despite the practical merits associated with Romanian orphan studies, some critics argue that their usefulness may be limited due to unique contextual factors.
Evidence: The conditions in Romanian orphanages during the late 20th century were unusually severe - characterised by extreme neglect, minimal emotional care, and overcrowding. These conditions were far more extreme than those typically seen in modern institutional care or foster settings.
Justification: Because of this, the findings from these studies may not generalise well to current childcare systems in different cultural or social contexts. The improvements made based on these studies may be responding to an extreme case, rather than representing a universally applicable model for institutional care.
Implication: This lowers the external validity of Romanian orphan studies and weakens the broader applicability of the findings as whilst they offer critical insight, their real-world relevance might be less than assumed because the unusual situational variables - due to the harsh political regime at the time - is seldom seen presently, especially in societies with more regulated and supportive care systems.
Strength
Point: Research into Romanian orphans provides biological evidence to support the long-term effects of early deprivation on brain development.
Evidence: Chugani et al. (2001) conducted PET scans on 10 children adopted from Romanian orphanages and compared the results with those from 17 neurologically typical adults and 7 children. The Romanian orphans exhibited decreased activity in several key brain regions including the orbital frontal gyrus, parts of the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, amygdala, and brain stem. Assessments also showcased signs of mild neurocognitive impairment, impulsivity, and social and attentional difficulties.
Justification: These neurological abnormalities are believed to be a result of prolonged early deprivation and lack of emotional and social stimulation during critical periods of brain development. Furthermore, the findings suggest a biological basis for the cognitive and behavioural deficits seen in institutionalised children.
Implication: This strengthens the argument that early experiences have a profound impact on brain development and functioning. It also highlights the importance of timely intervention and enriching caregiving environments for vulnerable children to reduce the risk of long-term developmental issues.
Counterargument: However, despite the biological evidence presented by studies such as Chugani et al., not all children exposed to early deprivation experience long-term cognitive and emotional difficulties.
Evidence: For example, Rutter et al. (2011) found that although some Romanian orphans who were adopted after six months did show disinhibited attachments, behavioural and cognitive deficits, those adopted before six months often caught up with their peers on these measures.
Justification:This indicates that while early deprivation can pose significant risks, later positive experiences, such as high-quality adoptive care, can act as protective factors and promote resilience. Additionally, the human brain shows a degree of plasticity that allows for developmental recovery even despite adverse beginnings.
Implication: This challenges the assumption that early deprivation leads to irreversible outcomes, as it demonstrates that biological impairments observed in institutionalised children are not always permanent. It also emphasises the importance of interpreting such findings with caution and avoiding overly deterministic conclusions about long-term outcomes.
Strength
Point: A notable strength of research into Romanian orphan studies, such as that of Rutter and Songua-Barke, is its longitudinal design.
Evidence: The researchers followed a cohort of Romanian orphans over an extended period, tracking their development from early childhood into adolescence and beyond. This long-term approach allowed them to assess not only the immediate impact of institutionalisation but also its lasting effects, as well as the extent to which later adoption and caregiving could mitigate these outcomes.
Justification: Because developmental changes can unfold over time, short-term studies might overlook delayed effects or signs of recovery. By using a longitudinal approach, Rutter and Songua-Barke were able to paint a more comprehensive and accurate picture of how early deprivation interacts with later experiences.
Implication: This makes the study a valid representation of both the risks of institutional care and the potential for recovery, as it observes the long-term repercussions of early deprivation over an extended period.
Weakness
Point: One limitation of Romanian orphan research is that it may oversimplify the impact of institutionalisation by focusing primarily on deprivation.
Evidence: Many of the children involved in these studies not only experienced a lack of consistent caregiving, but also suffered from severe malnourishment, limited access to healthcare, and minimal cognitive stimulation.
Justification: This means that the observed developmental delays and long-term impairments may not be solely attributed to deprivation, but rather a combination of multiple adverse conditions. For example, children raised in such environments were also likely impacted by poverty, neglect, and poor physical health, all of which contribute to developmental outcomes.
Implication: As a result, this reduces the internal validity of the findings as it suggests that there are multiple risk factors involved in ascertaining the effects of institutional care. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret the findings as the sole effect of deprivation, emphasising the need to consider other contributing factors in the interpretation of the results.
