outline and evaluate research into the effects of institutionalisation Flashcards
rutter
Rutter (2011) lead a longitudinal study on the effects of institutionalisation, called the English and Romanian adoptees (ERA) study.
4 groups of orphans were compared: never institutionalised (52 British children who had never experienced institutionalisation & were adopted before 6 months), institutionalised early adoptees (58 institutionalised Romanian orphans, adopted into British families before 6 months), institutionalised mid-term adoptees (59 institutionalised Romanian orphans, adopted into British families between 6 months and 2 years) and institutionalised late adoptees (48 institutionalised Romanian orphans adopted into British families between 2 and 4 years).
All children were assessed ages 4,6,11 and 15 on these measures: physical development (height, weight, head circumference), cognitive development (IQ and concentration levels) and emotional/social development (signs of affectionless psychopathy, disinhibited attachment and quasi-autistic behaviour).
rutter findings
The study found at the initial assessment, all Romanian infants showed signs of malnutrition with 51% aged between 6 months and 2 years had a height, weight and head circumference at the bottom third of the population for their age.
Their physical development rapidly improved after adoption and by age 6, only 2% of these had body measurements in the bottom third of the population and the infants showed cognitive difficulties due to their institutionalisation, including lower IQ and difficulty concentrating.
Initially, there were no significant differences between early adoptees (mean IQ=101) until 6 months compared to a control group of British children (mean IQ=105). Those adopted later showed the lowest cognitive abilities (mean IQ = 83).
The biggest difference was in the social development, showing higher levels of disinhibited attachment.
pos
Results from this research have led to improvements in the way that children are cared for in institutions (Langton, 2006), meaning they have real life application.
For example, day care centres now provide a key worker for each child, who is responsible for working most closely with him or her, to provide a “suitable mother substitute” (Bowlby) whilst separated from the primary attachment figure.
In such cases, research has shown that these infants are just as securely attached as those born into sensitive responsive care (Singer et al., 1985).
These changes ensure that children have the chance to develop normal attachments and avoid disinhibited attachments.
limit 1
However, there may be issues with the generalisability of Romanian orphan studies; the conditions of the orphanages were so bad that the results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better-quality institutional care or any situation where children experience deprivation.
The Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, especially with regards to forming any relationship with the children and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation.
These unusual situational variables mean the studies may lack generalisability.
limit 2
A further limitation is that the long-term effects of early experience are not clear; it is too soon to say whether children suffered short term or long-term effects because the adopted orphans were only followed into their mid-teens.
The children who spent longer in institutions and who currently fall behind in intellectual development or who show attachment difficulties may still catch up as adults.
This means that we cannot be certain that the effects of early experience can last into adulthood.
limit 3
A limitation of the ERA study is that children were not randomly assigned to conditions; Rutter et al. did not interfere with the adoption process therefore the children that were adopted early may have been more sociable, this would act as a confounding variable.
To control for this, in the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, orphans were randomly assigned to institutional care or fostering.
Methodologically this is better as it means that the confounding variable of why some children are chosen by parents is removed, however it does raise ethical issues.
