Romanian orphan studies

Question 1

Why are orphan studies used to study the effects of deprivation?

Answer 1

• it provides an opportunity to look at the effects of institutional care & the result of institutionalisation in Romania in the 1990s

Question 2

What is institutionalisation?

Answer 2

• the effects of living in an institution e.g. a hospital or orphanage where children live for long periods of time
• there is often very little emotional care provided

Question 3

Why did institutionalisation rise in Romania in the 1990s?

Answer 3

• the president required Romanian women to have 5 children which they couldn’t afford
• many of the children ended up in huge orphanages in very poor conditions
• after the 1989 revolution many of the children were adopted, some by British parents

Question 4

What was the procedure of Rutter’s English & Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study?

Answer 4

• group of 165 Romanian orphans were followed up when they were adopted in Britain to test what extent of good care could make up for the previous poor conditions in institutions
• physical, cognitive & emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 & 15
• control group consisted of 52 British children adopted around the same time

Question 5

What were the findings of Rutter’s English & Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study?

Answer 5

• half of the adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development & majority were undernourished when they first arrived in the UK
• mean IQ of children adopted before 6 months was 102, was 86 for those adopted between 6 months - 2 years & was 77 for those adopted after 2
• children adopted after 6 months showed signs of disinhibited attachment - symptoms included attention seeking, clinginess and equal social behaviour towards familiae & unfamiliar adults
• those adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment

Question 6

What was the procedure of the Bucharest Early Intervention project?

Answer 6

• Zeanah et al. assessed attachment in 95 children aged between 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care
• they were compared to control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution
• attachment type was measured using the Strange Situation
• carers were also asked about unusual social behaviour (disinhibited attachment) directed inappropriately at all adults

Question 7

What were the findings of the Bucharest Early Intervention project?

Answer 7

• 74% of the control group were securely attached compared to 19% of the institutional group
• 65% of the institutional group were classified with disorganised attachment
• description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children compared to less than 20% of the control group

Question 8

What are 2 effects of institutionalisation?

Answer 8

• disinhibited attachment
• mental retardation

Question 9

What is disinhibited attachment?

Answer 9

• children are equally friendly towards familiar and unfamiliar people which is considered highly unusual behaviour as most children show signs of separation anxiety at 2
• Rutter explained that disinhibited attachment was an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period

Question 10

What is mental retardation?

Answer 10

• damage to intellectual development
• in Rutter’s study most children showed signs of retardation when they arrived in Britain
• however it most of those adopted before 6 months were able to catch up with control group by 4
• mental retardation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before 6 months which is the age attachments form according to Schaffer’s stages of attachment

Question 11

Evaluation: Real-life application

Answer 11

• studying Romanian orphans enhances understanding of the effects of institutionalisation
• results have led to improvements in child are in institutions
• e.g. orphanges & children’s home now avoid large numbers of caregivers for each child & ensure a smaller no. of people play a central role for each child (key worker)
• key workers help the children to develop normal attachments & helps avoid disinhibited attachment
• this shows that research was very valuable in practical terms

Question 12

Evaluation: Fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies

Answer 12

• there were many orphan studies before the Romanian ones which often involved children who had experienced loss or trauma before they were institutionalised
• e.g. they may have experienced neglect, abuse or loss of someone important which led them to be traumatised
• this made it hard to observe the effects of institutionalisation since children were dealing with other factors which acted as confounding pps variables
• the case of Romanian orphans was possible to study effects of institutionalisation without these confounding variables which means findings have increases internal validity

Question 13

Evaluation: The Romanian orphanages weren’t typical

Answer 13

• although a lot of useful data into the effects of institutionalisation came from the Romanian orphan studies it’s possible that conditions there were so bad that it can’t be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutions
• e.g. Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, especially with forming relationships with the children & low levels of intellectual stimulation
• this is a limitation for Romanian orphan studies since the unusual situational variables meant that studies may lack generalisability

Question 14

Evaluation: The long-term effects are not yet clear

Answer 14

• both studies follow up the orphans into mid-teens and some found lasting effects of early experiences
• however it is too soon to certainly say whether children suffered short-term or long-term effects
• it may be that children who had spent longer in institutions & lag behind in intellectual development or display attachment difficulties may still ‘catch up’ as adults
• early adopted children who appear to have no issues may experience problems as adults