Romanian Orphan Studies A03

Question 1

Strength - Real life application

Answer 1

• Such results have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions (Langton 2006).
• For example, orphanages and children’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child and instead ensure that a much smaller number of people, perhaps only one or two people, play a central role for the child.
• This person is called a key worker. Having a key worker means that children have the chance to develop normal attachments and helps avoid disinhibited attachment.
• This shows that such research has been immensely valuable in practical
  terms.

Question 2

Strength - fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies

Answer 2

• There were many orphan studies before the Romanian orphans became available to study but often these studies involved children who had experienced loss or trauma before they were institutionalised.
• For example, they may have experienced neglect, abuse or bereavement. These children were often traumatised by their experiences and suffered bereavement.
• very hard to observe the effects of institutionalisation in isolation because the children were dealing with multiple factors which functioned as confounding participant variables.
• In the case of Romanian orphans it has been possible to study institutionalisation without these confounding variables, which means the findings have increased internal validity.

Question 3

Limitation - Romanian orphanages were not typical

Answer 3

• it is possible that conditions were so bad that results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care or indeed any situation where children experience deprivation.
• For example, Romanian orphanages had particularly poor the children, and erecell o en itoe to forming any relationship with
• This is a limitation of the Romanian orphan studies because the unusual situational variables mean the studies may after all lack generalisability.