Romanian orphan studies and institutionalisation Flashcards
how can you study effects of deprivation?
- studying experience of orphans
—> institutionalisation effects of being in institutional care e.g. orphanage or children’s home, place where ppl stay for period of time e.g. waiting for adoption etc
what was Romania like in the 1990s?
- had many orphanages due to harsh laws from their former presidency who required women to have 5 children —> many parents couldn’t afford to keep children and ended up in huge orphanages in poor conditions —> after 1989 Romanian revolution many children were adopted into British families etc
who did a research into this?
Rutter et al
Rutter et al procedure
- studied 165 orphans (Romanian adopted in UK) from 1990s onwards in a longitudinal study as part of Englishand Romanian adoptee study
- investigated extent to which good care can make up for poor early experiences
- each adoptee had physical, cognitive and emotional development regularly assessed (ages 4,6,11,15,22,25)
- control group = 52 UK adoptees from around same time as Romanians
- interviews were conducted with orphans, teachers and adoptive parents
- progress of afopted Romanian children was compared to control grp
Rutter et al findings
- half Romanian orphans showed signs of early intellectual development and majority were severely undernourished
- age 11 adopted children showed differential rates of recovery related to their age of adoption
Rutter et al findings - mean IQ
- ppl adopted before 6 months= IQ 102
- ppl adopted between 6 months and 2 years=IQ 86
- ppl adopted after 2 years = IQ 77
Rutter et al findings what did he find in ppl adopted after age of 6 months
- they showed signs of disinhibited attachment (attention seeking, clinginess, social behaviour di enter indiscriminately towards all adults (both familiar and unfamiliar))
- children adopted before 6 months rarely showed this
Rutters intellectual and emotional effects
- negative correlation between age of adoption and emotional (attachment disorders) and intellectual (IQ) development
- shorter the privation = less severe long term consequences
effects of institutionalisation?
PIES
Physical= stunted growth
Intellectual= lower IQ
Emotional= insecure attachment
Social= poor future parenting
physical and social effects of institutionalisation
physical- Gardener found institutionalised children were physically smaller than controls
social- Quinton et al compared 50 children raised in children’s home bs 50 raised at home —-> children who grew up in children’s home were more likely to have difficulty parenting and send child to care (IWM)
emotional effects of institutionalisation
attachment disorder —> no preferred attachment figure, inability to interact —> reactive attachment disorder = shy and not able to cope socially vs disinhibited attachment disorder= over friendly and attention seeking
what must you remember for exam questions on this section?
if question is on Romanian orphans or Rutter only use intellectual and emotional effects if it’s on institutionalisation in general use all of PIES
Zenah et als Bucharest Early Intervention project (BEIP) 2005 procedure
assessed 95 romanian orphans ages 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care
control group = 50 children never institutionalised
measured attachment using strange situation and measure of disinhibited attachment were also assessed
Zenah BEIP findings
- 74% control group were securely attached (as what would be expected based off Ainsworth)
- 19% institutionalised grp= securely attached and 44% were disinhibited attached (vs just 20% in control grp)
effects of institutionalisation- disinhibited attachment
- Rutter explain it as an adaptation to having multiple caregivers during sensitive period
—> childten may have had 50 carers more of whom they see enough to form an attachment with
effects of institutionalisation- intellectual disability
- Rutters study = most children showed difficulties when arrived in UK —> most of those adopted before 6 months old caught up with control group by 4 —> emotional damage is recoverable provided adoption takes place before age of 6 months
eval point 1
- real world applications of Romanian orphans studies to improve conditions for children growing up outside family home
—> children’s homes avoids a large number of caregiver for each child (instead have key workers)
—> more effect for adoption (early adoption preferable) and foster care (no longer have orphanages
—> nurseries etc have ratios of staff:children
eval point 2
- socially sensitive- results show that late adopted children= typically have more development issues= parents teachers etc may treat them different
—> also can lead to self fulfilling prophecy (kids going to live up to the label)
eval point 3
- fewer confounding variables in Romanian orphans studies studies —> all orphans experiences same varying degrees of trauma (many given up by loving families rather than being institutionalised because of war, abuse etc) —> means results have high interval validity (any results must be due to privation)
BUT potential confounding variables r.g. the quality of care in institutions was very pooor with children receiving very little intellectual stimulation or comfort —> means harmful effects seek in studies of Romanian orphans may represent effects of poor institutional care rather than institutional care per se
eval point 4
- lack of adult data from Romanian orphans —> normally looks at ppl into mid 20s =nothing on long term impacts of early institutional care rather than—> no info on the orphans future mental health, adult relationships , employment
—> longitudinal study also has high attrition rate (ppl dropping out or moving away = small sample size can actually be used and lots of effort)
eval point 5
no random allocation (for ethics)
—> means healthier, more intelligent, socially etc children more likely to be adopted
