romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation Flashcards
1
Q
what is the procedure of rutter et al’s research? (2011)
A
- followed a group of 165 romanian orphans for many years as part of the english romanian adoptee (ERA) study
- orphans had been adopted by families in the UK
- physical, cognitive and emotional development has been assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25 years
- a group of 52 children from the UK adopted around the same time have served as a control group
2
Q
what is the aim of the ERA?
A
to investigate the extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions
3
Q
what were the findings of the ERA?
A
- when the children first arrived in the UK, half of them showed signs of delayed intellectual development and the majority were severely undernourished
- at age 11, the adopted children showed differential rates of recovery based on their age of adoption
> mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months was 102
> mean IQ of those adopted between between 6 months and 2 years was 86
> 77 for those adopted after 2 years
4
Q
what did beckett et al. (2010) find?
A
differences in the mean IQ of the adoptees remained at age 16
5
Q
what did kennedy et al. (2016) find?
A
ADHD was more common in 15- and 22-25 year olds
6
Q
what did rutter et al. find in terms of attachment?
A
- there seemed to be a difference in outcome related to whether adoption took place before or after six months
- those adopted after six months showed signs of disinhibited attachment
- in contrast, those adopted before the age of six months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment
7
Q
what are symptoms of disinhibited attachment?
A
- attention-seeking
- clinginess
- social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar
8
Q
what the procedure of zeanah et al’s research? (2005)
A
- conducted bucharest early intervention (BEI) project, assessing attachment in 95 romanian children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average)
- they were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution
- their attachment type was measured using strange situation
- carers were asked about unusual social behaviour indicating signs of disinhibited attachment
9
Q
what were the findings of zeanah et al’s research?
A
- 74% of control group were classed as securely attached
- only 19% of institutional group were securely attached
- disinhibited attachment for 44% of institutionalised children
- > 20% disinhibited for control group
10
Q
how did rutter (2006) explain disinhibited attachment?
A
- as an adaption to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation
- in poor quality institutions, like those in romania, a child might have 50 carers but doesn’t spend enough time with any one of them to be able to form a secure attachment
11
Q
effects of institutionalisation: intellectual disability
A
- in rutter’s study, most children showed signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in britain
- however, most of those adopted before they were six months old caught up with the control group by age 4
- like emotional development, damage to intellectual development as a result of institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before 6 months (the age at which attachments form)
12
Q
evaluation: application to improve conditions for children growing up outside their family home
A
- studying romanian orphans has improved psychologists’ understanding of the effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects (langton 2006)
- this had led to improvements in the conditions experienced by children growing up in the care-system
> eg. children’s homes avoid having large number of caregivers for each child and instead have one or two ‘key workers’ who play a central role in their emotional care - institutional care is now seen as an undesirable option for looked-after children
- considerable effort is made to accommodate such children in foster care or to have them adopted instead
- children in institutional care have a change to develop normal attachments and disinhibited attachment is avoided
13
Q
evaluation: lack of confounding variables
A
- before romanian orphans, there were many orphan studies
- many of these children had experienced varying degrees of trauma, and it is difficult to disentangle the effects of neglect, physical abuse and bereavement from those of institutional care
- children from romanian orphanages were mostly handed over by loving parents who could not afford to keep them
- this means the results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences
> higher internal validity
14
Q
evaluation: introduction of different confounding variables
A
- the quality of care in these institutions was remarkably poor, with children receiving very little intellectual stimulation or comfort
- this means that the harmful effects seen in studies of romanian orphans may represent the effects of poor institutional care rather than institutional care
> romanian orphanages may have been of such bad quality that results cannot be generalised to other institutions
15
Q
evaluation: lack of data of adult development
A
- latest data from ERA looked at people in their early to mid 20s
> we do not currently have data to answer some research questions about the long-term effects of early institutional care - this includes a lifetime prevalence of mental health problems and participants’ success in forming and maintaining adult romantic and parental relationships
- since it is a longitudinal study, it will be some time before we know completely what the long-term effects are for those who grew up in institutional care
