Romanian orphan studies: Institutionalisation Flashcards
Rutter et al - procedure
Institutionalisation
Rutter et al followed group of 165 Romanian orphans for many years as part of English & Romanian adoptee (ERA) study
Orphans have been adopted by families in UK
Aim of ERA has been to investigate extent to which good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions
Phsyical, cog & emotional development has been assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 & 22-25
Group of 52 children from UK adopted around same time have served as CG
Rutter et al’s findings
Institutionalisation
When children first arrived in UK, 1/2 adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development & majority were severely undernourished
At age 11 the adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that were unrelated to their age of adoption
Mean IQ of children adopted before 6mths was 102, compared w/ 86 for those adopted between 6mths-2yrs & 77 for those adopted after 2yrs
These diffs remained at age 16 (Beckett et al)
ADHD was more common in 15 & 22-25 yos (Kennedy et al)
Children adopted after 6mths showed signs of disinhibited attachment
Symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess & social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar & unfamiliar
In contrast, those adopted before 6mth rarely displayed disinhibited attachment
Zeanah et al - procedure
Institutionalisation
Zeanah et al conducted Bucharest early intervention (BEI) project, assessing attachemnt in 95 Romanian children agd 12-31 months who spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average)
They were compared to CG of 50 children who never lived in institution
Their attachment type was measured using SS
In addition, carers were asked about unusual social behaviour including clingy, attention-seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults
Zeanah et al - findings
Institutionalisation
Findings - researchers found that 74% of CG were classed as securely attached in SS
However, only 19% of institutional group were securely attached
In contrast, description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of Institutionalised children as opposed to less than 20% of controls
Effects of institutionalisation - Disinhibited attachment
Institutionalisation
Children who spent their early lives in an institution often show signs of disinhibited attachment, being euqally friendly & affectionate toward familiar people & strangers
This is highly unusual behaviour - most children in 2nd year show stranger anxiety
Rutter explained disinhibited attachment as an adaptation to living w/ multiple caregivers during sensitive period for attachment formation
In poor quality institutions, a child may have 50 carers but doesn’t spend enough time w/ any of them to be able to form secure attachment
Effects of Institutionalisation - intellectual disability
Institutionalisation
In Rutter’s study most children showed signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in UK
However, most of those adopted before 6mths caught up w/ control group by age 4
Appears that damage to intellectual development as result of Institutionalisation can be recovered provided adoption takes place before age of 6mth - age at which attachments form
Evaluation: Real-world application
Institutionalisation
Strength: Application to improve conditions for children growing up outside their family home
Studying Romanian orphans has improved psychologists’ understanding of effects of early institutional care & how to prevent worst of these effects (Langton)
This led to improvements in conditions experienced by looked-after children
E.g. children’s homes avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child
Instead the children tend to have 1 or 2 ‘key workers’ who play central role in emotional care
Also instituional care is now seen as undesirable option for looked-after children
Considerable effort made to accommodate such children in foster care or have them adopted instead
Therefore, children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments & disinhibited attachment is avoided
Fewer confounding variables
Institutionalisation
Strength: Lack of confounding variables
Many orphan studies before Romanian orphans became available to study
Many children studied in orphanages had experienced varying degrees of trauma & it is difficult to disentangle effects of neglect, physical abuse & bereavement from those of institutional care
However, children from Romanian oprhanages had been handed over by loving parents who couldn’t afford to keep them
Therefore, results were much less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences - higher internal validity
Evaluation: Fewer confounding variables (Counterpoint)
Institutionalisation
However, studying children from Romanian orphanages may have introduced diff confounding variables
Quality of care in these institutions was remarkably poor, w/ children receiving very little intellectual stimulation or comfort
Therefore, harmful effects seen in studies of Romanian orphans may represent effects of poor institutional care than institutional care
Evalution: Lack of adult data
Institutionalisation
Limit: current lack of data on adult development
Latest data from ERA study looked at children in early 20s
Means we don’t currently have data to answer some of the most interesting research questions about long-term effects of early institutional care
These research questions included lifetime prevalence of mental health problems & success if forming adult romantic & parental relationships
Will take long time to gather this data because of longitudinal design of study
Therefore, it will be some time before we know more completely what long-term affects are for Romanian orphans
