romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation

Question 1

institution

Answer 1

place where people live for long time eg. orphanages

Question 2

privation

Answer 2

occurs when children have never formed an attachemnt
–> more likely to occur in institutions if poor emotional care

Question 3

difference between deprivation & privation

Answer 3

deprivation = breaking of attachment
privation = never forming an attachment to begin with

Question 4

background

Answer 4

• in 1966, romanian communist gov. (under dictator nicolae ceausescu) tried to boost population by encouraging mothers to have large families (5+) & banning abortion
• severe poverty meant babies couldn’t be cared for
• after revolution (1989), more than 100,000 babies in 600 state-run orphanages
• orphanages minimally staffed & over-populated
• children received little cognitive stimulation/emotional care
• many showed severe signs of institutionalisation

Question 5

who researched the effects of institutionalisation on romanian orphans

Answer 5

rutter et al.

Question 6

aim of rutter et al. research

Answer 6

investigate long-term impacts of institutional care & see to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions

Question 7

procedure of rutter et al. research

Answer 7

• longitudinal study
• began in early 1990s & followed group of romanian children adopted to uk from institutions in romania
• randomly selected sample of 144 children from romania & adopted by uk families before aged 4 –> studied at age 4, 6 & 11 years old
• comparisons made with sample of 52 non-institutionalised UK children adopted before 6 months

Question 8

findings of rutter et al. research

Answer 8

• quasi-autism
• disinhibited attachment (eg. behaviours like attention seeking/clinginess & impaired adult relationships)
• emotional problems (eg. temper tantrums)
• physical delay = restricted growth
• differential rates of recovery depending on adoption age
• at 11, if child adopted prior to 6 months their IQ =102 but if adopted between 6 months & 2 years their IQ = 86
• those adopted after 2 years, IQ was 77

Question 9

what research supported the decrease in IQ for orphans

Answer 9

beckett et al. 2010

Question 10

which researcher stated that ADHD was more common in 15- & 22-25-year-old samples

Answer 10

kennedy et. al (2016)

Question 11

characteristics of orphans when adopted (compared to UK children)

Answer 11

• lagged behind eg. physical, cognitive & social development
• smaller/weighed less
• signs of mental retardation

Question 12

by age 4, what did the orphans adopted prior to 6 months show

Answer 12

caught up with UK children

Question 13

by age 4, what had the orphans in care for 6+ months show

Answer 13

showed significant deficits & disinhibited attachments/relationship problems with peers

Question 14

conclusion of rutter et al. research

Answer 14

institutionalisation can have relatively long-term negative effects on social, emotional & cognitive development, but these effects can be minimised if children are taken out of institutional environment before 6 months

Question 15

name 3 other studies on romanian orpans

Answer 15

• LeMare & Audet (2006)
• The Bucharest Early Intervention Project (Zeanah et al. 2005)
• Hodges & Tizard

Question 16

describe procedure of lemare & audet (2006) research

Answer 16

• longitudinal study on physical growth & health of 36 romanian orphans adopted by canadian families
• compared to group of children raised in normal canadian families
• data collected for each child at 3 points: 11 months after adoption, 4.5 years & 10.5 years old

Question 17

describe results of lemare & audet (2006) research

Answer 17

• 1st two sets of results showed adoptees were behind non-institutionalised group
• by 10.5 years old, there was no difference between 2 groups

Question 18

describe procedure of The Bucharest Early Intervention Project (Zeanah et al. 2005)

Answer 18

• assessed attachment of 95 children aged 12-31 months
• they’d spent avg. 90% of life in institution
• compared to control group of 50 children who’d spent life in ‘normal family’
• attachment type measured via strange situation
• carers also questioned on unusual social behaviour (eg. clingy) directed inappropriately at all adults (measure of disinhibited attachment)

Question 19

describe results of The Bucharest Early Intervention Project (Zeanah et al. 2005)

Answer 19

• 74% of control group were securely attached
• 19% of institutionalised group were securely attached
• description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children v. less than 20% of control group

Question 20

describe procedure of hodges & tizard

Answer 20

• studied 65 children brought up in children’s home until 4 years old

Question 21

describe results of hodges & tizard

Answer 21

almost all of adopted children & some of restored children formed close attachments to parents
BUT had difficulties with peer relationships & were more attention seeking

Question 22

AO3

Answer 22

-)
P: ungeneralisable
E: evident as standards of care in institutions in romania were particularly poor & unusual for an institution
T: can’t compare to institutions in UK due to severe living conditions so can only compare to similar institutions

-)
P: current lack of data on adult development
E: latest data from ERA study looked at children in early-mid 20s meaning we don’t currently have data to answer some of questions on long-term effects of early institutional care. these questions include long-term prevalence of mental health problems & participants success in forming/maintaining adult romantic & parental relationships. this data will take a long time to gather due to longitudinal design of study.
T: it will be some time before we know more on the long-term effects for the romanian orphans & it’s possible that late adopted children may ‘catch up’

+)
P: practical application to improve conditions for children growing up outside family home
E: improved psychologists understanding of effects of early institutional care & how to prevent the worst impacts (langton 2006). this led to improvements in conditions looked-after children experience eg. children’s home now avoid large numbers of caregivers for each child & now often have 1-2 ‘key workers’ who play a central role in their emotional care. also, institutional care is now seen as undesirable for children in care & foster care/adoption is seen as a better option
T: children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments & avoid disinhibited attachment

+)
P: lack of confounding variables
E: many orphan studies prior to romanian ones where many of the children had experienced degrees of trauma & it’s difficult to remove the impacts of neglect, physical abuse & bereavement from those in institutional care. however, children in romanian orphanages had (mainly) been handed over by parents who couldn’t afford to keep them.
T: results less likely to be confounded by other early negative experiences meaning higher internal validity

-) of research into institutionalisation
P: results lack internal validity
E: hodges & tizard showed children weren’t randomly allocated to conditions
T: could be researcher bias so chose children who were more social making it easier to form attachments so cannot be generalised