romanian orphan studies: institutionalisation

Question 1

How are children conditions in institutions?

Answer 1

-no attachment figure
-bored
-no social life
-agressive
-less intelligent
-not cared for well
-less toys
-less interaction

Question 2

how is children conditions compared to in family care?

Answer 2

-strong emotional attachment
-more social
-cared for well

Question 3

what is institution?

Answer 3

-place like hospital or orphanage children live there for long periods with little emotional care

Question 4

why were romanian kids put in orphanges?

Answer 4

-issue began under communist ruler Nicolai ceausesu who banned abortion and use of contraception at a time of severe food and energy shortage

Question 5

what happen to these romanian kids?

Answer 5

-parents left newborns thousands put in underfunded care orphanges
-parents told their kid would be well looked after

Question 6

what was life like in the orphanages?

Answer 6

-not enough staff
-no toys
-go mad
-confined
-starve
-dumped
-crippled and rocking motions
-hands tied
-mental and physical strain

Question 7

what happened to some orphans?

Answer 7

-18 orphans would be kicked onto streets
to feed themselves
-some adopted abroad e.g Alexandru wolf is now prepping for exams and life after school

Question 8

What was Rutter et al’s procedure?
(ERA study- english and romanian adoptee)

Answer 8

-followed grp of 165 romanian orphans
-orphans adopted by families in UK
-wanted to measure extent to which good care made up for early experiences
-measured physical, cognitive and emotional development 4-25 year olds
-grp of 52 children adopted around the same time from UK were control group

Question 9

what did rutter et al find?

Answer 9

-when kids arrived half adoptees had delayed development and malnourished
-at 11years old kids had diff rates of recovery
-mean IQ before 6 months was 102
-comapred to 86 for those adopted between 6mnths and 2 years
-differences remained at 16 years old
-ADHD common in 15 and 22-25 yrs old samples
-those adopted after 6 mnths showed disinhibited attachment e.g attention seeking, clingy to all adults familiar and unfamiliar
-those adopted before 6months rarely showed this behaviour

Question 10

zeanah et al procedure?

Answer 10

-buacharest early intervention
-assess attachment in 95 romanian kids 12-31months
-spent most of the time in institutional care
-comapred to 50 children who never have(control group)
-attachment type measured using strange situation
-carers asked ab any behvaiours e.g clingy, attention seeking inappropirtaly at adults

Question 11

findings from zeanah et al?

Answer 11

-74% of control group classed as securely attached in SS
-only 19% of institutional grp
-disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of instituional grp as opposed to less than 20% control grp

Question 12

what were the effects of institutionalisation?
(disinhibited attachment)

Answer 12

-disinhibited attachment- shown by those who spent early life in instituion (were equally friendly and affectionate to family and strangers)
-most most kids in second year are meant to show stranger anxiety
-RUTTER ET AL= due to the fact they lived with multiple carers in sensitive period for attachment
not enough time to form secure attachment

Question 13

what were the effects of institutionalisation?
(intellectual disability)

Answer 13

-most showed this when they arrived in britain
-but those adopted before 6 months caught up w control group by 4 years old

Question 14

can intellectual disability be recovered from?

Answer 14

-can be as long as it happens before 6 months(age at which attachment forms)

Question 15

what were the strengths of the studies?

Answer 15

(real world application)
-improved psychologists understanding of effects of early institutional care and how to prevent worst of these effects
-led to improvements looking after kids
-now have 1 or 2 key workers playing central role in emotional care
-more effort in adoption
-so those in care have a chance to develop normal attachments.

(few confounding variables)
-there were other studies before romanian study but they experienced high degree of trauma, difficult to dis intangle effects of neglect,physical abuse and bereavement from those in institutional care
-those in orphanage were handed over by loving parents who couldnt keep them
-results less likely due to early negative experience
so HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY

Question 16

what were the weaknesses of the studies?

Answer 16

(lack of adult data)
-ERA studies looked at kids from early to mid 20s
-now we dont have answeres to some questions
on the long term effects
-e.g mental health and adult romantic relationships
-long time to gather data as its a longitudinal study- not fully aware of long term effects rn

(socially sensitive)
-show late adopted kids have poorer development.
-parents, teachers and other may have lower expectations or treat them different - self fufilling prophecy

(counter point to few confounding variables)
-however those from romanian orphanage may have introduced dff confounding varibables as quality of care in institutions is poor
-so negative effects may have been caused by poor care rather than institutional care per se.