Romanian orphanages study: effects of institutionalisation

Question 1

who did the Romanian orphan study?

Answer 1

-Rutter

Question 2

-explain the procedure of the Romanian orphanage study?

Answer 2

• followed group of 165 Romanian orphanages adopted in Britain to test if care could make up for poor early experience in institutions
• physical, cognitive, and emotional development assesed from 4-15 years
• control group of 50 british children adopted round the same time

Question 3

-explain the findings from the Romanian orphanage study?

Answer 3

-first half adoptees showed delayed intellectual development
-at 11 showed different rates of recovery depending on time they were adopted
-IQ before 6 months adoption: 102
after 2 years:77
-adopted after 6months= disinhibited attachment (clinginess, attention seeking)

Question 4

explain disinhibited attachment as an effect of institutionalisation?

Answer 4

• equally friendly to people they know and don’t know

- Rutter explained it as an adaption to living with multiple carers during the sensitive period

Question 5

explain delayed intellectual development as an effect of institutionalisation?

Answer 5

-most children adopted showed signs of delayed intellectual development but most adopted before 6 months caught up mentally by 4

Question 6

evaluate real life application for the Romanian orphanages study?

Answer 6

STRENGTH

• has aided understanding of effects of institutionalisation
• led to improvements in the way children are cared for (homes now avoid having too many caregivers for each child)=key worker and kids can develop normal attachments to avoid disinhibited attachments

Question 7

evaluate the fact that Romanian orphanages were not typical

Answer 7

WEAKNESS

• although provided useful data, conditions were so extreme and bad that results cannot be generalised
• Romanian orphanages had poor standards of care and had low levels of intellectual stimulation or proper care
• limitation due to unusual situational variables

Question 8

evaluate supporting evidence?

Answer 8

STRENGTH

• evidence which supports the concept of the critical period and the importance of early intervention. Rutter’s research is consistent with Bowlby and Harlow
• recent neurological evidence supports the damaging effects that privation can have on specific brain structures (Chugani 2001+ prefrontal cortex).