institutionalisation

• define institutionalisation?

  • refers to children who have been raised in homes/orphanges (institutions)
• rutters era study 2010?

  era - english & romanian adoptees
• method of rutters era study 2010?

  • longitudinal study
  • followed group of 165 romanian children who spent time in orphange so had suffered institutionlisation
  • 111 kids adopted before 2
  • 54 kids adopted by 4
  • were assessed at ages 4,6,11,15 in terms of social/cognitive/physical development
  • was compared to 52 british children adopted in uk before age of 6 months
• results of rutters era study 2010?

  • at time of adoption romanian kids smaller & weighed less & classified as having delayed intellectual development
  • some who were adopted after 6 months had disinhibited attachment & problems with peer relationships
• what is disinhibited attachment?

  • pattern of attention seeking, clingy behaviour with relative lack of selectivity in social relationships
  • children more likely to seek attention from all adults even strangers & make inappropriate physical contact without checking back to parent in stressful situation
  • no secure base
• zeanahs 2005 study method?

  • assessed attachment in 95 children aged between 12-31 months who had spent average of 90% of life in institution
  • compared to control group who never lived in institution
  • attachment type measured using strange situation
• zeanahs 2005 study results?

  • 74% of control securely attached
  • only 1% of institution group were securely attached
  • 65% of institution group classified as having disorganised attachment
• what is disorgnised attachment?

  • children display inconsistent pattern of behaviour
  • sometimes show strong attachment
  • other times they avoid caregiver
  • unsure how to form consistent attachment
  • negative emotional effects
• * practical applications?

  • research has pointed out importance of being adopted early
  • late adoption leads to more severe effects of instit
  • e.g low iq/poor social skills
  • as a result today babies adopted within first week of birth/asap
  • ecological
  • demonstrates negative impacts that instit can have on infants ability to form att
  • regulations now put in place so adoption happens much earlier to ensure healthy social development
• 4 X of institutionalisation?

  1. ignores individual differences
  2. orphans faced with much more than emotional deprivation
  3. issues with methodology
  4. ethical issues
• X ignores individual differences?

  • not all children who were institutionalised went on to be negatively affected by it
  • rutter found only some went onto have disinhibited att
  • zeanah found 65% went onto have disorganised att not 100%
  • ? ecological
  • findings cannot be generalised to all children as not everyone is affected in same way
  • suggests may be other factors
• X orphans deal with more than emotional deprivation?

  • physical conditions kids stay in are appalling may have huge impact on health
  • lack of cognitive stimulation may have affected development
  • for many kids poor care in infancy is followed by poor subsequent care such as living in poverty/experiencing parental disharmony
  • ? internal
  • instits can cause physical effects & problems with att
  • problem with establishing direct cause & effect relationship between instits & att as they had poor conditions
  • if kids raised in orphange with good quality care/facilities outcomes may be different
• X issues with methodology?

  • rutters study did not have control over which children were adopted/not
  • means confounding variables may have caused effects not instits
  • may be children who were not adopted early already had poor social skills & thats why not adopted not instits causing poor skills
  • zeanahs study randomly allocated kids to foster groups/instits
  • means confounding less likely to have effects as caregivers not choosing to foster kids who already had better social skills
  • ? internal
  • not all cvs controlled
  • means other possible factors affected results
• X ethical issues?

  • pro: rutter did not decide which children were adopted/not
  • means it was ethically sound as it happened naturally
  • con: zeanah had say in which children went into orphange/fostered
  • breaks ethical issues as those who stayed in orphange have disorganised att breaking protection from psychological harm
  • whilst its more ethically sound to use naturally occuring sample reserch into this area does not protect childrens rights
  • still places them at risk
  • may be more ethical ways to research
  • e.g using correlational anaylsis/secondary data to avoid manipulation
• effects of instituitionalisation?

  1. disinhibited attachment - rutter
  2. iq - delayed intellectual development - rutter
  3. disorganised attachment - zeanah
  4. social skills - zeanah