effects of institutionalisation

• institution

  • where people live for long, continuous amounts of time
  • orphanage, hospitals etc
  • fail to provide emotional care for those living there
• romania - ceausescu regime

  • banned contraception and abortion, in attempts to increase population
  • many families could not look after children so they were placed in orphanages where there was very little physical or emotional care and no cognitive stimulation
• The regime collapsed in 1989, the children were found and many were adopted outside of romania (uk, france and canada)
• effects of institutionalisation (pies)

  1. physical
  2. intellectual
  3. emotional
  4. social
• romanian orphanages

  • lack nutrition - food (gruel) produce Ricketts
  • physical deformation - not being allowed out of the crib to walk
  • weak
  • diseases, sexual, physical abuse
  • intellectual - not taught to feed themselves or given the chance
  • emotional - form no attachment (privation)
  • emotional abuse - rocks to soothe themselves
  • social - naked, not allowed to wear clothes
  • shaved heads
  • intellectual - lack of cognitive development
• deprivation = attachment was formed then broken
• privation = attachment was never formed
• rutter and songua-barke (2010)

  p =

  • 165 Romanian children who previously lives in institutions
  • 111/165 adopted before the age of 2
  • 54/165 adopted before the age of 4
  • compared to 52 British children adopted by the age of two months
  • the children were tested regularly for physical social and cognitive development at the ages of 4, 6,11 and 15
• rutter and songua-barke (2010)

  f =

  • at the time of adoption, the Romanian children are behind the British children in all three aspects
  • cognitively they were classified as mentally retarded
  • by 4yrs old, most of the Romanian children that had been adopted by the age of six months, had caught up to the British children
  • many of the children adopted after the age of six months, showed disinhibited attachment and had difficulties with peer relationships
• disinhibited attachment

  • child doesn't seem to prefer their parents over any other people, even strangers
  • child seeks comfort and attention from virtually anyone, without distinction
  • vulnerable as they can't distinguish between who to trust and who to not trust
  • attached to anyone who pays them attention, meaning abusers may exploit them
  • occurs after privation
  • tend to be clingy
• rutter and songua-barke (2010)

  c = for IQ, better to be adopted as early as possible

  • before six months, means monotropic bond can be formed, evident as adopted before six months IQ is 102
  • mdh damages attachment style
• rutter and songua-barke (2010)

  f =

  • adopted before 6 months = 102 IQ
  • adopted 6 months to 2 years = 86 IQ
  • adopted after 2 years = 77 IQ
• zeanah et al 2005, the bucharest early intervention project

  p =

  • assess attachment type of 95 children age between 12 and 31 months who has spent an average of 90% of their life in an institution compared them to a control group of 50 children who had spent their life in a normal family
  • measured attachment type using a strange situation
• zeanah et al 2005, the bucharest early intervention project

  f =

  • 74% - control group, securely attached
  • 19% - institutionalised group, securely attached
  • 44% - institutionalised group, disinhibited attachment
  • 65% - institutionalised group, disorganised attachment meaning a mixture of avoidant and resistant
• • children growing up in institutions are more likely to exhibit disinhibited attachment as they have multiple key workers or carers during the sensitive period of attachment formation
  • romanian orphanage has up to 50 carers
• • the longer in institution the more damaging
  • need to get out as young as possible
  • need to remove children from poor environments
• applications from rutter et al and zeanah et al

  • found that children have no internal working model or template to form future relationships, means that we should foster children instead of sending them to institutions, to help them build this template
  • or reduce staff turnover for consistency and increase staff members in institutions to make it feel more like a family
• ethics

  • protect the children as they have already been through a rough life, must look after them to prevent further abuse
  • alternatively, study sensitively to stop the cycle repeating in the future and improve institutions
• rutter research, high validity due to the control of extraneous variables

  • lacks confounding variables - romanian orphans all start at the same point, handed over by loving parents who couldn't afford to look after them.
  • well controlled - all have the same backgrounds, so they're less likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences, meaning high internal validity
  • other countries orphans - experience varying degrees of trauma, difficult to distinguish the effects of neglect physical abuse, bereavement from those of institutional care
• rutters criticised due to lack of generalisability to institutions in other countries

  • conditions of romanian orphanages were poor - lack of care, nutrition etc
  • state of institution - due to poverty
  • european institutions now have higher standards
• rutter et al

  • longitudinal study, published results at various stages of children development
  • higher rates of adhd
  • middle-aged, how will they be as parents and if the children adopted later caught up