Romanian orphan studies

• What was the main finding of Rutter et al (1998) regarding Romanian orphans?

  Earlier adoption leads to faster developmental progress
• What did Rutter assess in his 2007 research?

  Children reared in Romanian institutions adopted in the UK
• How were institutionally deprived adoptees compared in Rutter's 2007 study?

  With children adopted in the UK before 6 months
• What methods were used to assess the children's behavior in Rutter's study?

  Parental reports, modified Strange Situation, investigator ratings
• What was the association found between disattachment and institutional deprivation?

  Disattachment was strongly associated with institutional deprivation
• Was there a significant increase in disattachment related to duration of institutional deprivation beyond 6 months?

  No, there was not a significant increase
• What type of attachment was more frequent in institutionally adopted children?

  Insecure attachment
• What type of scans did Chugani et al. (2001) use in their research?

  PET scans
• How many children were in Chugani's sample compared to normal adults?

  10 children and 17 normal adults
• What deficits were observed in the Romanian orphans according to Chugani's assessment?

  Mild neurocognitive impairment, impulsivity, attention deficits
• Which brain regions showed decreased activity in Romanian orphans?

  Orbital frontal gyrus, prefrontal cortex, hippocampus
• What conclusion did Chugani reach regarding brain dysfunction in Romanian orphans?

  It may link to early deprivation stress
• What does the research support regarding critical periods and early intervention?

  • Evidence supports the critical period concept
  • Importance of early intervention for deprived children
  • Rutter's findings align with Bowlby and Harlow
  • Neurological evidence shows privation damages brain structures