romanian orphan studies

• Who did Rutter et al. (2011) study?

  A group of 165 Romanian orphans (111 adopted before the age of 2, 54 adopted before the age of 4) adopted in Britain
• What was the aim of Rutter et al. (2011)?


  To test to what extent good care could make up for the poor early experiences in institutions
• What did Rutter et al. (2011) measure and when?

  Physical, cognitive and emotional development were tested ages 4,6,11, 15 and 22-25 years.
• Who was the control group in Rutter et al.'s (2011) study?

  52 British children adopted before the age of 6 months
• Where did Rutter et al. (2011) also collect information from?

  Information was also collected from parental and teacher interviews
• What did Rutter et al. (2011) find when the children first arrived in the UK?

  Half the adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development and the majority were severely undernourished
• What did Rutter et al. (2011) find at age 11?

  The adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption
• What was the mean IQ for children adopted before the age of six months?

  102
• What was the mean IQ for children adopted between sixth months and two years?

  86
• What was the mean IQ for children adopted after two years old?

  77
• Those children adopted after they were six months showed signs of an attachment style called what?

  Disinhibited attachment
• What is disinhibited attachment?

  Symptoms include attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, both familiar and unfamiliar
• Disinhibited attachment persisted in who?

  Many of the adoptees at age 6 and in over 50% at age 11. In contrast, children adopted before six months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment
• One third of the children required what?

  The intervention of educational, psychological, and psychiatric professionals as they had impaired language and social skills
• Children has characteristics of what?

  Quasi-autism
• What is quasi-autism?


  Could not form proper attachments or function properly socially, and generally had a poor mental performance
• At age 15, the adopted children generally showed signs of what?

  Deprivation-specific problems such as emotional, behavioural, and relationship problems with peers
• How has studying Romanian orphans had real life applications?

  The research shows the importance of early adoption
• What used to happen with adoption historically?

  In the past, babies were adopted at a later age once the biological mother had nursed the baby for some time
• What is the case with adoption now?

  Now, babies are often adopted at a much younger age
• What is a methodological strength of Rutter et al. (2011)?

  Studied the infants over a long period of time, even re-assessed 21 years later
• What does Rutter et al. (2011) being longitudinal allow us to do?


  Allows us to see that the effects of institutionalisation are long lasting, not only present soon after they were adopted
• What is a methodological weakness of Rutter et al. (2011)?

  Romanian orphanages are very different to most institutions that children grow up in
• What is a methodological weakness of Rutter et al. (2011)?

  Romanian orphanages are very different to most institutions that children grow up in
• Why is it a weakness that Romanian orphanages are very different to most institutions that children grow up in?

  This makes the results of Romanian orphan studies difficult to generalise to other institutions as they may not be applicable
• How are Romanian orphanages are very different to most institutions that children grow up in?

  These orphanages were of extremely poor quality with very extreme conditions, most orphanages in Western parts of the world are not of this quality
• How are Romanian orphanages are very different to most institutions that children grow up in?
• Who conducted the Bucharest Early Intervention project?

  Zeanah et al. (2005)
• What was the age range of children assessed in the study?

  12-31 months
• What percentage of children spent most of their lives in institutional care?

  90% on average
• How many children were in the control group?

  50 children
• What was the main comparison group in the study?

  A control group of children never in institutions
• How was attachment measured in the study?

  Using the Strange Situation
• What were caregivers asked about in the study?

  Unusual social behaviors in children
• What type of attachment was found in 74% of the control group?

  Securely attached
• What percentage of the institutional group was securely attached?

  19%
• What percentage of the institutional group was classified with disorganized attachment?

  65%
• What does the term "disinhibited attachment" refer to in the study?

  Attachment behavior directed at all adults
• What percentage of institutionalized children displayed disinhibited attachment?

  44%
• What was the classification of attachment for 44% of institutionalized children?

  Disinhibited attachment