Effects of institutionalisation

• What did Rutter et al. do in relation to romanian orphans

  Followed 165 romanian orphans adopted by British families to assess whether good aftercare could make up for early attachment
• Briefly outline the procedure of Rutters study

  -Assessed adoptees cognitive, physical and emotional development at ages 4,6,11,15 and 22-25

  -Compared to a control group of British adoptees
• What did the ERA find when assessing the romanian adoptees

  -When they first arrived in UK they were malnourished and had delayed intellectual development

  -Rate of recovery when tested at age 11 was related to the age of adoption
• What was the IQ of romanian adoptees at age 11 who had been adopted before 6 months

  102
• What was the IQ of romanian adoptees aged 11 who had been adopted between 6 months and 2 years

  86
• What was the IQ of romanian adoptees aged 11 who had been adopted after 2 years

  77
• What attachment style did romanian adoptees adopted after 6 months have

  Disinhibited attachment
• Describe the behaviours associated with the disinhibited attachment style

  -Clingy

  -Attention-seeking

  -Social behaviour directed at both familiar and unfamiliar adults
• Outline the aim/ procedure of Zeanah et al. study

  -Attachment was assessed in 95 romanian children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care

  -Compared to a control group of 50 children who had never been in care
• Briefly summarise the effects of institutionalisation

  -Delayed intellectual development as displayed by Rutter

  -Problems with attachment- high proportion of disinhibited attachment in comparison with control group
• Name a strength of the romanian orphan studies

  Real world application:

  -helps authorities improve conditions for children growing up outside family home
• What percentage of romanian adoptees were securely attached

  19
• What percentage of romanian adoptees had the attachment style disinhibited attachment

  44
• What percentage of the control group were securely attached

  74
• What percentage of the control group had the attachment style disinhibited attachment

  less than 20