institutionalisation

• 1. Rutter and Sonuga Barke have conducted a longitudinal study, following orphans from 1990s to 2010. It included 165 Romanian orphans, 111 adopted by the age of 2, and a further 54 before the age of 4. They were tested at regular intervals in terms of physical, cognitive, and social development. They were compared to a control group of 52 British children adopted before the age of 6 months.
• 2. At the time of adoption, the Romanian orphans lagged behind their British counterparts in terms of all development. By the age of 4, some had caught up with them (this was true for all orphans adopted before the age of 6 months.) Subsequent follow ups have shown that those adopted after 6 months have signs of disinhibited attachment and have problems with peer relationships. This shows that if they have the chance to form an attachment, consequences are less severe than once thought, but if they don’t the consequences are likely to be severe.
• 3. The effects of institutionalism are disinhibited attachment, where the orphans don’t discriminate between people and show overfriendliness with strangers. Poor parenting which has been supported by Harlow’s study of the monkeys who became poor parents after not attaching properly. Cognitive under functioning, they seem to be much less smart and classed as ‘mentally retarded’. They also were underdeveloped, much smaller due to poor nourishment and can be called ‘deprivation dwarfism’.
• A strength of this study is that it was a longitudinal study, done over many years to see the effects.

  Many studies done, which aren’t longitudinal, would just assume that the effects of institutionalisation will be severe and will last a long time. This study, however, shows that these effects can disappear depending on when they were adopted and with better quality care. Even though it takes a long time and effect to carry out, the benefits are large.

  This research therefore shows that its wrong to assume they will all have negative effects.
• There is also a case of individual differences showing why not all children may be able to recover.

  Research shows that some children aren’t as strongly affected as others. Some of the children may have received special attention due to them maybe smiling more and so it could have enabled them to cope better.

  This suggests that it’s not possible to conclude that institutionalisation inevitably brings an inability to form attachments.
• One issue with this study is that deprivation is only one factor as to why they may have been affected so badly.

  The Romanian orphans were faced with much more than emotional deprivation. The children had to live in awful conditions which could have impacted their physical health. For many of the children, this type of care is then also followed by subsequent poor-quality care and even some living in poverty.

  This shows that confounding variables also may have taken part in this study and it may be emotional and physical aspects as to why the effects have happened to them.
• A strength of this study however is the application of the results to real life.

  In the past, mothers gave up their child for adoption were before encouraged to care for the child for a period of time before. By the time the baby was adopted the sensitive period for attachment had passed, making it difficult to gain a secure attachment with a new mother.

  This result has now led to babies being adopted immediately (first week of birth) and that new mothers are just as securely attached as mothers with their own children.