Deprivation and later relationships

• Rutter‘s ERA - English and Romanian Adoptee 

• PROCEDURE ERA

  • Rutter and colleagues followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions
  • physical, cognitive and emotional development assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15
  • group of 52 British children adopted around same time served as a control group
• FINDINGS ERA

  • Age 6: adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited attachment (overly friendly behaviour towards unknown adults) 
  • Age 11: 54% were adopted after 6 months, that had shown disinhibited behaviour, still showed disinhibited attachment
  •  before 6 months, showed signs of a secure 'normal' attachment
  •  older than 6 months displayed disinhibited attachment
  • At age 11 there was a significant difference between children adopted before 6 months and those adopted later in terms of attachment style and IQ
  • mean IQ:
  • before 6 months = 102
  • between 6 months and 2 years = 86
  • after the age of 2 = 77
• • Symptoms of disinhibited attachment - attention-seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults, whether familiar or unfamiliar
• CONCLUSIONS ERA

  • Adoption after the first 6 months of life, means the child will have longer-term effects of institutionalisation
  • However, recovery is possible if children are able to form attachments
  • They may have slower development rather than irreversible damage
  • This finding challenges Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation as Rutter shows recovery is possible
  • It has been found that children as old as 9 or 10 made a good recovery if they were adopted by sensitive, loving parents
• Zeanah et al (2005)

  • assessed attachment in 95 children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% on average)
  • compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institutional
  • attachment measured using strange situation
  • carers asked about unusual social behaviour (clingy behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults) - disinhibited attachment
• Attachment measured using strange situation

  Carers asked about unusual social behaviour (clinginess, attention-seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults, disinhibited attachment)
• FINDINGS EIP

  • 74% of control group came out as securely attached is strange situation
  • only 19% of institutional group were securely attached
  • 65% classified with disorganised attachment
  • disinhibited attachment description applied to 44% of institutionalised children opposed to 20% of control group
• Disinhibited attachment

  • Rutter explained as an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation - in institutions like those in Romania a child might have 50 carers none of whom they see enough to form secure attachment
• Children with disinhibited attachment are equally friendly/affectionate towards people they know and strangers, which is highly unusual as most children show stranger anxiety
• Disorganized attachment

  Inconsistent and hard to predict behaviour (sometimes called fearful avoidance)

  • low concentration in school (low IQ)
  • criminal behaviour
• what were Ceausescu's family policies?

  • every mother should have at least 5 children - menstrual police to check
  • celibacy tax - if you have 5+ children you get more money/income
  • outlawed any contraception and abortions
• what was life for the Romanian orphans?

  • poor conditions - living in hospitals/orphanages
  • multiple children in one crip - not regularly changed
  • unstimulated with needs not met
  • malnourished
  • left alone - fend for themselves
• A criticism of Romanian orphan research is that deprivation is only one factor in development, there may have been other confounding variables. The orphans' experienced very little or no mental stimulation and were often malnourished. This suggests that there are multiple risk factors involved in establishing the effects of institutional care. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret the results of studies as the sole effect of deprivation as there are many different influences that affected these children, such as living in poverty.
• It is difficult to generalize from Romanian orphan studies. Since the conditions of care were so dire for the Romanian orphans, they cannot be considered typical. The results cannot represent all situations where children are placed in care and experience deprivation. This lack of external validity is a result of the unusual situational variables at the time.
• Romanian orphan studies are social sensitive as they suggest that an infant's life chances are determined by their early experiences and can lead to physical underdevelopment, intellectual under-functioning, disinhibited attachment and poor parenting skills. However, other longitudinal studies suggest that ex-institutional children may simply need more time than normal to develop. This is a criticism of research that implies that the effects are permanent.
• One ethical issue with the Bucharest Early Intervention project is that the children were randomly allocated to institutional care or fostering (unlike the ERA which did not interfere with the adoption process). This removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents however it raises ethical concerns because the researchers would have been aware that they anticipated those in foster care to experience worse outcomes in the longer term.