Institutionalisation -Romanian Orphanages

• Institutionalisation-

  Rutter et al (2011)-

  • 11yrs- different rates of recovery, those adopted before 6mths had the IQ of 102, and 86between 6mths-2yrs, 77 for after 2 years.
  • At 16 the differences remained, ADHD was more common at 15- and 22-25-.
  • Disinhibited attachment was seen in those’d adopted after 6 months – they were attention-seeking, clingy, indiscriminate social behaviour at all adults.
  • Those adopted before 6 months rarely showed disinhibited attachment.
• Institutionalisation-

  Rutter et al (2011)-

  • 165 Romanian orphans, adopted in the UK.
  • Physical, cognitive & emotional development assessed at 4,6,11,15 and 22-25.
  • Control group of 52 children adopted in the UK around the same time.
  • They started very malnourished with delayed intellectual development.
• Institutionalisation-

  Zeanah et al (2005)-

  • 95 Romanian children, 12-31 months where 90% of their lives had been in institutional care, compared to a control of 50 kids from an institution.
  • Strange situation used to se attachment type, and asked about strange behaviour (clingy, attention-seeking) – disinhibited attachment.
• Institutionalisation-

  Effects of institutionalisation-

  • Disinhibited attachment- equal to everyone (should have stranger anxiety).
  • Rutter shows this since the kids may have had 50 CG but never spent enough time with them to form an attachment.
  • Rutter also showed that the kids adopted before 6 months could achieve the controls intellectual abilities by age 4, showing it can be helped if adoption happens before 6 months so an attachment is formed.
• Institutionalisation-

  S- Application to improve conditions for kids growing up outside their family home, letting kids in institutionalised care kids grow up with normal attachments.

  W- Lack of data on the adult development, since the study is longitudinal it will take time to gather these results, leaving it open to speculation.

  W- Lack of privacy since the results have been published as the kids have grown, making it easy for people to link them to the experiment.
• Institutionalisation-

  CPS- Lack of confounding variables, since the kids were handed over by loving parents who could no longer afford to keep their kids, so the kids wouldn’t be disrupted by previous negative experiences.

  CPW- May have introduced other confounding variables since they were neglected due to the poor care provided by the institutions rather than institutional care.