Romanian Orphan studies

When was Rutter’s England and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) Study?

1988

Rutter (1998): Procedure - who did he study?

Romanian orphans who had been placed in orphanages, aged 1-2 weeks old, with minimal adult contact

Rutter (1998): Procedure - what type of study was it?

a Longitudinal study

Rutter (1998): Procedure - what type of experiment was it?

natural

Rutter (1998): Procedure - sample?

a group of around 100 Romanian orphans

Rutter (1998): Procedure - at what ages were these orphans assessed at?

ages 4, 6, and 11, then re-assessed 21 years later

Rutter (1998): Procedure - how many different conditions did Rutter use?

3

Rutter (1998): Procedure - how many babies were adopted before 6 months old?

58

Rutter (1998): Procedure - how many babies were adopted between the ages of 6-24 months old?

59

Rutter (1998): Procedure - how many babies were adopted late, between 2-4 years old?

48

Rutter (1998): Findings - what did Those who were adopted by British families before 6 months old show?

'normal' emotional development compared with UK children adopted at the same age

Rutter (1998): Findings - what were Many adopted after 6 months old like (2)?

showed disinhibited attachments and had problems with peers.

Rutter (1998): Findings - 4 examples of disinhibited attachments?

attention-seeking behaviour towards all adults, lack of fear of strangers, inappropriate physical contact, lack of checking back to the parent in stressful situations

Rutter (1998): Conclusion - what does this study suggest about long-term consequences?

when long-term consequences may be less severe than was once thought if children have the opportunity to form attachments within the first six months. When children don't form attachments, the consequences are likely to be severe

When was the The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - by Zeanah et al?

2005

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Procedure - sample?

36 Romanian orphans aged between 12-31 months

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Procedure - what percentage if the Romanian orphan’s life had been spent in an institution?

an average of 90% of their life

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Procedure - who were these orphans compared to?

a control group who spent their life in a "normal family."

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Procedure - what was the attachment type measured using?

the Strange Situation

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Findings - what percentage of the control group was found to be securely attached?

74%

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Findings - what percentage of the institutionalised group was found to be securely attached?

19%

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Findings - what percentage of the institutionalised group was classified as having disorganised attachment?

65%

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Findings - disorganised attachment?

a type of insecure attachment where the children display an inconsistent pattern of behaviour; sometimes they show strong attachment, other times they avoid the caregiver

The Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al (2005): Findings - what did the institutionalised children also show signs of?

disinhibited attachment

Strength - P: what does research into institutionalisation have?

important real-life applications

Strength - Ev: what did the study of Romanian orphans by Rutter (1998) show?

that a lack of stable attachment figures in institutions could lead to developmental difficulties and disinhibited attachment

Strength - Ex1: what did Rutter’s research (1988) showing this lead to many orphanages and children's homes changing?

their practices by introducing a key worker system, where a child is cared for by one or two consistent caregivers

Strength - Ev2: what does the key worker system increase the opportunity for?

children to form secure attachments and reduces the negative effects of institutionalisation

Strength - L: Therefore, why does research into institutionalisation has significant practical value?

because it has directly influenced childcare policies and improved outcomes for children living in institutional care

Strength - P: what does the Romanian orphan studies have fewer of than previous orphan research

fewer extraneous variables

Strength - Ev1: what children had Many earlier studies examined?

children who had experienced abuse, neglect, or bereavement before entering institutional care

Strength - Ev2: In contrast, why had the Romanian orphans generally been placed in institutions?

due to political and economic circumstances rather than personal family trauma

Strength - Ex1: what did this mean researchers could be more confident about?

that any developmental difficulties observed were caused by institutionalisation itself rather than other confounding participant variables

Strength - Ex2: as a result, why did the studies had greater internal validity?

because they were better able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship

Strength - L: Therefore, why are the findings from Romanian orphan research better than many earlier orphan studies?

they are more reliable evidence for the effects of institutionalisation

Weakness -

Weakness - P: what was an issue with the orphanages used in the Romanian orphan studies?

the orphanages were highly unusual and not representative of most institutional care.

Weakness - Ev: 3 examples of conditions in the Romanian orphanages?

extremely poor conditions: severe neglect, very limited social interaction, and low levels of intellectual stimulation

Weakness - Ex1: therefore, what may the negative effects found in the studies reflect?

the exceptionally poor conditions of these institutions rather than institutionalisation in general

Weakness - Ex2: what negative impact does this have on the findings?

reduces the generalisability of the findings because children in other institutions may receive much higher standards of care and therefore experience different outcomes

Weakness - L: Therefore, what may the findings from the Romanian orphan studies not be applicable to?

all forms of institutional care, limiting their usefulness in explaining the effects of institutionalisation more broadly

Weakness - P: what is not fully known yet?

the long-term effects of institutionalisation

Weakness - Ev1: who have researchers followed into adolescence?

followed many of the adoptees into adolescence and found that some children, particularly those adopted later, continue to show attachment difficulties and lower intellectual development

Weakness - Ev2: however, what hasn’t been studied yet?

these individuals have not yet been studied throughout their entire adult lives

Weakness - Ex1: what does these individuals not yet being studied throughout their entire adult lives make it difficult to determine?

whether the effects observed are permanent or whether individuals may eventually recover and "catch up" in adulthood

Weakness - Ex2: what may happen to children who appear unaffected during adolescence?

they may develop emotional or psychological difficulties later in life

Weakness - Ev3: as a result, what may conclusions about be premature?

conclusions about the lifelong impact of institutionalisation may be premature

Weakness - L: what do the findings lack?

temporal validity because the full long-term consequences of institutionalisation cannot yet be established with certainty