Bucharest Study Flashcards
(21 cards)
What did Zeanan et al (2005) assess?
Attachment in 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their time in care
What was the control group?
50 children- never institutionalised
What was the attachments type measured by?
Using the strange situation
What were carers asked about?
Signs of disinhibuted attachment
How much of the control group were Type B?
74%
How much of the institutionalised group were type B?
19%
What % of institutionalised children were disinhibited attachment?
44%
What % of control group were disinhibited attachment?
Less than 20%
Effects of institutionalism?
Disinhibited attachment
Intellectual disability
What is disinhibited attachment?
Equally friendly and affectionate towards familiar people and strangers (most children aged 2 show stranger anxiety)
In Romania, a child may have 50 carers but does not spend enough time with any of them to form a secure attachment
Intellectual disability?
Most children showed difficulties when they arrived in the UK
Most who were adopted before 6 months caught up with the control group by age 4
Emotional effects of privation can lead to?
Attachment disorder (DSM)- no preferred attachment figure and the inability to interact with
What can DSM either be?
Reactive attachment disorder- shy not able to cope socially
Disinhibted attachment disorder- over friendly, attention seeking
Physical effects of institutionalised care (not Romanian orphans but can be used to support)- Gardner?
Institutionalised care leads to children being physically smaller than controls- due to poor nutrition
Social effects of institutionalised care (not Romanian orphans but can be used to support)? (Quinton et al)?
50 women raised in children’s home vs 50 control women raised at home
Found women who grew up in children’s homes experienced difficulties as parents e.g. more likely to have their own children enter care
Supports Bowlby’s theory of the Internal Working Model
High internal validity- Rutter (strength)?
The children hadn’t suffered trauma before so therefore lack of confounding variables
Many children in orphanages had trauma, neglect and it is hard to distinguish the effects of neglect and physical abuse
However the children in Romanian orphanages had been handed over by parents who loved them but couldn’t afford to keep them
Therefore results are more likely to be confounded by other negative early experiences (less confounding variables)
The quality of care in the Romanian institutes?
The quality was so poor- children received very little intellectual stimulation/comfort
The harmful effects seen in studies of Romanian orphans may represent the effects of poor institutional care rather than just institutional care
Advantages of it being a longitudinal study?
Followed the same children for a long time
Disadvantages of longitudinal study?
People may drop out- after they withdraw, they lose all participant data
Has been a waste of time and money
Socially sensitive data?
Socially sensitive data AND long term effects are unknown— only followed until 25
By 25, these children did not have children/a family
Practical appplication?
Practical application for institutions- emotional care and interactions as important as physical care
