Effects of Institutionalisation -Romanian Oprhan Studies

Question 1

What is institutionalisation?

Answer 1

The effects of living in an institutional setting. Where children live for long, continuous period of time. Very little emotional care

Question 2

What are the 7 effects of institutionalisation?

Answer 2

-physical development
-low IQ
-disinhibited attachment
-poor parenting
-emotional functioning
-lack of internal working model
-quasi-autism

Question 3

Physical development

Answer 3

Children in institutionalised care are usually physically small. Lack of emotional care rather than poor nourishment is the cause I’d what has been calls developmental dwarfism

Question 4

Low IQ

Answer 4

Children in institutional care often show signs of intellectual disability disorder as identified by Bowlby

Question 5

Disinhibited Attachment

Answer 5

Form of insecure attachment when children are equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know well and strangers.also attention seeking and clingy. It’s an adaption to living with multiple caregivers during sensitive period of attachment.

Question 6

Poor parenting

Answer 6

Study by Quinton et al compared a group of 50 women who has been reared in institutions with a control group of 50 women reared at home. When the women were in their 20s it was found that the ex-institutionalised women had extreme difficulties parenting

Question 7

Emotional functioning

Answer 7

Children in institutional care sometimes show affectionless psychopathy as identified by Bowlby and are more likely to have temper tantrums

Question 8

Lack of internal working model

Answer 8

Children in institutional care sometimes have difficulties interacting with peers and forming close relationships

Question 9

Quasi-autism

Answer 9

Children in institutional care sometimes have difficulty understanding the meaning of social contexts and may display obsessional behaviours

Question 10

What are the differences between institutional care and family care. Institutional care factors?

Answer 10

-No attachment figure
-Bored
-Not cared for well
-Less sociable and interactions
-Fewer toys

Question 11

What are the differences between institutional care and family care. Family care factors?

Answer 11

-strong emotional attachment
-well stimulated
-cared for well
-lots of socialising and interactions
-more toys

Question 12

What are orphan studies?

Answer 12

Concern children placed in care (parents wither died or abandoned them)

Question 13

What was the opportunity that arose to study institutionalisation?

Answer 13

Romania in the 1990s President Nicolas Ceaucescu required Romanian women to have 5 children. Many couldn’t afford to keep their children so needed up in huge orphanages in very poor conditions

Question 14

What was the sample in Rutter et al (2011) study

Answer 14

Followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain

Question 15

What was the intent of Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 15

To test to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions.

Question 16

What was the background of the orphans in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 16

Spent their early years in Romania institutions so suffered the effects of institutionalisation

Question 17

When were the orphans adopted in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 17

111 adopted before the age of 2 and 54 by the age of 4

Question 18

What were the orphans assessed on in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 18

Physical, cognitive and emotional development assessed at ages 4,6,11 and 15 years. Information was also gathered from interviews with parents and teachers

Question 19

What was the control group in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 19

A group of 52 children adopted around the same time. They were adopted before the age of 6 months.

Question 20

At the time of the adoption how were the Romania orphans compared to their British counterparts in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 20

They lagged behind. They were smaller, weighed less and showed signs of intellectual disability disorder. By 4years old some had caught up with their British counterparts it was true for all orphans adopted before 6months

Question 21

At age 11 the adopted children showed what in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 21

Differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption.

Question 22

What was the mean IQ of those adopted in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 22

Mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months was 102.
86 for those adopted between 6-months and 2 years
77 for those adopted after 2 years.
This remained at age 16

Question 23

What types of attachment did those show adopted after they were 6 months in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 23

Disinhibited attachment. Symptoms were attention-seeking, clinginess, social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards adults

Question 24

What types of attachment did those show adopted before they were 6 months in Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 24

Rarely displayed disinhibited attachment

Question 25

What is further evidence for Rutter et al (2011) study?

Answer 25

Zeanah et al (2005)

Question 26

What was the sample of Zeanah et al (2005)?

Answer 26

95 children aged 12-31 months who has spent most of their lives in institutional care

Question 27

What was the control group in Zeanah et al (2005)?

Answer 27

50 children who have never lived in an institution

Question 28

What was the procedure in Zeanah et al (2005)?

Answer 28

Attachment type was measured using the strange situation. Carers were asked about unusual social behaviour, including clingy, attention-seeking behaviour directed inappropriately at adults.

Question 29

What were the results of Zeanah et al (2005)?

Answer 29

-74% of the control group had security attached in the strange situation
-19% of the institutionalised group were securely attached, 65% classified wit disorganised attachment.
-Disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children compared to less than 20% of the Corel

Question 30

What was the conclusion of Zeanah et al (2005)?

Answer 30

Suggests that long-term consequences may be less serve than it was once thought if children have the opportunity to form attachment. When children don’t form attachment, then the consequences are likely to be serve

Question 31

What are the finding of Le Mare and Audet (2006)?

Answer 31

The adopted orphans were physically smaller than the matched control group at age 4 and 1/2 years. This difference by 10 and 1/2 disappeared.

Question 32

What was the brief overview of Le Mare and Audet (2006)?

Answer 32

Finding from a longitudinal study of 36 Romanian orphans adopted to families in Canada. The DV was physical growth and health

Question 33

What was the conclusion for Le Mare and Audet (2006)?

Answer 33

Appears that children can recover and it may be slower development rather than irreversible damage.