Institutionalisation

Question 1

History behind institutionalisation

Answer 1

In Romania, the Ceausescu regime aimed to increase the population by not allowing abortion or contraception.

Families could not look after their children so put them in orphanages.

There was little physical or emotional care.

No cognitivee stimulation.

When the regime collapsed, many of these children were found and adopted in places like UK, USA, Canada

Question 2

Difference between deprivation and privation

Answer 2

Rutter: if child fails to develop an attachment = privation

          the loss of/damage to an attachment = deprivation

Question 3

KEY STUDIES

Answer 3

KEY STUDIES

• Rutter et al
• Bucharest Early Intervention Project - Zeanah et al
• LeMare and Aude

Question 4

RUTTER ET AL

Answer 4

Rutter et al

• 165 Romanian children, 111 adopted before 2, 54 adopted before 4
• compared to control of 52 British children adopted by 6months
• children tested regularly for physical, social and cognitive development
• at time of adoption Romanian behind British = mentally retarded and malnourished
• at 11, adopted before 6month = 102 IQ, 6months-2years = 86 IQ, >2years = 77 IQ
• difference remained until 16
• By 4 most of the Romanian children adopted by 6months caught up to British children
• adopted after 6months = disinhibited attachment
• longer children are institutionalised, more damage to their development and attachment

Question 5

What is disinhibited attachment?

Answer 5

Disinhibited attachment: child seeks comfort and attention from virtually anyone, without distinction

Question 6

BUCHAREST EARLY INTERVENTION PROJECT

Answer 6

Bucharest Early Intervention Project

• Zeanah et al assessed children who spent 90% of their life in an institution
• compared to control group with ‘normal family’
• attachment type measured by Strange Situation
• 74% control group secure but only 19% institutionalised
• 65% institutionalised disorganised attachment
• disinhibited = 44% institutionalised, 20% control

Question 7

LEMARE AND AUDET

Answer 7

LeMare and Audet

• longitudinal study physical growth and health
• 36 romanian orphans adopted compared to children raised in normal families
• adoptees initally behind non-institutionalised group
• by 10.5 years old no difference between groups
• institutionalisation has negative effect but is reversible

Question 8

EVALUATIONS

Answer 8

EVALUATIONS

• Real-world application - Zeanah and Rutter
• Longitudinal study
• Generalisation issues
• Multiple risk factors

Question 9

EVAL: Real-world application

Answer 9

Real-world application

• changed the way children were looked after in adoptive processes
• children adopted before critical period to become securely attached
• specific key workers allocated to each child
• institution care seen as last resort, adoption and fostering better
• Higher quality of life for adoptees and parents

Question 10

EVAL: Longitudinal study

Answer 10

Longitudinal study

• following same ppts reduced participant effects
• long-term and short-term effects of institutionalisation and benefits of adoption assessed
• more accuracte and complete explanation - higher validity

Question 11

EVAL: Generalisation issues

Answer 11

Generalisation issues

• atypical conditions, dont represent all situations for children in care
• unusual situational variable due to harsh political regime
• extreme mistreatment not applicable
• lacks eexternal validity

Question 12

EVAL: Multiple risk factors

Answer 12

Multiple risk factors

• emotional privation only factor being studied
• but adoptees also experienced poor nutrition, abuse, bereavement
• unclear which of these led to outcomes
• difficult to interpret results
• confound variables → lacks internal validity