Discuss romanian orphan studies (16 marks)
Rutter et al (2010) studied a group of 165 Romanian orphans. 111 had been adopted before
2 years old. 54 had been adopted by 4 years old. The Romanian orphans were tested at
regular intervals to assess their physical, social & cognitive development. Rutter did this
through conducting interviews with teachers & adoptive parents. The results were compared
to a control group of 52 adopted UK children, who had been adopted prior to 6 months.
Initially, the Romanian orphans under-performed, in comparison to the British control group,
on all measures of physical, social & cognitive development. The Romanian orphans
adopted before 6 months old had progressed to the same level as British children by 4 years
old. They had a mean IQ of 102. However, those who had been institutionalized after 6
months old experienced developmental delays which caused disinhibited attachment.
Children adopted between 6 months & 2 years old had a mean IQ of 86. Those adopted
after the age of 2 years had a mean IQ of 77.
Zeanah et al (2005) also conducted a Romanian orphan study as part of the Bucharest Early
Intervention. 95 Romanian orphans were used, all aged 12-31 months. They were compared
to a control group of 50 children who’d never been institutionalized. The strange situation
method was used to measure attachment. Disinhibited attachment was also assessed using
feedback from caregivers. They found that 74% of the control group were classified as
securely attached. Only 19% of the Romanian children were securely attached. Disinhibited
attachment behaviour was seen in 44% of the institutionalized children, in comparison to
<20% of the control group.
A strength of Romanian orphan studies is that there’s real-life applications. This is because
we are able to know the effects of institutionalization on physical, social & cognitive
development. This has meant that there has been improvements in conditions of
orphanages & foster care, which institutional care now often avoided. Now, adoptions are
aimed to happen within the first week of a baby’s life, so that it’s possible for attachments to
be made with the adoptive parents. This can improve quality of life for the child, as their
development can improve.
However, Romanian orphan studies may be seen as reductionist. This is because they do
not follow the data into adulthood. This means that we do not get a holistic perspective about
the long-term impacts of institutionalization. This means that we do not know the effect of
attachment on forming adult relationships. This may mean that the children who had not
progressed as well during childhood may have caught up & developed further in early
adulthood. Therefore, the data set is incomplete and therefore lacks validity.
A weakness of Romanian orphan studies is that they lack population validity and show
culture bias. This is because all of the children were institutionalized in Romania. It would’ve
impacted the results because not all institutions are deemed as harsh or rigorous, and so
they may not all be shown to have the same effects. This means that the emotional neglect
of these children may not be reflected worldwide. Therefore, the results are not
generalisable across all institutions, only those in Romania of the early 2000s. However, this
does help to improve participant variables, as the results between each child are
comparable, as they’ve been brought up in a similar environment. This means that they all
have commonalities in their family history and family structure. This would’ve increased the
internal validity of the studies.
Rutter et al (2010) studied a group of 165 Romanian orphans. 111 had been adopted before
2 years old. 54 had been adopted by 4 years old. The Romanian orphans were tested at
regular intervals to assess their physical, social & cognitive development. Rutter did this
through conducting interviews with teachers & adoptive parents. The results were compared
to a control group of 52 adopted UK children, who had been adopted prior to 6 months.
Initially, the Romanian orphans under-performed, in comparison to the British control group,
on all measures of physical, social & cognitive development. The Romanian orphans
adopted before 6 months old had progressed to the same level as British children by 4 years
old. They had a mean IQ of 102. However, those who had been institutionalized after 6
months old experienced developmental delays which caused disinhibited attachment.
Children adopted between 6 months & 2 years old had a mean IQ of 86. Those adopted
after the age of 2 years had a mean IQ of 77.
Zeanah et al (2005) also conducted a Romanian orphan study as part of the Bucharest Early
Intervention. 95 Romanian orphans were used, all aged 12-31 months. They were compared
to a control group of 50 children who’d never been institutionalized. The strange situation
method was used to measure attachment. Disinhibited attachment was also assessed using
feedback from caregivers. They found that 74% of the control group were classified as
securely attached. Only 19% of the Romanian children were securely attached. Disinhibited
attachment behaviour was seen in 44% of the institutionalized children, in comparison to
<20% of the control group.
A strength of Romanian orphan studies is that there’s real-life applications. This is because
we are able to know the effects of institutionalization on physical, social & cognitive
development. This has meant that there has been improvements in conditions of
orphanages & foster care, which institutional care now often avoided. Now, adoptions are
aimed to happen within the first week of a baby’s life, so that it’s possible for attachments to
be made with the adoptive parents. This can improve quality of life for the child, as their
development can improve.
However, Romanian orphan studies may be seen as reductionist. This is because they do
not follow the data into adulthood. This means that we do not get a holistic perspective about
the long-term impacts of institutionalization. This means that we do not know the effect of
attachment on forming adult relationships. This may mean that the children who had not
progressed as well during childhood may have caught up & developed further in early
adulthood. Therefore, the data set is incomplete and therefore lacks validity.
A weakness of Romanian orphan studies is that they lack population validity and show
culture bias. This is because all of the children were institutionalized in Romania. It would’ve
impacted the results because not all institutions are deemed as harsh or rigorous, and so
they may not all be shown to have the same effects. This means that the emotional neglect
of these children may not be reflected worldwide. Therefore, the results are not
generalisable across all institutions, only those in Romania of the early 2000s. However, this
does help to improve participant variables, as the results between each child are
comparable, as they’ve been brought up in a similar environment. This means that they all
have commonalities in their family history and family structure. This would’ve increased the
internal validity of the studies.
