Describe and evaluate the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Rutter et al followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted into the UK as part of the English
and Romanian adoptee study. He assessed their physical, cognitive, and emotional developments
from frequently from the age of 4 to the age of 25. His aim was to see if good care could make up for
poor experiences in the institution. Upon arrival to the UK, half the adoptees showed delayed
intellectual development. The average IQ of those adopted before 6 months was 102, compared to
those adopted after 6 months to two years when the IQ was 86, and adopted after 2 years it was 77.
These differences remained at age 16, and ADHD was also common in the teenage years.
Zeanah et al conducted the Bucharest early intervention project in which they assessed the
attachment type of Romanian children who had spent most of their life in institutions using the
strange situation. They found that 19% were securely attached, compared to 77% in a control group.
They also found that 44% had disinhibited attachment, which included being extremely clingy to all
adults and attention-seeking. Rutter explained that this behaviour is due to having multiple
caregivers during the sensitive period, but not having a secure attachment with any of them. Those
adopted after 6 months often had an intellectual disability, but those adopted before 6 months were
able to catch up with the control group by the age of four.
A strength of research into institutionalisation is that it had real world application in the care system.
It improved the understanding of the effects of institutional care and led to improvements in the
way that children in care are looked after, for example children having 1-2 hey caregivers, having less
children in one institution and putting more effort into getting children adopted. This means that
more children are able to have normal emotional and intellectual development.
Another strength is the lack of confounding variable of Romanian adoption. Because many of the
children were put up for adoption because their loving parents could not afford to look after them,
there was no added trauma of war or abuse, like in other research such as Goldfarb’s. this leads to
greater internal validity of the findings.
However, because the condition of the Romanian orphanages was particularly poor, this research
could be testing the effects of poor institutional care, rather that institutional care in general.
Children had very little intellectual stimulation or comfort, meaning the findings many are not
generalisable to all children in care.
A limitation is the lack of adult data. Participants of the studies have only been assessed up to their
20s, because of how recent the events occurred, meaning researchers are unsure of the very long-
term effects of institutionalisation. Perhaps they will be able to catch up intellectually, but it will take
a long time to find out this information because it is a longitudinal study.
Rutter et al followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted into the UK as part of the English
and Romanian adoptee study. He assessed their physical, cognitive, and emotional developments
from frequently from the age of 4 to the age of 25. His aim was to see if good care could make up for
poor experiences in the institution. Upon arrival to the UK, half the adoptees showed delayed
intellectual development. The average IQ of those adopted before 6 months was 102, compared to
those adopted after 6 months to two years when the IQ was 86, and adopted after 2 years it was 77.
These differences remained at age 16, and ADHD was also common in the teenage years.
Zeanah et al conducted the Bucharest early intervention project in which they assessed the
attachment type of Romanian children who had spent most of their life in institutions using the
strange situation. They found that 19% were securely attached, compared to 77% in a control group.
They also found that 44% had disinhibited attachment, which included being extremely clingy to all
adults and attention-seeking. Rutter explained that this behaviour is due to having multiple
caregivers during the sensitive period, but not having a secure attachment with any of them. Those
adopted after 6 months often had an intellectual disability, but those adopted before 6 months were
able to catch up with the control group by the age of four.
A strength of research into institutionalisation is that it had real world application in the care system.
It improved the understanding of the effects of institutional care and led to improvements in the
way that children in care are looked after, for example children having 1-2 hey caregivers, having less
children in one institution and putting more effort into getting children adopted. This means that
more children are able to have normal emotional and intellectual development.
Another strength is the lack of confounding variable of Romanian adoption. Because many of the
children were put up for adoption because their loving parents could not afford to look after them,
there was no added trauma of war or abuse, like in other research such as Goldfarb’s. this leads to
greater internal validity of the findings.
However, because the condition of the Romanian orphanages was particularly poor, this research
could be testing the effects of poor institutional care, rather that institutional care in general.
Children had very little intellectual stimulation or comfort, meaning the findings many are not
generalisable to all children in care.
A limitation is the lack of adult data. Participants of the studies have only been assessed up to their
20s, because of how recent the events occurred, meaning researchers are unsure of the very long-
term effects of institutionalisation. Perhaps they will be able to catch up intellectually, but it will take
a long time to find out this information because it is a longitudinal study.
