ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES
SPECIFICATION: PRIVATION: The Romanian Orphan Studies and the Effects of Institutionalisation
Privation refers to the complete lack of an attachment bond from early in life, as opposed to deprivation, which involves losing or disrupting an existing attachment. The distinction between these two concepts is critical in understanding their different impacts on a child's development. Michael Rutter, a prominent developmental psychologist, clearly distinguished between deprivation and privation to address the nuances in attachment theory and its implications for child development.
Why Rutter Distinguished Privation:
Different Developmental Outcomes: Rutter emphasized the distinction to highlight that the absence of any form of initial attachment (privation) could have more severe and different developmental consequences than the loss of an attachment (deprivation). Privation, being never having formed any initial attachment bonds, could lead to more profound and pervasive developmental issues, including social, cognitive, and emotional difficulties.
Clarification in Attachment Theory: By distinguishing between privation and deprivation, Rutter aimed to clarify misunderstandings in attachment theory, particularly in interpreting John Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis. Rutter argued that Bowlby's hypothesis was more relevant to deprivation (the disruption of an attachment bond) than privation.
Empirical Evidence: Rutter's distinction was also driven by empirical evidence from studies of children who had experienced severe neglect or were raised in extremely impoverished institutional settings (privation) compared to those who had lost a primary caregiver after an attachment had been formed (deprivation). The outcomes for these two groups were observably different, necessitating a clear terminological and conceptual distinction.
Implications for Intervention and Recovery: Recognizing the difference between privation and deprivation has important implications for designing interventions. Children who have experienced privation may require different therapeutic approaches to address the lack of foundational attachment experiences, as opposed to children who have experienced deprivation, where the focus may be on restoring or substituting the lost attachment relationship.
Rutter's work in distinguishing privation from deprivation has been influential in developmental psychology, offering a more nuanced understanding of the effects of early attachment experiences (or the lack thereof) on child development. This distinction has helped shape research, theory, and practices in child welfare, psychology, and education by acknowledging the varied needs of children based on their early attachment histories.
Researchers, including Michael Rutter and his colleagues, conducted longitudinal studies to examine the development of these children who had experienced extreme privation.
One of the most well-known series of studies involves children adopted from Romanian orphanages in the early 1990s, following the fall of the Ceaușescu regime.
Key Study: Rutter et al. (1998) - Romanian Orphan Study
The Romanian Orphan Study, conducted by Michael Rutter and Edmund Sonuga-Barke in 1998, is a crucial investigation into the effects of institutionalisation on children's development. This landmark study sought to discern whether the adverse consequences of institutional care and privation could be mitigated through nurturing and enriched environments.
Research Background
Before delving into the Romanian Orphan Study, it's essential to appreciate the context in which it emerged. Harlow's research with rhesus monkeys challenged the prevailing behaviourist perspective by emphasising the significance of contact comfort over mere feeding in attachment formation. This paradigm shift paved the way for a deeper understanding of attachment.
The Romanian Orphan Study
The study focused on 165 Romanian children who had spent their early years in institutional orphanages. Of these children, 111 were adopted before the age of 2, while an additional 54 were adopted by the age of 4. The primary developmental variable under scrutiny was cognitive functioning, assessed at various intervals, including ages 4, 6, 11, and 15. The researchers also conducted parent and teacher interviews to gather comprehensive information. A control group consisting of 52 British children adopted within the UK before the age of 6 months served as a comparative benchmark.
Key Findings
Initial Assessment: The study's initial findings revealed that 50% of Romanian orphans exhibited cognitive deficits, and many were underweight. In contrast, the British control group displayed no such deficits.
Age 4: At age 4, the Romanian orphans exhibited significant improvements in cognitive development, especially those adopted before the age of 6 months. However, children adopted after six months displayed disinhibited attachment patterns and social difficulties, particularly in their peer relationships.
Conclusions: The study's conclusions were twofold: firstly, sensitive and nurturing care could ameliorate the negative effects of institutionalisation, and secondly, separation from caregivers alone did not lead to developmental problems.
RUTTER’S FOLLOW UP STUDY (2001)
Rutter's subsequent research in 2001 delved further into the long-term effects of institutionalisation. This study linked institutionalisation to problems in attachment, hyperactivity, and cognitive impairment, with these effects being more pronounced in children exposed to prolonged institutional care. However, about 20% of the children showed normal functioning. Importantly, other issues such as emotional problems, peer relationship difficulties, and behavioural problems were found not to be significantly associated with institutionalisation. This highlighted the nuanced nature of institutional care's impact, particularly within specific individuals.
OTHER STUDIES ON EX-INSTITUTIONALISED CHILDREN AND ORPHANS
Several significant studies have focused on the outcomes and development of ex-institutionalised children and orphans. These research efforts aim to understand the impact of early institutional care on children's emotional, social, and cognitive development. Here are a few notable studies: For example:
LE MARE AND AUDET(2006)
Another longitudinal study by Le Mare and Audet 2006 examined the physical health and growth of 36 orphans adopted by Canadian families. At age 4, these children were physically smaller than a control group. Nevertheless, this difference disappeared by age 10, underscoring the potential for physical recovery from the effects of institutional care.
GARNER (1972) found that a lack of emotional care could lead to deprivation, dwarfism and physical underdevelopment. Additionally, research has highlighted the potential negative impacts of emotional deprivation on cognitive development and the occurrence of disinhibited attachments.
QUINTON ET AL. (1984) discovered that women raised in institutional care often encountered difficulties in parenthood compared to a control group reared within family settings.
THE ROMANIAN ADOPTION STUDY
A landmark study in the early 1990s investigated the development of children adopted from Romanian orphanages into families in the UK. Researchers, including Michael Rutter and his team, examined the effects of severe deprivation and the potential for recovery following adoption. The study highlighted the importance of early intervention and the capacity for significant developmental catch-up when children are placed in nurturing environments.
THE BUCHAREST EARLY INTERVENTION PROJECT
Initiated in 2000, this project is a longitudinal study exploring the effects of early institutionalisation and the impact of foster care as an intervention. The study, led by Charles A. Nelson, Nathan A. Fox, and Charles H. Zeanah, provided compelling evidence on the cognitive, emotional, and physical benefits of moving children from institutional settings to family-based care.
THE RUSSIAN ORPHAN STUDY
Emily Merz and colleagues conducted research focusing on children adopted from Russian and Eastern European orphanages. This study examined attachment disorders and behavioural issues, highlighting the long-term challenges and resilience of children adopted from institutional settings. It underscored the complex interplay between early adversity and later developmental outcomes.
TIZARD AND REES STUDY ON ATTACHMENT
In 1975, Barbara Tizard and Ann Rees studied the attachment patterns of children raised in residential nurseries. Their work offered insights into the social and emotional development of children who had experienced institutional care from a young age, contributing to the understanding of attachment without a singular, continuous caregiver.
AIMS
The primary aim of Hodges and Tizard's study was to investigate the long-term social and emotional development of children who had been raised in institutional settings during their early years. Specifically, the researchers sought to understand how early institutional care affected the children's ability to form attachments and manage social relationships in later childhood and adolescence.
PROCEDURES
The study began with a group of 65 children placed in a residential nursery before the age of 4 months. These children were observed and assessed at multiple stages of their development: initially while they were still in the institution, then again after some of the children had been adopted, and others had returned to their biological families. A control group of children raised in their biological families was also included for comparison.
DESIGN
Hodges and Tizard employed a longitudinal study design, which allowed them to follow the development of the children over an extended period. This approach provided a comprehensive overview of the impact of early institutional care on attachment formation and social functioning.
PARTICIPANTS
The participants included 65 children who had spent their early years in an institutional care setting. These children were later either adopted, returned to their biological families, or continued in long-term foster care. A control group of children who had been raised in their biological families from birth was also studied for comparative purposes.
METHOD
The researchers used a combination of interviews, questionnaires, and observational techniques to gather data on the children's attachment behaviours and social interactions. They assessed the children's relationships with their caregivers, peers, and teachers, as well as their overall emotional and behavioural adjustment.
RESULTS
The findings revealed significant differences in the ability to form attachments and manage social relationships among the children based on their early care experiences. Children who were adopted showed more positive outcomes in terms of attachment and social relationships compared to those who returned to their biological families or remained in care. Notably, children who had experienced early institutional care displayed difficulties in forming close attachments and demonstrated more social and emotional problems compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Hodges and Tizard concluded that early institutional care has a detrimental effect on children's ability to form attachments and engage in positive social relationships. The study highlighted the critical importance of stable, nurturing care in the early years for healthy social and emotional development. These findings have had significant implications for child welfare policies and practices, underscoring the need for early intervention and support for children in institutional care settings.
WILLIAM GOLDFARB STUDIES ON ORPHANS
William Goldfarb is another significant figure in the study of ex-institutionalised children and orphans. During the mid-20th century, Goldfarb conducted pioneering research that focused on the developmental outcomes of children raised in institutional settings compared to those raised in foster care. His studies are among the earliest systematic attempts to understand the impact of early institutionalisation on child development.
KEY FINDINGS AND IMPACT
Goldfarb's most notable work was published in a series of papers during the 1940s and 1950s, where he presented findings from his longitudinal study of children who had been institutionalised. His research identified profound differences in emotional, social, and cognitive development between children raised in orphanages and those placed in foster homes. Key conclusions from Goldfarb's work include:
Developmental Delays: Children raised in institutional settings exhibited significant delays in both cognitive and emotional development compared to their peers in foster care.
Attachment Issues: Goldfarb noted that children who spent prolonged periods in orphanages showed difficulties in forming secure attachments, displaying behaviours indicative of attachment disorder.
Social and Behavioural Problems: Institutionalised children were more likely to exhibit social withdrawal, anxiety, and behavioural issues, suggesting the negative impact of deprived early environments on social competencies.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT THEORY
Goldfarb's research contributed significantly to the understanding of the importance of early, nurturing, and individualised care for children's development. His findings provided empirical evidence supporting the theoretical frameworks proposed by John Bowlby regarding attachment and maternal deprivation. Goldfarb's work underscored the detrimental effects of institutional care on child development, reinforcing the need for family-based care solutions for orphans and children deprived of parental care.
INFLUENCE ON POLICY AND PRACTICE
The implications of Goldfarb's studies extended beyond academia, influencing child welfare policies and practices. His findings bolstered efforts to reduce reliance on institutional care for children, promoting adoption, foster care, and other family-centered care models as healthier alternatives for children's development.
In summary, William Goldfarb's pioneering studies on orphans and ex-institutionalised children provided crucial insights into the adverse effects of institutional care on child development. His work played a vital role in shaping early theories of attachment and maternal deprivation and had a lasting impact on child welfare policies and caregiving practices.
IMPACTS ON POLICY AND PRACTICE
These studies have collectively contributed to a significant shift in policy and practice regarding the care of institutionalised children and orphans. Findings have underscored the critical importance of early, stable, and individualised care —preferably within family settings— to support children's healthy development in institutional care. The evidence has led to increased advocacy for deinstitutionalisation and the promotion of foster care and adoption as preferable alternatives for children lacking parental care.
These research efforts demonstrate the resilience of children and the profound impact of caregiving environments on development. They highlight the necessity of early intervention and the potential for recovery and growth, even in the face of early adversity.
EVALUATION
Cultural Bias: Critics have raised concerns about cultural bias in studies examining the effects of institutional care, particularly when comparing children from different countries. The Romanian orphanages, for example, were situated in a country with limited resources, which may have contributed to the physical and mental struggles of the children.
Individual Differences: Bowlby's theory suggests that children who do not form primary attachments within the sensitive period may be unable to recover. However, research indicates that not all children exposed to institutional care exhibit severe developmental issues, highlighting the role of individual differences.
REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS
Research into institutionalisation has led to meaningful applications in improving the quality of care for children in institutions. Prior to these studies, caregivers often discouraged forming attachments or close bonds with institutionalized children. Understanding the importance of emotional interaction for physical and mental growth has prompted changes in care practices, where bonds and attachments are now actively encouraged. Moreover, adoption practices have evolved to prioritize early adoption, allowing children to form secure attachments with their new caregivers.
METHODOLOGY ANALYSIS
Longitudinal studies, like the Romanian Orphan Study, offer insights into the long-term effects of institutionalisation.
Identify consistent patterns of change over time.
Weaknesses:
Longitudinal studies are susceptible to the influence of confounding variables.
Cultural bias may limit the generalizability of findings.
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
Outline the key findings of Rutter et al.'s (1998) Romanian Orphan Study, including the effects of institutionalisation on cognitive development (6 marks).
Discuss the implications of the Romanian Orphan Studies for improving the care of institutionalised children (12 marks for AS, 16 marks for A-level).
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of research related to the effects of institutionalisation, considering issues of cultural bias and individual differences (16 marks).
