“Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation” Attachment “Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation” In red: what will be covered this lesson. Homework: Read article on the role of the father from Psychology Review Autumn 2015

Attachment: Romanian orphan studies: Effects of institutionalisation AO1 Describe two research studies of deprivation in orphans. AO2 Apply research methods to describe the research from Rutter et al (2011) and Zeanah et al (2005). AO3 Evaluate the methodology of orphan studies. The exams will measure how students have achieved the following assessment objectives. AO1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, processes, techniques and procedures. AO2: Apply knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, processes, techniques and procedures: • in a theoretical context • in a practical context • when handling qualitative data • when handling quantitative data. AO3: Analyse, interpret and evaluate scientific information, ideas and evidence, including in relation to issues, to: • make judgements and reach conclusions • develop and refine practical design and procedures.

AO1 Background info Under Nicolae Ceauşescu, both abortion and contraception were forbidden, leading to a rise in birth rates. In October 1966, the Decree 770 was enacted, which banned abortion, except in exceptional cases. This resulted in a sudden increase in the birth rate, especially during the years of 1967, 1968 and 1969. This increase in the number of births resulted in many children being abandoned, and these children were joined in the orphanages by disabled and mentally ill people. Together, these vulnerable groups were subjected to institutionalised neglect and abuse, including physical and sexual abuse and use of drugs to control behaviour. Picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu Info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans Nicolae Ceauşescu, General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party (1965 to 1989)

How would such institutionalisation effect children’s lives? AO1 How would such institutionalisation effect children’s lives? Images: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=romanian+orphans&biw=1280&bih=611&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrlpj2wv_KAhWBXhQKHTMiDnMQ_AUIBygB

AO1 BBC News Note down any long-term effects of institutionalisation that are mentioned in the video

AO1 Read orphan studies - Rutter’s ERA (English and Romanian Adoptee) Study (2011) - The Bucharest Early Intervention project (Zeanah et al., 2005)

Use the numbers and bar charts to describe the research – no cheating! AO1 4, 6, 11 and 15 Research in numbers Use the numbers and bar charts to describe the research – no cheating! 12-31 95 165 52 – British children adopted at the same time (control group for Rutter et al 2011) 165 – Romanian orphans adopted in Britain (Rutter et al., 2011) 4, 6, 11 and 15 – years old, physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at these ages (Rutter et al, 2011) 12-31 month old children whose attachments were assessed – most of their lives were spent in institutional care (Zeanah et al., 2005) 95 – children were assessed (Zeanah et al., 2005) 50 – children were the control group – they hadn’t ever lived in an institution before (Zeanah et al., 2005) 52 50

Describe the effects of institutionalisation AO1 Describe the effects of institutionalisation Link the following words together to make a coherent answer to the question above. Control group Disorganised attachment Zeanah et al. (2005) Rutter et al. (2011) Strange Situation Disinhibited attachment Mental retardation

Outline possible negative effects of institutionalisation on Luca. (4) AO2/3 Research has suggested that institutionalisation can have negative effects on children. In the 1990s, many children were found living in poor quality orphanages in Romania. Luca had lived in one of these orphanages from birth. When he was four years old, he was adopted and he left the orphanage to live in Canada. His development was then studied for a number of years. Outline possible negative effects of institutionalisation on Luca. (4) The scenario above is an example of a case study. Outline one strength and one limitation of this research method. (4)

AO2/3 a)     AO2 = 4 As Luca was in a poor quality orphanage for four years cognitive impairment is likely. Answers could also refer to Bowlby’s MDH and possible consequences such as affectionless psychopathy and problems with later relationships. Reactive attachment disorder and physical effects would also be relevant. 1 mark or 2 marks for identification of possible negative effect(s), e.g. Luca may have problems forming relationships. [1 mark for identifying one negative effect, 2 marks for identifying two or more.] Up to 2 additional marks for some elaboration of two or more effects or a more detailed elaboration of one effect. Disinhibited attachment, mental retardation, disorganised attachment. (b)     AO3 = 4 Strengths: Rich data, high ecological validity, investigates a situation which could not be set up for ethical reasons. Limitations: Selection from large amounts of data may lead to observer bias. Findings from one individual can’t be generalised to others. 1 mark each for identification of a strength / limitation. Second mark for some elaboration. For example, an advantage of a case study is that it provides lots of detail (1 mark). This gives great depth and understanding of this single individual (2 marks).

AO3 Improvements to institutions of care – how? Real life application Previous studies had confounding ppt variables – how did effect those results? These orphan studies have fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies Unusual situational variables limited generalisability – how? Results not based on ‘typical’ orphanages

Use the examiner’s notes to avoid making common mistakes Homework: Essay question Psychologists have studied children who have lived in institutions such as orphanages. Outline and evaluate research into the effects of institutionalisation. (Total 12 marks) Use the examiner’s notes to avoid making common mistakes