You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The fall of the Romanian communist regime in December 1989 revealed thousands of children living in severely deprived conditions in state-run orphanages. The Ceaușescu government's pro-natalist policies had outlawed contraception and abortion while leaving families too impoverished to raise their children, so vast numbers of infants were surrendered to under-resourced institutions. Many of these children had experienced extreme privation — they had never formed any selective attachment bond and had received minimal physical, emotional, or intellectual stimulation. The subsequent adoption of many of these children by families in the UK and elsewhere created a unique natural experiment that allowed psychologists to investigate the effects of early institutional deprivation and, crucially, the extent to which recovery is possible once a child is moved into a loving family environment. This lesson examines the two most important programmes of research — Rutter's English and Romanian Adoptees study and the Bucharest Early Intervention Project — and uses them to evaluate the critical/sensitive period debate that runs through the whole attachment topic.
Key Definition: Institutional care refers to the raising of children in residential settings (such as orphanages or care homes) rather than in family homes. Institutionalised children often experience privation — the absence of any attachment bond ever forming — as well as physical and cognitive deprivation arising from low staff ratios and minimal stimulation.
This lesson covers the AQA 7182 Paper 1 Attachment requirement: the effects of institutionalisation, taught principally through Romanian orphan studies (e.g. Rutter; Zeanah). You must be able to describe (AO1) the procedure and findings of Rutter et al.'s (2011) English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study and Zeanah et al.'s (2005) Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP), and to explain the characteristic effects of institutional deprivation — most importantly disinhibited attachment and intellectual (and physical) under-development, along with the role of age at adoption. For AO3 you must evaluate this research for its design (natural experiment, longitudinal, control groups), its real-world application to adoption and care policy, the deprivation-versus-privation distinction, and what it tells us about a sensitive period for attachment. The topic builds directly on Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis and the internal working model from earlier lessons, and it provides the empirical foundation for the continuity hypothesis explored in the next lesson.
The single most important longitudinal investigation of Romanian orphans is Michael Rutter's English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study, a prospective programme that began tracking adoptees in the early 1990s and has reported at successive ages, with the major paper most often cited at A-Level being Rutter et al. (2011).
To investigate the extent to which good aftercare (adoption into a nurturing British family) could compensate for the effects of severe early institutional deprivation, and specifically to test whether the age at which a child leaves the institution predicts the degree of recovery — a direct empirical test of the sensitive-period idea.
Rutter and his colleagues studied 165 Romanian orphans who had spent their early lives in Romanian institutions and were subsequently adopted by British families. The children's physical, cognitive and emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 and into early adulthood. Their progress was compared with a control group of 52 British children adopted within the UK before the age of six months who had not experienced institutional deprivation. The Romanian sample was sub-divided according to age at adoption, the study's key independent variable.
| Group | Age at Adoption | Typical Condition on Arrival in the UK |
|---|---|---|
| Early-adopted | Before 6 months | Variable — some showed signs of deprivation, many recovered fully |
| Middle-adopted | Between 6 months and 2 years | More marked signs of deprivation |
| Late-adopted | After 2 years (up to ~3.5 years) | Severe deprivation — often underweight, cognitively delayed, abnormal social behaviour |
Understanding the findings requires understanding just how depriving the orphanages were:
On arrival, the majority of Romanian adoptees were severely underweight and physically delayed, and over half showed signs of intellectual impairment. However, physical recovery was generally rapid and substantial: by age 4 the majority of children — and almost all of those adopted early — had caught up to the normal weight and height ranges for British children. This demonstrates that the physical effects of deprivation, while severe, are largely reversible given adequate nutrition and care.
The clearest dose-response relationship in the study was between age at adoption and cognitive recovery. The mean IQ figures below are the standard ones reported at A-Level and should be presented as approximate.
| Age at Adoption | Mean IQ at Age 11 |
|---|---|
| Before 6 months | ~102 (within the normal range) |
| Between 6 months and 2 years | ~86 |
| After 2 years | ~77 |
The most distinctive and persistent effect of institutional deprivation lay in social and emotional development, and specifically in a pattern Rutter termed disinhibited attachment.
Key Definition: Disinhibited attachment is a pattern in which a child shows indiscriminate friendliness and attention-seeking towards all adults, including complete strangers, without the wariness typically developing children show. Rutter argued it is an adaptation to living with multiple, ever-changing carers in infancy, during which no single selective attachment could form.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Indiscriminate friendliness | Willingness to approach, cling to or go off with any adult, including strangers |
| Absence of stranger anxiety | Little or no caution around unfamiliar adults |
| Attention-seeking | Clingy, over-familiar, attention-demanding behaviour with any available adult |
| Difficulty with peers | Poor social reciprocity and difficulty forming ordinary friendships |
Crucially, disinhibited attachment was strongly linked to the duration of early institutional care. Children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed it, at rates similar to UK-adopted controls. Children adopted after 6 months were far more likely to show disinhibited attachment, and — unlike the physical and much of the cognitive deficit — it frequently persisted into adolescence and early adulthood. A later follow-up of the cohort into their twenties confirmed that a subgroup of late-placed adoptees continued to show a "deprivation-specific" pattern of disinhibited social behaviour, cognitive impairment and inattention/overactivity, even as many of their peers recovered fully.
The headline conclusion of the ERA study is therefore that the long-term effects of institutional deprivation depend heavily on the age at which the child is removed from the institution and placed in a loving family. Recovery is possible and often dramatic, but the window for the most complete recovery — particularly of social and emotional functioning — appears to be roughly the first six months of life, consistent with a sensitive period rather than damage that is fixed and irreversible.
The second key study is the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP) by Zeanah et al. (2005), which has the methodological advantage of including a randomised element absent from the ERA study.
Zeanah and colleagues assessed attachment in 95 children aged 12–31 months who had spent most of their lives in Romanian institutions, comparing them with a control group of 50 children of the same age who had never been institutionalised. Attachment type was measured using the Strange Situation, and carers and observers were also asked about behaviour characteristic of disinhibited attachment. A subset of the institutionalised children was subsequently randomly assigned to high-quality foster care, allowing a stronger test of the effect of removing children from institutions.
| Measure | Institutionalised group | Control group |
|---|---|---|
| Securely attached (Strange Situation) | ~19% | ~74% |
| Signs of disinhibited attachment | ~44% | <20% |
The institutionalised children were far less likely to be securely attached and far more likely to show disinhibited attachment than the never-institutionalised controls. Critically, children moved into high-quality foster care — especially those placed before about age 2 — showed meaningful improvements in attachment security, reinforcing the ERA conclusion that the timing of intervention matters and that institutional effects, while serious, are not wholly fixed.
graph TD
INST[Early institutional care:<br/>privation + low stimulation + rotating carers] --> PHYS[Physical under-development]
INST --> COG[Intellectual under-development / low IQ]
INST --> DA[Disinhibited attachment]
INST --> MH[Raised risk of emotional / attentional difficulties]
PHYS --> R1[Recovery: GOOD with adequate care]
COG --> R2[Recovery: GOOD if adopted before 6 months;<br/>partial if later]
DA --> R3[Recovery: LIMITED - often persists if adopted after 6 months]
MH --> R4[Recovery: VARIABLE - large individual differences]
| Domain | Effect | Recovery Prospects |
|---|---|---|
| Physical | Underweight, stunted growth | Good — most catch up physically after adoption |
| Intellectual | Low IQ, language delay | Good if adopted before 6 months; partial if later |
| Emotional/social | Disinhibited attachment, poor peer relations | Limited — disinhibited attachment often persists if adopted after 6 months |
| Mental health | Raised rates of inattention/overactivity, anxiety | Variable — individual differences are large |
The use of a natural experiment design gives the research high real-world validity but limits causal certainty. Because institutional deprivation could never be created deliberately, studying children who had already experienced it was the only ethical way to investigate these questions, and the resulting data describe genuine, severe deprivation rather than a contrived laboratory analogue. However, the absence of random allocation to "age at adoption" in the ERA study means the groups may have differed systematically in ways other than timing — for example, healthier, more responsive or more physically attractive infants may have been selected for earlier adoption. This is a confounding-variable problem: the apparently superior outcomes of early-adopted children could partly reflect why they were adopted early rather than the early adoption itself. The implication is that the ERA findings are highly informative about real deprivation but must be interpreted as strong correlational evidence rather than proof of cause.
The Bucharest Early Intervention Project strengthens the causal claim precisely where the ERA study is weakest. Because BEIP randomly assigned institutionalised children to remain in care or move to fostering, it removes the selection-bias objection for that comparison: any subsequent difference between the fostered and institutionalised groups can more confidently be attributed to the change in care. The finding that randomly fostered children improved, especially when placed earlier, therefore corroborates the ERA pattern with a methodologically stronger design. The implication is that triangulating the two studies — a large naturalistic longitudinal study plus a randomised intervention — yields a more secure overall conclusion than either could alone, which is a model of how converging evidence builds confidence in developmental psychology.
The longitudinal design is a major strength because the effects of deprivation unfold over years. Following the ERA cohort from infancy into adulthood revealed that some deficits (physical growth, much of the IQ gap for early adoptees) recover, whereas others (disinhibited attachment in late adoptees) persist long-term — a distinction that a one-off cross-sectional snapshot would entirely miss. This matters because it directly addresses the central theoretical question of whether early deprivation is permanent, and the answer turns out to be "it depends on the domain and the timing." The trade-off is attrition: over two decades some participants inevitably drop out, and if those lost differ systematically from those retained (for example, families coping less well may withdraw) the long-term sample becomes less representative, potentially biasing late-stage findings.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.