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 them by families in the UK and elsewhere created a unique natural experiment that let psychologists 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. This lesson examines the two most important programmes of research — Rutter's English and Romanian Adoptees study and Zeanah's Bucharest Early Intervention Project — and uses them to weigh the critical-versus-sensitive-period debate that runs through the whole attachment topic.
Key term: institutional care is 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 addresses the content on the effects of institutionalisation within Edexcel 9PS0 — Paper 2, Topic 7: Child Psychology, taught principally through the Romanian orphan studies (Rutter; Zeanah). The specification requires you to understand 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 the characteristic effects of institutional deprivation — most importantly disinhibited attachment and intellectual and physical under-development — along with recovery and the role of adoption age. In assessment-objective terms you should be able to describe the two studies and the effects of institutionalisation (AO1), apply the findings to novel scenarios of institutional or disrupted care (AO2), and evaluate the research for design (natural experiment, longitudinal, randomised element, control groups), real-world application, the deprivation-versus-privation distinction, and what it reveals about a sensitive period for attachment (AO3).
Connects to…
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 and 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 term: 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 it, 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.
A striking puzzle in the ERA findings is the dissociation between domains: physical growth and much of the IQ deficit recovered well, yet disinhibited attachment in late-adopted children frequently did not. Why should the social-emotional effect be the stubborn one? The explanation Rutter favoured turns on what is being disrupted and when. Physical growth and general cognition can, in large part, catch up once a child receives adequate nutrition and stimulation, because the body and the developing brain retain considerable plasticity for these functions well beyond infancy. The capacity to form a selective, discriminating attachment, by contrast, appears to depend on the infant having had at least one consistent, responsive figure during the early sensitive window — the very thing the institutions denied. A child who spent the first two years learning that no adult was reliably "theirs" adapts by treating all adults alike: indiscriminate friendliness is, in this reading, a rational adaptation to a world of ever-changing carers, not a random deficit. Once that pattern has been laid down as the child's working model of how to relate to adults, a later loving family can improve it but often cannot fully undo it — which is precisely what a sensitive-period account predicts and what a "full plasticity throughout life" account cannot.
This has a clear applied edge that AO2 questions reward. Consider a hypothetical child, adopted at age three from a severely neglectful institutional setting, who at age seven is warmly affectionate towards complete strangers, wanders off with unfamiliar adults without checking back, and struggles to keep friends. The correct analysis is not "the child is unusually sociable" but that this is disinhibited attachment consistent with privation during the sensitive period; the pattern's persistence despite four years in a loving home fits the ERA finding that social-emotional effects are the most resistant to recovery when placement is late. The practical implication — that this child needs targeted, attachment-informed support rather than reassurance that they will simply "grow out of it" — follows directly from the research, and stating that link is exactly the kind of application-plus-evidence reasoning that earns marks.
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 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, a model of how converging evidence builds confidence in developmental psychology.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.