The Social Skllls of Previously Institutionalized

THE SOCIAL SKlLLS OF PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTIONALIZED
CHILDREN ADOPTED FROM ROMANIA
by Susan L. Thompson B.A., University of British Columbia, 1988
M.A.,Simon Fraser University, 1992

Diswtation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Roquimnrnb for the Degm of Doctoi of Philorophy
in the Department
of
Psychology
(D Surrn
L. Thompron, 2000
SIMON FRASER UNlVERSltV
Janury, 2000
All rights rewwed. This work may not be reproduwd in whole or part, by photocopy or othet means, without pemiclsion of the author.
($1
National Library ~(Cansa Acquisitions and Bibliographie Services
Bibliot7ue nationale du Cana a Acquisitions et services bibliographiques
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 copies of this thesis in microfonn, papa or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accord une licence non exclusive permettant la Bibliothque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thse sous la forme de rnicrofiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur fomat lectronique.
The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur conserve la proprit du droit d'auteur qui protge cette thse. Ni la thse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent tre imprims ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
iii
ABSTRACT
The social behaviour of previously institutionalized Romanian orphans was compared to both Canadian-born children and children adopted from Romania at an early age. The majority of the children were examined at 4-112-years of age with a small group of older children included in the study. The research was part of a larger longitudinal study encompassing the cognitive development, bethavioural and medical problems. and attachment of the children from Romania. In the present study, three questionnaires were given to parents and teachen. and four children were observed in their preschool. It was found that the previously institutionalized Rornanian orphans scored more poorly on measures of social skills and had higher nurnben of problems with social interactions. Social problems were correlated with the length of time spent in orphanage, the age and income of the parents. and I.Q. Difficulty with social skills and social problerns were related to attachment and to extreme indiscrirninately friendly behaviour, and to the stress felt by the parents. Difficulties with social skills and social problems were also related to the number of children adopted by the family from Romania. Childnn adopted from Romania before the age of 6 months were comparable to non-adopted. never institutionalized Canadian-bom children.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the support of my friends and farnily, particularly my

husband, Mark, and colleague, Patricia Ackland. I would also like to thank Elinor Ames and the rest of my cornmittee for their assistance. Lianne Fisher and the other
members of the Romanian Adoption Project were also vital contributon to this thesis.
The families of the children from Romania and Canada have also shown great cornmitment to this project. Finally, I would like to thank Joan Wolfe, both for her pnctical support of the thesis document in its final stages. and her personal support throughout my studies.
Approval .........................,.................................. ....... ......... ,........ .. .. ,... ..,.., , ..,. .., ..,,... .. . ..... ii
Abstract .............,..,,.....,..........,. ... .
.. . .. .. .. . . ... . ........ . ..... ..... ..... . ... . . ....... . . iii
Acknowledgements .. ....... .... ...................... . ....... .. .... . .. . . .. .. . ...... ..... ... .. ..,.. ,. .. . . .. . . . .. iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ v List of Tables ........................................................ ..... ............................................ , .... VIII ...
m..
Social Skills and Peer Status.., . . . . .. . .. . ... . .. . . ... . .. . . .. . .. ............ .... ... .. . . . . .. . . ......... .., ..., . . 2 . ., . . Peer Relations and Other Areas of Functioning .............. ... ... ................. ................... . .....3 lnstitutionalization Research....................... ....... ...... .......... . ....................... .. . ...................3 Studies of Romanian Orphans......................... ...... . .............................................5 Lack of Opportunity To Engage in Social Interactions ...................................................12 Lack of Individuation and Development of a Sense of Sl ....... ... .................................. 13 ef Attachment Problems ............................... ..... ......... ............................... ... ..... . ............... 14
Participants ......................................... ...... ... ........... .....,........ ................... ... ..,,........ 19 Romanian Orphanaga (RO) Group.................................................................... 19 Canadian Born (CB) Group.................................. ......................................... 20 .....
Early Adopted (A) Group .................................................................................21
Questionnaire Measures of Behaviour Problems and Social Skills ................................ 25 The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire.............................................................. 25 Child Behavior Checklist .................................................................................... 26 Social Skills Rating System: Preschool Version ................................................. 28 Other Measures ............................................................................................................ 30
Parenting Stress Index ...................................................................................... 30

The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment Inventory............30 Parent Interview ............................................................................................................ 31 31 Procedure.......................................................................................................... Attachment Categories................................................................................................. -34 lndiscrirninately Friendly Behaviour .............................................................................. -35 Behavioural Obsewations .............................................................................................36 Participants........................................................................................................ 36 Procedure.......................................................................................................... 36
RESUCTS ................................................................................................................ 3
Quantitative Analyses .................................................................................................... 39 Importance Parents Place on Socializing........................................................... 39 Parents' Judgements of Childrents Interactions with Friends ............................-40 Specific Behaviours ....................................................................................
-40
Intercondation of Questionnaire Measures ...................................................... -44 Intercondation of Parent and Teacher Measures.............................................. 45 Questionnaire Measures of Social Skills and Behaviour Problems .................... 46 Furlher Analyses ............................................................................................... -54 Attempt a Factor Analysis ................................................................................. 54 Skills and Problems Scores ............................................................................... 55 Observational Data....................................................................................................... -74 Quantitative Measures....................................................................................... 74
vii
OISCUSSION........................................................ ........................................................ 88
References Appendix A: Appendix 8: Appendix C:
.............................,............................................................................ 101 .
Social Questions from the Parent Interview......................................... 108
Letter to Teachers ................................................................................2 11

Permission Form for the Social Behaviour Questionnaires...................113
Appendix D: lndiscriminately Friendly Questions (Chisholm, 1998) ..........................114 Appendix E: Appendix F: Consent Form for Obsewations ..................................... . .
.. 115
Information Letter for Observations ......................................................116
117 Appendix G: Observation Measures .........................................................................
Appendix H: Means for Specific Behaviours of Older Children and 4 %- year-old Children.......................................................................... 119 Appendix 1 : Appendix J: Appendix K: Correlations Within Groups for Teacher and Parent Scores on Questionnaire Measures ................................................................ 123 Coirelations of Other Variables with Skills and Problems Scores in the CB Group ................................................................................ Correlations of Other Variables with Skills and Problems Scores in the EA Group .............................................................................. 124
125
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10:
Demographic Characteristics of Matched Pairs of RO and CB Children ............................................................................. 22 Dernographic Characteristics of Matched Pain of RO and EA Children ............................................................................ -23 Demographic Characteristics of Matched Pairs 24 of CB and A Children.............................................................................. Questionnaire Items Used to Define Specific Behaviours ......................... 41 Intercorrelations Between Measures, Across and Within Groups..............45 Preschool Behaviour Questionnaire Means and Standard Deviations on Parent and Teacher Measures for Matched Pairs ................................48 Percentage of Children Scoring Above the 95" Percentile on the PBQ ............................................................................................... 49
SSRS Mean Scores and Standard Oeviations 50 on Parent and Teacher Measures for Matched Pairs ................................
Percentage of Children Scoring at or Below the 5mPercentile -51 on the SSRS ............................................................................................
CBCL Social Problems Sale Means and Standard Deviations on Parent and Teacher Measures for Matched Pairs ................................ 52
Percentage of Children Scofing Above the 95" Percentile on the Social Probtems Scale ...................................................................53
Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16:
Table 17:
SSRS Questionnaire Items Combined to Yield Parent Skills Scores........-57

CBCL: Questionnaire ltems Combined to Yield Parent and Teacher Problem Scores ........................................................ 58
CBCL: Questionnaire Items Combined to Yield Parent and Teacher Skilk Scores ............................................................. 59
Mean Scores and Standard Oeviations for Skills Scores .60 on Parent Meaaum for Matched Pairs ....................................................
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Problem Scores on Parent Measures for Matched Pairs .....................................................61 Comlationr btuveen Orphanage Variables and Skills Scores .63 and Probkmc Scores-RO Group ............................................................
Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21 : Table 22: Table 23: Table 24:
Correlations Between Family Characteristics and Skills Scores and Problems Scores-RO Group ............................................................ .64 Correlations Between Social Experience Variables and Skills Scores 66 and Problems Scores-RO Group ............................................................. Correlations Between Social Experience Variables and Skills Scores 67 and Problems Scores-RO Group .............................................................
Correlations 8etween Child Physicai Characteristics and Skills Scores and Problems Scores-RO Group ................................................. 67
Correlations Between Child Social Behaviour and Skills Scores .68 and Problems Scores-RO Group ............................................................ Correlations Behmten Overall Progress and Skills Scores and Problerns Scores-RO Group .............................................................70 Correlations Between Indiscriminately Friendly Behaviour and Attachment Aatings, and Skills Scons and Problems Scores-RO Group.. ...................................................................................................-71 Attachment Categories and Mean Skills Scores and Problems Scores-RO Group ............................................................. 72 Correlations Between Parent Variables and Skiils Scores and Problems Scores-RO Group ............................................................. 73
Table 25: Table 26:
Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees
INTRODUCTION
The present research is concerned with the examination of social cornpetence in
a sample of children adopted from Romanian orphanages. This work is part of a large
longitudinal study (Arnes, 1997), in which the cognitive (Morison, 1997). medical (Fisher, Ames. Chisholm, & Savoie, 1997). behavioural (Fisher et al., 1997) and attachment (Chisholm, 1998) development of previously institutionalized children adopted from Romania have been examined.
The investigation of social competence within this sample of children is based on
two previous areas of research. First, early research on institutionalizationof young

children has shown that although gains in cognitive and physical development are likely. deficits in social functioning may persist (Flint. 1978; Goldfarb, 1943, 1945. 1947. 1955; Provence & Lipton, 1962). Second, the earlier phase of this research found that the institutionalized children adopted from Romania had social competence deficits when measured at 17 months post-adoption (Fisher et al., 1997). In addition to research findings on the development of previously institutionalized children. observations (Ames, 1990) of the conditions of orphanage living suffered by cohorts of the pnsent sample leads us to bdieve that the children in the present sample likely did not have the necessary eariy stimulation to provide a foundation for the development of social cornpetence. inally, several invmtigaton have found a relationship between attachment and social cornpetence with peers (Matas, Arend. 8 Sroufe, 1978; Turner, 1991; Waters, Wippman, & Sroufe, 1979). Given the previous findings of attachment
problerns both in other institutionalized children (Goldfarb, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1955;
Marcovitch, Goldberg, GoM, Washington. Wasson, Krekewich, & Handley-Derry, 1997; Provence & Lipton, 1962) and with the present sample (Chisholm, 1998).this would also
lead us to expect social competence deficits in the present sample.
Given the earty institutionalization research. as well as our own research findings
with this sample, the present study concems lseH with the social competence of the
previously institutionalized children adopted from Rornania. The social cornpetence of these children is particularly important because deficits in this area have been related to
a variety of problerns, both contemporaneously and for future development (Parker 8
Asher, 1987).
Social Skills and Peer Strtui

The social behaviour of children is important because deficits in social competence are related to a variety of problems. Children who are rated by others as having peer relation problems have bn found to k less well liked by their peers than children rated more highly in social skil!s. The children in the present study, then, are likely to have difficulties with peer acceptance later in thdr lives. Pallatz (1983), in a study of 540 6-year old boys, found that children's v e r group entry khaviour predicted sociometric status four months Iater. Boys who attempte entry into the group by making relevant comments reived higher sociometric ratings than boys who atternpted to enter the group through other means (imlevant or tangential comments). Behaviour has al80 been linked to sociometric statu8 in a study of 8 to 11 year olds by French and Waas (1985). Childnn found to have more bhaviour problems on the
Child Behaviour Checklist (Achenbach, 1991) were more likely to be classified as rejected rather than neglected, popular or average. Additionally. Rubin and OanielsBeirness (1983) found that impairment in peer related social skills was associated with lower sociometric status in the classroom,
Pwr Rdrtionr and Other A m r of Functioning

Children who have diffculties interacting with peen not only suffer impairment in their social relationships during their younger yean, these impairments are associated with problerns in functioning in other areas of their lives. Low sociometric status in childhood is associated with poor academic achievement. leaming difficulties. and early school drop-out (Ollendick, Weist, Borden & Greene, 1992; Parker & Asher, 1987 for review). In addition to infiuencing the child's schooling experience, low sociometric status has been found to predict juvenile delinquency and psychopathology during adolescence (Ollendick et al, 1992) and is also predictive of poor mental and emotional health in adulthood (Cowen. Pdersen, Babigian, l u o , & Trost. 1973; Parker & Asher. 1987 for review).
Early investigations of children who had been institutionalized have shown that although gains may k made in some amas, social cornpetence. especially with peers. nmains a problem for these children. One of the most welbknown studies was conductetd by Dennis (1943). Oennis studied previously institutionalized children from 2 rnonths to eady adulthood. The childnn M
n found to develop quite slowly, with many
never reaching normal levels of cognitive or socioemotional development. Children who were adopted after the age of two made many gains in cognitive development, but never reached the levels of non-institutionalizedchildren. Dennis (1973) found that, in particular, the female subjects of his longitudinal study did not reach an adult level of interpersonal or personal adjustment comparable with other women in the sarne culture. Most did not marry, have children, or reach high educational or occupational levels, and some required psychiatric treatment. The boys in the study, however, did reach much higher educational and occupational goals, likely due to the importance that was placed on their education while in the institution. The social development of the boys also did not seem ta be as adversely affected by their upbringing, but at the time of the follow-up they had not reached an age at which boys in that culture married, so it was difficult to compare them to the girls. Provence and Lipton (1962) studied 75 infants for five years, al1 of whom were housed in the same institution. These children were found to have motor impairments by the second month of life, an unusually large amount of stereotyped motor behaviour, and did not begin to walk until about age two. They did not engage in interaction with othen, and vocalized littk. After placement in homes dudng their second year, these children did show irnprovements in motor behaviour and language development, but they still showed some cognitive deficits in fkxibility of thought and problem solving.
They did not tum to adults for help with problems, and did not uw the parent or adult as
cornforter when upset. Finally, attachmrntr w r e obsewed to be very supenicial, and
e n the children w indiscriminately friendly.

Goldfarb (1943, 1945, 1W7, & 1955) examineci chiklnn who had been institutionaiiied on average about three years, with the average age of
Social Skills of Rornanian Adoptees
institutionalization at 4.5 months. These children were subsequently adopted to foster homes. In follow-ups at preadolescence and adolescence, the previously institutionalized children evidenced continuing cognitive impairment and maintained very superficial relationships. It was noted that they were unpopular with other children; were attention seeking; evidenced restless, hyperactive, and difficult behaviour, an inability to concentrate, an excessive craving for affection; and were socially immature overall. One of the most positive results was observed by Flint (1978). In a longitudinal study of 16 infants from biith to age 15. Flint found that after intervention in the institution, and placement in homes, previously institutionalized children showed progress in most areas of development. and were comparable to home reared children in intellectual function. but were socially immature. Tizard (1977) and Tizard and Hodges (1978) also found that previously institutionalizedchiMren subsequently adopted made remarkable gains in most areas of development, and were again comparable to non-institution reared children in intellectual development. Again. however. the previously institutionalized children had problerns with social developrnent. with problems with peem reported at both ages 8 and 16 yeam.
One study has reported on the condition of children in the Romanian

orphanages. Kaler and Freernan (1994) studied 25 children ages 23 to 50 months housed in one Romanian orphanage. The mean lrngth of time the children had spent in the orphanage was 26.3 monthr, but there was a largo range, 1 to 47 months. Some of the children had been in childnn's hospitals or at home for as long as 34 months. but genenlly. the older the childnn, the longer they had b e n in the orphanage. The
children were assessed on a variety of measures, including the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1993))the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, a social referencing measure, and a level of play measure. They were also obsewed in groups in a playroom. Several cognitive delays were found on the Bayley scales, with none of the children functioning at their age level and most functioning at less than half of their chronological age. The children also scored poorly on the Vineland Adaptive Scales. and in their ability to communicate, particularly to elicit attention or contact from the examiner. The children were also found to not use social referencing, and their levels of play were matched to their mental, not chronological, ages. Surprisingly. most of the children engaged in physical interaction. Nine of the children were able to interact vocally and four of the children took turns while playing. Although still very low for their age, these levels were higher than what would be expected based upon their low scores on the other measures and previous findings that institutionalizedchildren are apathetic and show little interaction (Ames. 1990; Dennis, 1973).
To date, there have been several follow-up studies of children adopted from
Romania, in addition to the present investigation. Johnson et al's (1992) examination of Romanian orphans adopted to the United States revealed high rates of medical probkms and developmental delays. These children were aged 6 weeks to 73 months. and most were seen within 3 weeks of adoption. Of the 65 childnn studied, only 10 children were deemed healthy and developing nomially, and the majority of these children had beem in an institution a very short Ume. The fernainder of the children evidenced sevete medical, social. developmental andlor behavioural problems. With r e s p d to medical problemr. Hepatitis 8 was found in 20% of the sample, and intestinal
parasites were found in 33% of the sample. Growth in linear length, weight, and head circumference was also found to be negatively affected by orphanage stay. Developmental outcomes were best for those children who had been in the orphanages the least amount of time, with the exception of a few children with identifiable
1 neurological problems. 0 the infants between the ages of 7 and 12 months, only 3 of
10 were developing normally. Two of these had spent no time in orphanage. The
remainder of the children had gross and fine motor delays. The group of children aged
12 to 24 months evidenced delays in motor skills and abnormal socioemotional
behaviour. Socioernotional development was assessed by eye contact, attachment to parents, response to strangen, play habits, and emotional lability, using both parent report and direct observation. Of the 10 children between the ages of 12 and 24 months, only 3 showed normal socioemotional developrnent, as did only 7 of the 21 children aged 30 to 71 months of age. Another study that has examined the development of orphans adopted to the United States from Aomanian institutions obtained survey results from the families of
475 children dispersed across the country (Groze & Ileana, 1996). The children ranged
in age from infancy to 18 yean, with a mean age of 4.6 yeam. One third of the sample had been adopted efore the age of 1, and the rest had mainly been adopted k f o r e the age of S. It was found that 48% of parents nported that their child had no probbms, with the most common problems in the other children k i n g bed-wetting and overactivity. In looking at the relationship k t w w n length of institutionalization and behaviour, it was found that growth impairment and the 1eve1of delay in motor skills, social skills, and language skills were al1 related to the length of time the child had spsnt in the orphanage. It was found that 25.7% of the sample had delayed social skills. and that
Social SkiHs of Romanian Adoptees
90% of these delayed children had k e n institutionalized prior to adoption.
Rornanian orphans adopted to the United Kingdom have also been studied. Rutter (1996) has followed 11 1 children adopted before 24 months of age. All of the children were delayed at the time of their entry to the U.K. Those children who were adopted before 6 months of age showed few or no deficits when assessed at four years of age. Those children adopted after 6 months in an orphanage, however, showed continuing cognitive deficits at four yean of age. These children were also found to have social difficulties with peen and adults other than parents, and to e indiscriminately friendly. In addition to the present study, two studies have examined the pogress of Romanian children adopted into Canada. in Ontario (Marcovitchet al.. 1997) and in Manitoba (Benoit, Jocelyn, Moddemann, & Embree, 1996). The study by Benoit et al.
(1996) was similar in focus and in results to the research in the United States and the
U.K. It was found that the Developmental Quotients, growth, and physical health of 22 Romanian adoptees from orphanages, homes, and hospitals, were poor at the time of the first assessment (mean 19 months of age, 3 months post adoption). lmprovernents were noted in al1 areas for most children at the time of the second assessment (mean age 35 months, 12 months post adoption) but 36% of the sampb had continued behavioural problems such as self-stimulatory behaviour and abnormal play behaviour. Those children adopted at older ages (most of whom, we may assume. had spent more time in institutions) were the children most likely to still have developmental impairment and continuing bhaviour problems at the time of the second assesrment. Socioetmotional development was assessed by observations of matemalshild interaction noting such items as ability to initiate eye contact with parents, preference for
objects venus people, and abnormal play behaviour. At the initial assessment, 32% of the children faited to initiate eye contact, but this fell to 9% at the follow-up observation. Thirty-two percent of children preerred objects at the initial assessment. and this fell to
14% at follow-up. Finally. at the fint assessment. 36% of the children showed abnormal
play behaviour, and at follow-up, 27%. Marcovitch et al. (1997), studied 37 children who had spent less than 6 months in orphanage. and 19 children who had been in orphanage for more than 6 months. The children were aged 3 to 5 yean when they were seen at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Two visits were made. once for an interview and psychological and educational assessments, and the second time for a pediatric assessment and a measure of parent-child attachment. It was found that the children who had spent more than 6 months in an orphanage had more behaviour problems than did the other group. although both were in the n o n a l range. The children. regardless of age of adoption. were found to have low rates of secure attachment. In addition to the findings of other research on the affects of institutionalization. three studies have examined the progress of the Romanian orphanage children included
in the present study. Cognitive deficits have been examined by Morison. Ames. and
Chisholm (1995) and Morison (1997). At the time of adoption. al1 of the chiUren evidenmd severe delays in al1 areas of functioning. At 11 months post adoption. howver, the majority of the children had made an average gain of 2 evelopmental Quotient points p r rnonth (Morison et al., 1995). When the children were seen later. (Morison, 1997) at an average of 4.5 years of age, it was found that the children who had becm in orphanages for 8 months or more had a rnean IQ in the Low Average range, and scoreci significantly w o m than children who had been adopte from
10
Rornania before the age of 4 months. Children who were adopted after 2 yean in an orphanage and were assessed between 5-112 and 9 years of age were doing quite poorly, with a mean IQ score in the low end of the "Slow Leamer" range. The medical and behavioural problems reported by the parents of the Romanian orphans have also been studied. The children were first examined approximately 11 rnonths after they arrived in Canada, at a rnedian age of 27 months (Fisher et al.. 1997).
As documented in other research (Benoit et al.. 1996; Johnson et al., 1992; Rutter,
1996), the Romanian orphans tended to be undeiweight and underheight. Also consistent with the earlier research (Johnson et al., 1992), Hepatitis 6 and intemal parasites were also found. Sleeping and eating problems were found, but these tended to decrease very quickly. Stereotypad behaviour was also observed in 84% of the children adopted after at hast 8 months in orphanage. Using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). it was detenined that the Rornanian orphanage children had a higher number of total problems, and were more internalizing than children with less than 8 months orphanage experience or chiMren who were bom in Canada and not adopted. When the children were 4-112 years of age. the CBCL was used again. It was found that the Romanian orphanage chiMnm wen now more extemalking than the other childnn. In addition, some of t h problerns from t h earlier lntemalizing Scak had not resolved, such as thought probkms, attention problems, and withdrawal. Forty-one percent of the Romanian orphanage children adopted after at hast 8 months in an orphanage still had stereotyped behaviour at 4-112 yean of age. Finally, Me longer the childnn had bemn in an orphanage, the higher thdr Total. Extemalizing, and lntemalizing CBCL scores.
11
Attachment to parents has also been examined in the present sample of children. Attachment is defined as the discriminating bond that children develop towards their caregiven (Bowlby, 1969). A securely attached child will show a balance between exploring the wortd and wanting to stay near the caregiver, and will seek out the caregiver out when distressed. An insecurely attached child is not comfortable exploring, and does not always seek out the caregiver under stress. The attachment behaviour of the present sample of children was examined by Chisholm (1998), using two different measures. The first was cornposed of the 23 items with the highest and the lowest loadings on the Security Scales of the Waters and Deane (1985) and Waten (1995) Attachrnent Q-Sort. The second was a separation-reunion procedure, with the parent leaving the child alone with a stranger. Attachment patterns from the videotaped separation-reunion episodes were categorized using the Preschool Assessment of Attachment (PAA; Crittenden, 1992). Children were classifiad as being securely or insecurely attached. The lnsecure categories w e n further subdivided by Chisholm (1998) into Typical and Atypical Insecure. Atypical Insecure children were those exhibiting unusual and extreme insecun patterns. Chisholm, Carter, Ames, and Morison (1995) found that after an average of 11 months in their adoptive homes. the children adopted after 8 months or more of institutional lk scored lower on the Q-soit i items than did children adopted earlier, and Canadian-born children. When the children were 4-112 yeam of age, the Romanian orphanage children scored at the same level on the Q-sort as the children adopted after less time in orphanage (Chisholm. 1998). Data from the PAA. however, showed that although all of the children had attachments to caregivenr, the orphanage children had f e w r secure attachments. and had more Atypical Insecure attachments than the other children (Chisholm. 1998).
12
Indiscriminatdy friendly behaviour was also examined. This khaviour involved being overly friendly to al1 adults, including strangerrr. Orphanage children adopted after at least 8 months in orphanage showed high levels of indiscriminately friendly behaviour at both the first examination. (Chisholm et al. 1995) and later at 4-11 years of age 2 (Chisholm. 1998). In addition to these problems, the parents of the present sample have previously reported peer relation probierns in their children at 11 months postadoption. Thirty percent of the Romanian orphanage children were reported to have problems with prs. compared to only 2% of the Canadian-born and 10% of the Rornanian orphans adopted before 4 months of age (Fisher et al., 1997). The most frequently reported problems for the Romanian orphanage children were being overwhelmed by peers. and not liking to b8 Ieft alone with pers.
Lack of Opportunlty To Engage in Social Inteiactionr

Direct observations were made of the type of institutions from which our sample were adopted. The isolation of the infants in the institutions was extreme (Ames. 1990). Caregivers only interacted with the children long enough to tend to the physical requirements of care. The young children were extremely passive and did not atternpt to intetact in any way. with either the adults present or each other. Older children did spend time in groups, but their a d i v i t h were limited and somrwhat regimented, teucing opportunities for leaming social skills. Interaction and communication begin early in Iife. and it is these eary behaviours that set the stage for Iater social behaviour (Eckerman (L Stein, 1990). Newborn babirs look toward and away from others (if othem a n pnsent), smile. coo, show pn-speech
13
mouth rnovements and several emotional expressions, and they are attentive to the stimulation that people provide. If none of these behavioun are reinforced by the attention or verbal or physical actions of others, they will disappear. Even from very early in Me, the frequency with which infants look, babble and m i l e varies with their audience (Eckerrnan 8 Stein, 1990). If there is no audience, these behaviours fade. Without these behaviours and a social partner, infants will not barn to create or participate in patterned interactions. It is these interactive skills that form the basic building blocks of later social cornpetence (Eckerman & Stein. 1990; Mueller & Lucas,
1975). It was expcted that the previously institutionalized children in the present study
would have dimculty with social behaviour because they lacked the opportunity to learn and practice these skills at an early age. AddHionally, the lack of a sensitive caregiver retards the infant's ability to develop ernotion regulation. Emotion regulation is the ability to enhance or inhibit one's emotional reaction in order to reach one's goals (Thompson, 1994). It is thought that the development of ernotion regulation begins in infancy, with the caregiver at first meeting the infant's biological needs. and then helping the infant to learn to self-regulate (Calkins, 1994). Emotion regulation is an instrumental part of interacting with othen, and thus poor regulation of emotion is nlated to poor peer interactions (Cole, Michel, & Teti, 1994).
Piaget (1967) long ogo identifid the fimt task of infancy as the development of a
sense of self as separate from othen. At fint, the devekpment of a sense of self
t4
cornes from the kinesthetic feedback produced by the motoric actions of the child. Feedback is also provided by the extemal environment, particularly the caretaker. The timing and quality of the caretakds interactions with the infant provides important information about the separateness of the self from other, and even about the elements of the "self'. The infant learns that he or she can cause events to occur. In the Romanian institutions, however, even the primary needs of the infant were met on an external schedule (Ames, 1990). The infants were not fed when hungry or changed when wet, but rather when it was time for them to be fed or changed. They did not receive comfort when crying, or responses to their behaviours or vocalizations. This
lack of contingent feedback is likely to have hindered the development of a sense of
self; individuation could not occur. Because a sense of self as separate from the rest of the world is a vital cornponent of the ability to interad, the previously institutionalized children in the preeent study are likely to have difficulty in their social relations.
As discussed previously. attachment is defined as the discrirninating bond that

children develop towards their caregivers (Bowlby, 1969). Several investigators have found a relation between the attachment relationship with parents and peer interactions. Children who have been classified as insecurely attached have b e n identified as having problems in social interactions with peem. Specifically, insecurely attached children have b e n found to have l o w r quality of play and p r o h m solving skills than children
who were classified as securely attoched (Matas, Arend & Sroufe, 1978). Matas et al.
examined 48 infants, and classified t h m based upon attachment behaviour in the
15
Strange Situation (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969) at 18 rnonths. At 24 months, the children were assessed in group situations during fresplay and clean-up. Those children previously classified as insecurely attached were found to be less enthusiastic, less persistent. less cooperative, and overall, less effective in their dealings with peen than were the children classified as securely attached. lnsecurely attached children were also found to be less competent in both intrapenonal and interpersonal skills by Waters et al. (1979). At 18 and 24 months, the rating of the quality of affective sharing with the mother was higher for those children designated as securely attached than for those children rated as insecurely attached. Later, at 3-112 yean, the children were assessed for social cornpetence in a pteschool setting. Two scales were designed to assess Peer Cornpetence and Ego StrengthlEffectance. The first scale, Peer Cornpetence, included 12 items referring to initiative, skill, and engagement in interaction with peers. The second scale included 12 items that referred to personal assets that do not involve an interpenonal cornponent. Eleven of the twelve peer competence items distinguished the secure from the insecure children. Five of the twelve Ego StrengthlEffectance items differed between the attachment groups. Pastor (1981) has also examined differences between secure and insecurely attached children. Children were observed in dyads with a child who had previously been identified as securely attached. Securely attached children were seen as k i n g more compe&nt than insecurely attached children on the qualitative measures of social behaviour. Patterns of victimkation in insecurely attached children were examined by Troy and Sroufe (1887). The children wem first classified, using the Strange Situation, as securely attached, insecure-avoidant, or insecure-resistant. Securely attachd children
16
become distressed when let alone with a stranger, and greet the mother on reunion. Insecure-avoidantchildren show little distress when let alone with a stranger and do not greet the mother at reunion. Finally, insecure-resistant children may show some distress at being left alone with a stranger, and greet the mother at reunion, but then struggle and resist maternal contact. Dyads of four to five year olds were observed. and were rated for the presence or absence of victimization. Victimization was defined as ehavioural asyrnmetry (an unbalanced relationship) with a victimizer (one child is actively exploiting the other through dominance over resources, or is hurting the victim physically andior emotionally), a victim (one child is observably vulnerable, or makes himself vulnerable), and the interaction of these roles. The researchers found that victimization was easy to observe, and was strongly correlated with attachment status. Every dyad that was made up of one avoidant and one other insecurely attached child (of either type) engaged in the victimization scenario, with the avoidant child being the victimizer. In dyads that were made up of two avoidant children, each child adopted the victimizer role at times. Gender differences have been found in two studies of the relationship between attachment and peer relations. LaFreniere and Sroufe (1985) found that securely attached preschoolem were highrr than insecurely attached children on their measure of affiliation, and in addition, insecure-resistant children )rad the lowest sociometric status ratings. Both findings were found to be stronger for girls than for boys. Turner (1991) also found gender diffenncets in her study of four year olds. The insecurely attached children of both types were found to k Iess comptent in their peer relations than the secunly attachd childnn, but the adual areas of difficulty vafled as a function of t y p of insecure attachment. Insecurely attached girls were found to be more
17
dependent, cornpliant. and "positively expressive". Boys who were classified as insecurely attached, however, were found to be more aggressive, disruptive, assertive, controlling and attention seeking. No gender differences were found in the social relations of the securely attached children. Turner proposed that the gender differences found in the social behaviour of young children may be attributable to differences only in the insecurely attached subgroups. The link between attachment problerns and diffculty with social behaviour leads us to expect that the children in the present sarnple, in addition to the attachment problems already found (Chisholm. 1998),will have problerns with social interaction with peers. Hypotheses In the present investigation, orphanage children were compared to children who were bom in Canada and live with their biological parents, and to children who were adopted from Romania k f o r e the age of 4 month.
1. It was hypothesized that the parents in the three groups would not differ in
their ratings of the importance of, or frequency of, social stimulation of the children. as anecdotal evidence suggested parents adopting frorn Romania did not e x w d to have particulai problems with social behaviour (Ames, E. W., personal communication, 1995).
2. It was hypothesized that the RO children would be rated by parents in the

interview as not playing as well with pers and not making friends as easily as the children in the CB and EA groups, as previous research findings suggest that children who spend a significant amount of time in an orphanage have difticulty in these areas.
3. It was also hypothesized tht the orphanage children will be rated on the
PBQ, the SSRS, and the Social Problems Scak as k i n g more unpopular than the other
h o groups and receive higher scores than the children in the other two group on
18
questionnaire items measuring a lack of ability to concentrate, irnpulsivity, restlessness, attention seeking, acting too young for age, temper tantrums and fearfulness. These are all behaviours that have an impact on the ability to socialize with othenr, and have b e n found to occur in previously institutionalized populations (Goldfarb, 1943. 1945; Provence & Lipton. 1962; Tizard. 1977).
4. It was expeded that al1 measures of social skills would correlate positively
with each other. as they are measuring the same, or sirnilar, behaviour.
5. It was hypothesized that the orphanage children would score lower on

questionnaire ratings of social skills than would children in the other two groups, based upon earfier research findings that previously institutionalized children have difficulty with peer relations. 6. It was also hypothesized that the children classified as insecurely attached would score lower on rneasures of social skills than would securely attached children, as investigaton have found a link between attachment classification and social behaviour.
7. It was expected that the behavioun reported in the questionnaire data would
also be seen in the observations, and that the observations would yield concrete examples of these behaviours.
19
METHOD
Participants
Rornunlrn Otphoriage (RO) Group

The Romanian Orphanago (RO) group consisted of 46 children (20 boys and 26 girls) each of whom had lived in a Romanian orphanage for a minimum of 8 months.
The range of time spent in institution was 8 months to 53 months, with a rnedian stay of
17.5 months. The children's median age at adoption was 18.5 months (range 8 to 68
months). Most children had k e n in the institutions since bitth. The behaviour of most of the children was measured when they were approxirnately 4-112 years old. Thirty of the children were between 53 and 55 months of age when studied. One child participated at 50 months as her family was moving to Europe before she reached the target age. Two other children were 57 months old and
58 rnonths old when they participated. The first child could not be loated when at the
target age, and the other child was unknown to us at the target age. These 33 children studied between 50 and 58 months of age are descrikd as 4-112 year-olds for the purpose of this study. The remaining 13 children were observed at a variety of older agets, ranging from 65 to 110 months (5-112 to 9 years, median a g 6 years 6 months)
of age. The rnedian age for the total RO group was 54.5 months (range 50 to 110
months) and the median Iength of time living with adoptive parents was 39 rnonths (range 28 to 57 months). Then was no signifiant difierence between the 4-112 year
20
olds (n = 33) and the older RO children (n = 13) on the amount of time they had b e n with their adoptive families, t(46) = 1.02, p = 5 5 , d1=.15.
Can8dl.n Born (CB) Group

The Canadian-Born (CB) group consisted of 46 children (20 boys and 26 girls) living with their birth parents in Canada. They had never been institutionalized and were not adopted. They were chosen from a volunteer file. For the past 20 years, four hospitals in the Greater Vancouver area have routinely given new mothers a letter asking those who would be interested in participating in research to mail bacic an attached card. The children chosen from this file were individually matched to children in the RO group on sex and age at interview (+ 1 rnonth). All possible matches were identified from the file. and this resulted in between 12 and 38 possible matches for each child. All of these parents participated in a telephone interview about various demographic characteristics to allow the identification of the closest possible match. Due to scheduling difficulties, one CB child was 4 months older than her RO match, one child was 3 months older, and 2 children were 2 months older. Otherwise, al1 children were within 1 month of each other at the time of interview. Demographic characteristics of the RO and CB groups are presented in Table 1. Socioeconornic statut was based upon the index developed by Blishen. Caroll. and
for matched sampbs:
for independent samples:
21
Moore (1987) which takes into account education, income. and occupational prestige. It was developed from 1981 census data for the complete labour force in Canada. Representative occupations for the meon of the present sample are firefighter, health inspector, and real estate agent. Attendance at religious services was scored on a scale that ranged from O= does not attend, to 3= attends weekly. As can be seen in Table 1 the RO and CB groups did not differ significantly on any of the demographic characteristics listed.
Ewy Adoptrd (A) Gmup

The Early-Adopted (EA) group consisted of 30 children (14 boys. 16 girls) who would have been reared in Romanian orphanages if they had not been adopted before the age of 4 months. The adoptive parents stated that these children were destined for orphanages, or were already in orphanages, at the time of adoption, and thus these children are likely to have shared the same prenatal and perinatat environments as the
RO children. The mean age of adoption to Canada was 2.3 months. The EA children
were matched on sex and age at interview (+ 1 rnonth) to RO children. Twenty-six of the EA childnn w e n between 53 and 55 months of age, and the other three were 50 months. 57 months, and 58 months of age to match the three 4-li2-year-old RO children whose ages mre outside the 53 to 55 months range. One EA child was older
(64 months) and served as a match for an older (65 months old) RO child. The median
age for the EA children was 54 months (range 50 to 64 rnonths) and they had been in their adoptive homes for a meian of 52 months (range 49 to 60 months). As can k
seen in Table 2, the EA and the RO children differed on motherstand fathers' etducation,
with bath mothen and fathem in the EA group having more education thon those in the
22
RO group, t(28) = 2.15, p <.O5 d = .40 (mothers) and t(25) = 2.98, p <.O05 d = 5 8 (fathers). The two groups did not differ on any other demographic characteristics.
table 1: Oemogmphic CharrctwisUcs of Matchrd P I I n of RO and CB Childmn

n RO Group
CB Gtoup
Time in Institution (months) Age at Adoption (months) Time in Adopted Home (months) Age at Interview (months) No. of Children in Family Religious Service Attendance Mother's Education (yrs.) Father's Education (yrs.) Mother's Age Father's Age SES=
No. of Single Parents Employment Status of Mothen No. not working No. working part-time No. working full-time Type of Residential Area No. rural No. suburban No. urban
a
b
Median (range) Mean (standard deviation) SES calculate as higher rtatus parent's score on the 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada (Blishen, Carroll, & Moore, 1987).
23
n
Time in Institution (months)
Ag8 at Adoption (months)
RO Group
EA Group
Time in Adopted Home (months) Aga at Interview (months) No. of Children in Farnily Religious Service Attendance Mother's Education (yn.)* Father's Education (yrs.)* Mother's Age Father's Age SES No. of Single Parents Employment Status of Mothers No. not working No. working part-time No. working full-time Type of Residential Area No. rural No. suburban No. urban
8
Mdian (range) Mean (standard deviation) p <.O5
Tabk 3 contains the demographic cornparisons for the CB and EA groups.

Mother's age was significantly higher in the EA group than in the CB group, i(28)= 2.54.
p <.O1 d = .47. T h two group did not differ on any of th8 other demographic
characteristics listed.
24
n
Time in Institution (months)
Age at Adoption (months) Time in Adopted Home (months)
Age at Interview (months)
EA Group
CB Group
No. of Children in Family Religious Service Attendance Mother's Education (yn.) Father's Education (yn.) Mother's Age* Father's Age SES No. of Single Parents Ernployment Status of Mothen No. not working No. working part-time No. working full-time Type of Residential Area No. rural No. suburban No. urban
8
p.05
Median (range) Mean (standard deviation)
The threr group allow cornparisons that help to separate the effectc of institutionalkation from th088 of prenatal environment and adoption per se. Any differences between the RO and CB groupa could b8 due to the joint effects of adoption and institutionalbation, as the RO group was bath adopted and institutionalized whereas
25
the CB group was neither of these. Differences found between the RO and EA groups can be attributable to institutionalization and age of adoption. as these groups shared
the same prenatal environment and cultural heritage, and differed only in the length of
institutionalization and the age at which they were adopted. Finally, differences between the EA and CB groups are attributable to adoption or prenatal and perinatal environment, while they are similar in having b e n reared within a stable family in Canada for almost al1 of their lives.
Questionnaire Measuma of Behrviour Problerns and Social Slrills

Three questionnaires were completed by a parent in each farnily (al1 but three, one in each group, were completed by the mother). For those children who took part in regular peer group activities, the questionnaires were also completed by one of the teachen. daycare supervisors, play group leaders, or other penons who had observed the target child in a p e t social situation for at Ieast 1 month.
The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ; Behar 8 Stringfield, 1974) is a 30item revision of Rutter's (1967) Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Some sarnple items are: Fights with other children; Not much liked by other children; Tells lies. Each item is scored as O Rr "does not apply", 1 for "sometimes applies", or 2 for 'Yrequently applies", and items a n summd to obtain a total score. k h a r and Stringfield (1974) used a group of children who had been previoudy diagnosed as emotionally distuibed and a group of regular clasrroom school ctiildren to examine the validity of the PBQ. The emotionally disturb children scored signihcantly higher thon the children who had not
26
been diagnoseci as suffering from any emotional disordem. Behar and Stringfield (1974) also reported that they conducted a second study to examine the reliability of the
PBQ. and found that al1 previous results were replicated. Moller and Rubin (1988) have
found the PBQ valid for use with older children (Grade 1 and 2). Finally, Rubin. Moller and Emptage (1087) have found that the PBQ correlates well with observations of children's behaviour, sociornetric ratings. and the Social Problern Sohring Test (SPST: Rubin, Daniels-Beirness, & Bream, 1984) in elementary school-aged children. The SPST is an individual test in which the tester asks the child what he or she would do in 11 pictured situations involving an interpersonal problem. The clinical cut off for the PBQ is a score of 17, which represents the 95th percentite. According to Behar and Stringfield (1974). a score above 17 could be interpreted to mean that a child's ehaviour is out of the ordinary and that further examination and diagnosis may be wananted.
Child B8havior Checkllst

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; AchenbchI 1991) asks the respondent to indicate whether or not a particular statement is not true, is somewhat or sometimes tnie, or is very (rue or oflen tnie of the child, and are scored from O to 2. There are 113 statements in total. with some questions allowing the nspondent to describe the problems.
The CBCL h made up of Compe&?nce Scales and Probkm Scales. The

Cornpetence Scales annot k s w r d for childnn as young as 4.5 yean. so the present study employed only the Probbm Scales, which are further subdivided into Syndrome
Sales. The Syndrome Scaks of the CBCL wn derive by Achenbach and Edelbrock e
27
(1981) using principal components analysis. Nine different Syndrome Scales were identified. In the present study differences between groups on the Social Problems Syndrome Scale of the CBCL were examined. The Social Problems Syndrome Scale is made ug of 8 items: Acts too young for histher age, Clings to adults or too dependent. Doesn't get along with other kids. Gets teased a lot, Not liked by other kids, Overweight. Poorly coordinated or clumsy. and Prefen being with younger kids. Several of the items on other scales were also used to investigate group differences on specific behaviours.
CBCL noms for girls and boys are available. along with clinical and borderline
clinical cutoffs. This measure was standardized upon both clinical and nontlinical populations. The initial principal components analysis (Achenbach 8 Edelbrock, 1981) was performed on a sample of children drawn from mental health service providers in the Eastern United States. Several different types of service providen were chosen to increase the variability in the sample with respect to race and socioeconomic status. Noms for the factor-based scales werc, derived from the non-clinical population. The combination of thew two sample types allowed for clinical cut-offs to be devised. A total score of 70 or above is considered to be in the clinical range, with 98% of children generally scoring below this number, and scores from 67-69 an in the clinical borderline range. The CBCL has high validity and reliability. Achenbach and Edelbrock (1981) have carefully documented the finding that clinically-nferred children obtain higher scores on the Problem Scales than non-refened childnn. In fact, with the exception of ollergy and asthma, each item has been shown to distinguish referred from non-refened children. The CBCL abo cornlates highly with the Connon Parent Questionnaire, r =
.77 (boys) and r = .91 (girls) (Connom, 1973). and the Quay-Petenon Revisd khavior
28
Problern Checklist (Quay 8 Petersen. 1983), r =.7 1 (boys) and r = .92 (girls). The interrater and test-retest reliabilities of the CBCL item scores were supported by correlations in the .90s (Achenbach. 1991). Inter-parent agreement was also high, and over 1- and 2-year periods, the mean score changes were not significant (Achenbach. Phares. Howell, Rauh, 8 Nurcomk, 1990).
In the present study the parent version of the CBCL was completed by both
teacher and parent, because the teacher version of the CBCL is inappropriate for children under age 5. Although the parent version of the CBCL has not been standardized on teachers, we wished to compare parent and teacher responses to the same items and so elected to use the parent repor form for the teachen' responses as well as parents.
Sockl Skil/s Rablng Systm: Pnrchool Version

The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990) is a series of rating scales designed to measure the social skills and problem behaviours of preschool children. The social dornatn scales are the Cooperation Scale (example: communicates problems to you). the Assertion Sale (example: makes ffnends easily), and the SelfControl Scak (example: controls temper when arguing with other children). The parent version also contains the Responsibility Scale (example: answers the phone appropriately). 60th the Parent version and the Teacher version of the SSRS were used. The
two scales are score in the rame way, with respondents indicating how often
khavioum occur (never, sometimes, or often) with scons of O, 1, or 2. The content. howver, of some of the questions diffen slightly. The Teacher version emphasues
29
behaviours that may k more essential in the classroom or group situation. and the Parent venion emphasizes behaviours needed in the home or in smaller peer groups. For example, an item found on the Parent venion but not on the Teacher venion is 'congratulates family members on accomplishments'. An lem found on the Teacher venion but not on the Parent version is 'finishes class assignments within time limits'. These rating scales have been extensively validated and standardized with both regular classroom populations and special needs children. Using these populations, al1 scales have high intemal consistency. with alpha coefficients for total scores ranging from .83 to .94 and alphas for subscaks ranging from .51 to .92. The SSRS also shows reasonably high test-retest reliability, with correlations ranging from .52 to .93. depending on the type of rater (teacher, student. parent). Gresham and Elliot (1990) stated that inter-rater reliability was lower than test-retest reliability. but that this was expected as the raten varied from parents to teachers to the children themselves. With regard to the validity of this measure, the SSRS correlates well with the CBCL, the SBA (Social Behaviour Assessment, Stephens, 1978) and the Harter Teacher Rating Scale (Harter, 1985). Finally, the SSRS reliably discriminates betwmn non-handicapped children and children with spscial needs (Gresham & Elliot, 1990). At least one of the questionnaires from either a parent or teacher was received from al1 but 2 of the RO children, all of the CB children, and al1 but 4 of the A children. Base upon a visual inspection of t h demographic variables for these children, it was decided that they wefe not different horn the other members of their respective groups.
30
The Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin. 1990) is a self-report screening instrument designed to identify 'at-risk' parent-child relationships. The questionnaire includes 120 items that cover three sources of stress: stress originating from the child, stress originating from the parent, and stress from life circumstances. The Child Domain has seven subscales, and high scores on the domain are associated with parents feeling that a) their children are more difficult to parent than most children, andior b) they get less reinforcement from the parenting role. The Parent Domain contains six subscales. High scores in these subscales indtcate that stress is coming from aspects of parental functioning such as depression or feelings of lacking competence. Alpha coefficients for the present sample (Morison. 1997) were satisfactory (Total Stress Score .9S, Child Domain Score .92. Parent Domain .92).
The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME; Caldwell 8 Bradley, 1984) was administered as part of another study of the same sample (Morison.
1997). This measure aswsses the quality of stimulation and support available to the
children in the home. It involves both obsenration of the home. and direct questions about the home environment and family activities. The Preschool version was used for the 4 112 year olds and the Ekmentary venion was used for the older children. The subscales used from the Preschool version were a) encouragement of maturity. and b)
occeptance (use of punishment). The sales used from the Ekmentary school venion
31
were a) encouragement of responsibility and b) emotional climate. Intemal consistency and inter-observer agreement have been shown to be high (Caldwell & Bradley. 1984). HOME scores have been moderately to highly corielated with achievernent and cognitive measures (Bradk y 1992).
Parent Intewiew
Several questions concerning the child's social behaviour and the social behaviour of the parents were included in an interview conducted during a home visit. Additionally, the parents wen asked how important they felt social behaviour was to their child's development. The questions having to do with social behaviour are presented in Appendix A. The cuvent height and weight of the child were measured during the home visit. Demographic information, as well as information about the orphanage experience of the child, was available from an earlier study of the same sample. The parent was asked at that time (when children had been in their adoptive home approximately 11 rnonths) about the condition of their child in the orphanage, the child's weight when they first met him or her, whether the orphanage had toys or not, whether their child was a favourite or not. and whether the child had enough to rat and drink. Parents were also asked at that time to estimate the child-to-categiver ratio for the orphanage.
Parents wsre fimt contacted by a Ietter that described the research projed. This letter was followe up by a telephone cal1 aswrtaining their wtllingness to participate in the nsearch, and collecting initial data about the child's daycare or playgroup
32
experiences and the current family constellation. An appointment for a home visit was made at this time, and a follow up letter explaining the procedure was sent out one week prior to the visit. The home visit started with a separation-reunion episode, in which one of the researchers remained aloof for the initial interactions. The parent and child were given
a basket of toys by the second researcher, who then went outside. Soon after, the
parent lefl the house as well. leaving the child alone with the aloof researcher. After a short interval, the parent returned to the house, followed by the second researcher. This separation-reunion episode was videotaped and the videotapes were later coded according to the Preschool Assessment of Attachment (Crittenden, 1992). After the separation-reunion episode, one researcher interviewed the parent. The interview lasted between 1 and 2 houn and covered a broad range of topics. Parents were asked about any problern behaviour that their child had displayed, their child's daily routines, attachment issues, and the child's indiscriminately friendly behaviour. During the interview the parent was asked about the child's attendance at dayare, pnschool or playgroups. The namr of the teacher or daycan supervisor was obtained for childnn who participaW in such groups, and consent was sought from parents to ask these teachers to participate. While the parent was being interviewed, the child was taken to another room for testing with the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986). At the end of the home visit to each child, the parent versions of the
CBCL, ?BQ, SSRS, and PSI wen left k h i n d for the parents to complete, along with a
postage paid envelope for the return of the questionnaires. Parents mrre a l l d if the questionnaires had rot b w n received after two wesks from the date of the home visit.
33
The teacher venions of the PBQ and SSRS. and the parent version of the CBCL were sent to the teachers. daycare supervisors. or play group leaders. along with a latter (Appendix B). and a consent form (Appendix C) from the parents indicating that they had given permission for the supervisor to complete our questionnaires. A postage paid envelope was provided in which the teachers nturned the completed questionnaires. Teachers were called if the questionnaires were not received three weeks after they had been sent out. After completion of the home visits, it was noted that a confound existed between the amount of time spant in institution and the amount of time each RO child had k e n with his or her adoptive family at the time of the visits. Because a standard age (4-112 years) had been chosen for data collection for most of the children. and
because almost al! had been in the institutions al1 of their lives before adoption. it was
the case that the children who had spent the most time in institution were also the children who had s p n t the least amount of time with their adoptive parents. a46) = .93.
p < .O01. In order to rectify this situation. al1 three questionnaires were sent to parents a
second time. when the children were a variety of ages (median age 6 yean 1 month old;
range 5 yean 3 rnonths old to 10 years 3 months old). The questionnaires were sent as
soon as possible after this confound was discovered, at which time there was no longer a relationship between the total tirne the childnn had spant in the institution and the amount of time they had spent in their families, d42) = .12, p
= .43. This atlowed for
cornparisons of the results of the C t set and second set of questionnaires, in order to n detemine whether or not time spent in adoptive homes has an effect on the variables of interest.
34
As a separate part of the larger study (Chisholm, 1998) a separation-reunion technique was used to assess the children's attachment to parents. Using the Preschool Assessrnent of Attachment (Crittenden. 1992). the children were categorized as secure, defended, coercive, or defendedlcoercive. Secure children maintain proximity when stressed, but will explore widely when feeling safe. lnsecure children behave in a variety of ways. Children using a defended insecure strategy (corresponding to avoidant in the Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) attachment scoring) maintain proximity during stress but do not abrt the attachment figure to their needs for proximity. Children using a coercive insecure strategy (corresponding to ambivalent in the Ainsworth et al, 1978 system) attempt to force an unwilling attachment figure to meet their need for the constant availability of an attachment figure. Children categorized as defendedlcoercive display both a defended and a coercive strategy. The participants who were classified as insecure were ako subdivided by Chisholm (1998) into Typical Insecure and Atypical Insecure. Typical lnsecure included the more common forms of insecure attachment such as less extrerne foms of defended insecure and coercive insecure attachrnent. The Atypical lnsecure group included the more extrerne and less comrnon forms of defended and coercive insecure attachment. Types of Atypical Insecure attachment would be coercive Punitive, in which the child threatens the parent; cwrcive Helpless, in which the child
acto compktely helpless in order to get the parent to respond; defended Caregiving, in
which the child takes responsibility for the relationrhip Ath a passive parent; and defended Cornpliant, in which the child is extra-vigilant and compliant. In addition, if a
35
child was clearly insecure, but his or her behaviour did not match any of the criteria, he or she was coded as Insecun Other, and this coding was included as part of the Atypical lnsecure category. Chisholm (1998) has found that 33% of the RO children displayed Atypical lnsecure attachments, compared to only 7% of CB and 4% of EA children.
lndiscriminately friendly bshaviour is defined as behaviour that is friendly and affectionate toward al1 adults (including strangen). The indiscriminately friendly child does not show the fear or caution characteristic of normal children. The children in the present study received a score for indiscriminate friendliness, and a score for extreme indiscriminate friendliness. Scores consisted of the parent responses to 5 interview questions indicative of indiscriminately hiendly behaviour. Questions were scored O or 1 for each, for a score ranging from O ta 5. Extreme indiscriminately friendly behaviour was calculated as the score on questions 4 and 5, the two most extrerne hhavioun. i.e. being willing to go home with someone the child had just met, and wandering off and not showing distress. Children could receive a scon of O, 1, or 2 on this measure. Appemdix D contains the questions
and scoring for indiscriminate friendliness.
36
Participants A subgtoup of the RO children was chosen for direct observation. Four children
(3 boys and 1 girl, ages 4 years 7 months, 4 years 7 months, 4 years 6 months, and 4
years 1 month. respedively) who lived in the lower mainland within 2 hours driving distance from the University, and were involved in daycare, preschool, or some other group situation, were observed while participating in the group situation with their peen. These 4 were the only children availaMe who met these criteria. Each of the 4 children had k e n participating in the observed group for a minimum of 2 months prior to the obsewation. Children from the same group settings were matched to these RO children for the purposes of direct observation of social behaviour in the peer group. These four participants were matched on age to the child nearest them in age (al1were within 8 months) and for 3 of 4 of the children, matched on sex as well. For one child, there was no sex-matched peer availabk within 1-112 years of age. Only children who had been part of the established peer group for 2 months or more were used to match with the RO child.
The parents of RO children who took part in regular group adivities and were geographically accessible were arked by t h interviewer as part of the interview if they would allow their childmn to be obsewd outside the home. All four parents who were
asked agree to have their child participate. At the time of the interview a consent fotrn
37
(Appendix E) was given for the observation part of the study. The daycare or preschool teacher was contacted by telephone to make arrangements for the observation. After the teacher had identified two children who matched the target child, an information letter (Appendix F) and the consent form (Appendix E) were given to the parents of the potential match child. All of the parents agreed to let their child participate in the study. The observation of the peer group interaction was cornpleted within 2 months of the visit
to the home. with the target child and the match child closest in age and who was
available. being observed.
Obsewation
The observation involved a narrative recording of social behaviour during both
structured and unstructured t h e . Two trained coders, one blind as to whether the child was an RO or a matched child, recorded everything that the child did and said in interaction with anothar person. and the actions and responses of those around him or her for 15 minutes. At the end of this intenial the two observers filled in al1 the details that they could rernernber, and then compared their transcripts to ensure that the observation was complete. The 15-minute observations alternated bbetwn the Romanian child and the match child until2 hours of observations for each child were recorded. Observations of each pair of children (RO and match) took place over 4 days. The transcripts wcm, Iater coded by an undergraduate student unaware of the identity of the children or the nature of the hypotheses. The coding system, which was develope by Ames (1971), utegorizes aII social and verbal interactions. Counts were
made of the number of bethavioun in each category. All types of responses given and
receivd ware coded, and these were summed to give overal rneawres of the positive
38
responses received, the positive responses given, the negative responses given, and the negative responses received. In addition, al1 types of transgnssion such as hitting, lying, or grabbing things were summed b give a transgression score. Appendix G
contains the coding categories inctuded in each sum. These concrete behavioural
samples allowed us to cornplete the picture that we received of these children from the measures obtained from parents and teachen.
39
RESULTS
Due to restricted sample sire and the corresponding reduction in the power of the statistical tests, al1 results with alpha levels <.O7 are reported, to reduce the possibility of Type II mors.
Importmce Prrrnts Place on Socl~)Ilzing

A summed score was calculated on interview questions 163, 164 and 165 (see
Appendix A) to get an idea of how important parents felt socializing was to their child and thernselves. For question 163, "How important do you feel social stimulation is to your child?", the ovenll mean was 3.58 corresponding to approximately "very importanttt. For question 164, "How offen do you have friends, neighbours. or business associates over to your home for social occasions?". the overall mean was 4.53, falling approximately halfway between "once per week" and "once every two weeks" in the scoring. For question 165, "How often do you socialize away frorn your home?" the mean was 4.62, falling approximately h a M y between "on= p r week and "once every two weeks" in the scoring. No signifiant differenas between groups were found on the summed score, or on any of the individual questions.
40
P.rmb' Jugwnenb of Childmn's Inlrrrctions wlth Friands

Parents were also asbd how well their child played with friends, and how easily their child made new friends. For the question about how well their child played with friends, the mean for the RO group was 3.28, corresponding to "well" in the scoring.
The mean for the CB group was 3.72, and the EA group was 3.57, corresponding to
"very well" in the scoring. RO children were rated by parents as not playing as well with their pers as CB children. t(27) = 2.61, p < .05, d = .50 or A children, 42 1) = 1.96. p
e.05, d = .41. There was no difference between the EA and CE children.
For the question on ease of making friends. the mean was 5.03 corresponding to "easily" in the scoring. There were no differences found between any pair of groups on how easily the child made new friends.
There were several specific problems that had been hypothesized to have differing frequencies of occurrence from one group to another. The problems were unpopularity, an inability to concentrate, impulsivity, restlessness, attention seeking, acting too young for age, temper tantrurns, and fearfulness. Questionnaire items used to define these problerns are found in Table 4. Items were chosen on the basis of conceptual sirnilarity. Matched pain of children were compared, with the younger and oldrr children analysed wparately.
41
Table 4:
Questionnaire l t m s Usu C Oeliine Specific Behavlwn o

Unpopular (range O 12) Doesn't get along with other kids C C Gets teased a lot C Not iiked by other kids S Doesn't make friends easily S Not liked by other P Not much liked by other children lnability to Concentrate (range O 4) Doesn't attend to you instructions S P Has poor attention span lmpulsivity (range O 4) C Impulsive or acts without thinking Doesn't wait turn in games or other activities S Restlessness (range O 8) Can't sit still, restkss. or hyperactive C S Fidgets or moves excessively P Restless, nins about or jumps up and down. doesn't keep still P Squirmy fidgety child Attention Seeking (range O 2) Demands a lot of attention C Acts Too Young (range O 2) Acts too young for hislher age C Temper Tantrums (range O 4) Doesn't control temvr in conflid situations with you S Doesn't control ternper when arguing with other children S Fearful (range O 6) Feors certain animals, situations, or places other than school C Shows anxiety a b u t being with a group of children S Tends to be fearful or afraid of new things or situations P
Note. C = CBCL, S = SSRS, P = PBQ
Appendix H contains t h means of the paired groups for the specific behavioun for the older and youngrr (4-112-yearsld) children, respectively. The following findings were obtained:
42
unpopuruity
The older RO children were found to be significantly more unpopular than their older CB matches, t(9) = 2.06, p < .05, d = .65. For the younger children, the RO childnn were not found to be more unpopular than the CB. t(17) = 1.01. p
.32, = .24 d
or the A children, t(16) = 1.54, p = .13. d = .37. There was also no difference between the CB and EA children, t(16) = 1.35, p =.19, d = .33.
Inrbility to Concentnte
The older RO children were judged to have more difficulty concentrating than their CB matches, t(9) = 4.04. p < .001. = 1.28. For the younger children, the RO d children had more difficulty concentrating than did the EA matches, t(16) = 2.00. p c.05,
d = .49. There was no difference between the RO and CB matches. t(17) = 1.06. p =
.29. d = .25 or between the EA and CB matches, t(16) = .26, p =.79, d = .06.
rmpursivity
The older RO children were not more impulsive than the older CB matches. t(10)
= .60,p = 36, d = .18. The younger RO children were not more impulsive than the CB
matches, t(25) = -98,p
33, d= .19. or the EA matchs, t(19) = 1.42, p 4 .l6, d = .33.
There was also no significant difference between the CB and EA matches in impulsivity, t(20) = 1.45, p = .le, d = 32.
Rmstkas
The older RO children were judged to k significantly more restless than were their CB matches, t(9) = 2.50, p c.02, d = .79. The younger RO children were significantly more restless than their CB matches, t(17) = 2.04, p < .05, d = -48, but were
43
not more restless than their EA matches, t(16) = .14. p = .89. d = -03.There was also no significant diffennce between the CE and EA matches on restlessness, t(16) = 1.42.
p = -16, d = .35
Attention Seeking
The older RO children were more attention seeking than their CB matches, t(10)
= 2.91, p < .01, d = .92. The younger RO children were not more attention seeking than
their CB matches, t(25) = 1.60, p =.12, d = .31, or the EA matches, t(19) = .74, p < .47,
d = .17. There was also no significant difference between the CE and EA matches on
attention seeking, t(20) = .00, p = 1.00, d = .00. Acting Too Young The older RO children were more likely to k rated as acting too young for their
age than were their CB matches, t(10) = 4.09, p <.001, d = 1.29. The younger RO
children were slso more likely than their CE matches, t(25) = 3.25, p <.002, d = -64 and their EA matches, t(19) = 2.06, p c . O l t d = .47, to be rated as acting too young. Then was no significant difference between the CB and A matches on ading too young for their age, t(2O) = 30, p =.76, d = .07.
Tompar Tantruma
There was no difference between the older RO and CB matched children for temper tantrums, t (9) = .44, p
= 6 6 , d = .14. For the younger children, there was no
differen behiveen the RO and CB matched pain, t(17) = .00, p = 1.00, d = .00, the RO and A matched pairs, t(16)
= .82, p = .41, d = .20, or the CB and EA matched pairs
t(16) = .20. p = .M,d
= .05.
44
FamfuI
f he older RO children were not found to be more fearful than their CB matches,
t(9) = 1.17. p = .26, d = .37. The younger RO children were not found to be significantly
different from the CE matches, t(17) = 1.11, p =.26, d = .27 or their EA matches, t(16) =
.59, p = .56, d = .14. There was also no difference between the EA and CB matches, t(16) = .40, p = .69, d = . I O .
Summary
It was found that the older RO children were more unpopular, had more difficulty concentrating, were restless and attention seeking, and acted too young for their age, as compared to their CB matches. Younger RO children were more restless than their CB matches, and were more often rated as acting too young, as cornpared to their CB and .A matches. The younger RO children also had more difficulty concentrating than
did their EA matches. There was no difference between A and CB children on any of
the items.
The three measures obtained from parents and the three from teachen were intercorrelated. Table 5 contains the intercorrelations for both parent and teacher measures, across al1 group and within each group. Correlations between pain of measures across al1 participants range from .47 to .75, and al1 w e n significant at p c ,001. Of the possible within-group conelations, only one, between the parent SSRS and t h PBQ in the EA group, faikd to mach statistial significance.
45
Table Sr
lntercomlations Bewaen Mea8ures, Acmss and Withln Groups

-
Parent
PBQ
Teacher ?BQ
Social Problems
Social Problems
Across Groups
SSRS PBQ
-. 54"'
(97)
-.47+"+ (108) .75-
-. 73'"
(75)
(97
0.71"' (76) .82*** (74)
Within Groups
RO Group SSRS
0.62"' (37)
-,
PBQ
CB Group SSRS
54*** (42) .82"' (37)
-. 80"'
(28)
-. 76"'
(28) .81*'* (27)

-. 55-
.33' (36)
PBQ
EA Group SSRS
0.47' (24)
-.43** (41 .48" (36) 0.15 (25) .64"' (24)
-.48"
(32)
(33) .4OW
(32)
-. 89"'
(15)
-. 87" '
(15) .84** (15)
PBQ
a
'*
a -
p c .O5 p < .O1 p < .O01
For each of the t h e measures of social behaviour, the score obtained from parents was correlated with the score obtained from teachers. Over al1 groupa, the parent's and teacher's nsponses on the questionnaires were significantly conelated. The comlstions wwe r (73) = .53, p <.O01 for the SSRS. r(72) = .56,p c.001 for the
46
PBQ. and fl63) = 57, p <.O01 for the Social Problems Scale. Within group correlations
for teacher and parent scores are in Appndix 1. Scores were significantly correlated for all three measures in the RO group, and for the SSRS in the EA group. None of the scores were significantly correlated in the CB group. In comparing the means of parent and teacher scores, only the difference between parent and teacher scores for the SSRS were significantly different, t(27) = 4.78. p < .001. d = . 14. with the teachers rating the children as htter at social skills than did the parents. Scores on the parent questionnaires for those children who did not have questionnaires completed by teachers were not significantly different from the scores of those who did have questionnaires completed by teachers (PBQ: t(96)= 0.33,p =.75. d
= -.03; SSRS: t(107) = -.42. p =.68; d = 0.04; Social Problems Scale: t(106) = -.25, p
=.81. d = -.02).
QuasUonnriin M ~ s u n of Socirl Ski//s and Behrviour Problems s

At the time of the interview, there was a correlation behveen the total time the
RO children had s p n t in orphanage and the length of time that they had been in their
adoptive homes. Due to this confound, the parent questionnaires were sent out a second time, when thete was no longer a comlation between time in orphanage and length of time in the adoptive home. T h questionnaires were sent when the children were a median age of 6 yean, 1 month old (range 5 yeam 3 month to 10 yean, 3 rnonths). Group 1-tests belween the first SSRS, PBQ, and CBCL and the second set of these measures revealed that there were no signifiant difierences between the children's scores on the original set of measures and score8 on the twcond set of measures (t(31)= -1.81, p r.25, = -.32 for d
47
the PBQ; t(31)= 1-30, =.20, d = .23 for the SSRS; and t(32)= -1-41,p =.17, d = -.24 for p
the CBCL). Correlations between the first and second set of measures were .80 for the
SSRS, .86 for the ?BQ, and .86 for the CBCL, and al1 were significant at the p < .O01
level. Based upon these findings, alt further analyses were conducted with the first set of questionnaires, because these were the measures collected at the same tirne as the other data, including the teacher measures. Mean scores for the PBQ, SSRS, and the Social Problems Scale of the CBCL were examined for both the parent and teacher ratings. The SSRS has percentile rankings for standardized scores, and the 95th percentile was selected as the cut off of interest for the present study. The Social Probbms Scale of the CBCL also has a borderline dinical cut off (a score of 6) that represents the 95th percentile. For the PBQ. instead of using the cut off of Behar and StringMd (1974) of a score of 17. 1 used a cut off of 19, which represents the 95th percentile. so as to be consistent with the other measures.
Pmschool Behavior QuulJonnrrlm

On both the PBQ completed by parents and the PBQ completed by teachers, significant difierences wen found between matched groups. Tabk 6 contains the means and standard deviations for each cornparison. For the 4 4 2 year olds, the RO children mre found to score significantly higher on the parent PBQ thon did the CB childnn, t(17) = 2.75, p < .02, d = .65. Thwe was no significant differencs betmtsn the
RO and A children on the Parent PBQ, or btween the CB and EA children. For the
older children, the RO childnn again scored signifiantly higher on the parent PBQ than
did their CB rnstcks, t(9)= 2.73, p < .01, d
= .86.
48
Pnrchool Behaviour Questionnain Means and Standard Devhtions on Parent and Teachu Measuns for Mrtchd Pairs
-
Parent
Teacher
SD
Cornpanson
4 '/i year-old Children
Mean
Mean
SD
RO
VS.
CE
RO
VS.
EA
CB
VS.
EA
Older Children
"
non-matched groups p c .O5 p < .O1 For the Teacher PBQs, the 4-112 year old RO children scored significantly higher
than the CB children, t(15) = 3.96. p < .01, d = .99 and the A children, t(6) = 3.03, p < . O l t d = 1.14). Then was no significant difference between the A and CB children on the PBQ compteted by teachers. Teacher PBQ comparisons for the older children w r e
made on unmatched groups, as the cell sites w e n too low to allow rnatched
compahons. The RO group scored significantly higher than the CB group, t(17) = 2.80,
Tabk 7 contains the percentage of childnn in each group that scored above the
49
clinical cut off (at or above the 95th percentite, a score of at or above 19) on the Parent and Teacher PBQs. Forty percent of the 4-112 year old A 0 children were rated above the clinical cut off by their parents, and 47% were rated above the clinical cut off by their teachers. No more than 9% of the CE and 20% of the EA children were reported to be above the cut off by parents or teachen. Parents and teachers rated 46% and 44%, respectively, of the older RO children as being above the clinical cut off. None of the older CB children wen rated above the cut off by either parents or teachen.
Table 7 : Porcentago of ChMdrm Scoring Above t h . 9#' Pemntfl. on the PBQ
Parent
4 %-year-old Children
Teacher
RO CB A
Older Children
Soch SkiII8 Rathg Systn Significant differences w r e also found between matched groups on the SSRS. Table 8 contains the means and standard deviations for the groups in each comparison. The 4-112 year old RO children won found to score significantly lower than their CB matches on the parent SSRS, t(26) = 2.72. p < .009, d = 32. The EA children w r e not significantly diffennt from either their RO or their CB matches. The older RO children were not different from their CB matches, according to parents.
50
SSRS Mean Scoms and Standard Devirtlons on Pamnt and Teacher Measums for kliitchd P 8 h
Parent Cornparison RO
VS.
Teacher
SD
11.52
9.24
(1
Mean
44.89**
27 27
CB RO
VS.
52.70
EA
CB vs. EA
Older Children
For the Teacher SSRS, the 4-112 year old RO children did not score significantly differently from their CB matches, t(15) = 94, p = .36, d = 2 3 but their scores were significantly lower than their A matches t(5) = 2.54, p < -03,d = 1 . O 4 There was no significant difference etween t h EA and CB matched groups. For the older children, there was no signifiant differencct between the matched groups on the teacher SSRS. The SSRS gives percentile rankings for the total scores obtained on the questionnaire. Table 9 contains the perwntage of children in each group scoring at or below the 5th percentile, for both parent and teacher ratings of both younger and older children. For the Romanian orphan 4-112-par olds, 18 percent were rated by parents
51
as k i n g at or below the 5th percentile, and 10 parcent were rated by teachen as being
at or below the 5th percentile. None of the CB children were rated by parents or teachers as k i n g below the 5th percentile, and only 5% of the EA children were rated
as at or elow the 5th percentile by either parents or teachers. Parents rated 31

percent of the older Romanian orphans as being at or below the 5th percentile, and teachers rated 22 percent of the older Romanian orphans as being at or below the 5th percentile.
Table 9 : Percentage of Childmn Scoring rt or 8dow the Sh Percentile on the SSRS

Parent
4 Kyear-old Children
Teacher
Older Children
Social Pmblemr Scrh of CBCL

Table 10 contains the means and standard deviations of the matched groups on the parent and teacher Social Problems Scale of the CBCL. On the parent Social Problems Scale, the 4-112-year-old RO children were found to score significantly higher than their CB and 44 matches, t(16) = 2.33, p < .02, d = .56, t(14) = 2.00, p < .05. d=
.52), respectively. There was no signifiant difference etween the EA and C8 matched
g t o u p on the patent Social Problems Scale. For the older childnn, the RO children
52
scored significantly higher than their CB matches on the parent questionnaire, ((11) =
Table f0: CBCL Socid Problems Scrle Means and Standard Devlations on Parent and Teacher Measums for Matched Pairs
----
Parent Comparison
4 % year-old Children
Teacher
SD n
Mean
Mean
SD
RO
VS.
Older Children
RO
VS.
12
4.17"
3.79 .52
4 . 8 ~ ~ ' 4.34
C8
12 non-matched groups p < .O7 p c .O5 p < .O1 p < .O01
.58
10
.90
1.20
t '
** **
On the teacher Social Problems Scale. the 4-112 year old RO childrcm m r e
found to score significantly higher than their C 8 matches, t(14) = 5.04, p < .001, d =
1.30 and their EA matches. t(7) = 1.99, p < .07, d = .70. There was no signifiant
difference btween the CB and EA matched groups.

Duo to the lirnite numkr of older children availaMe for cornparison on the
53
teacher measure, a non-matched 1-test was perfoned. There was a significant difference on the teacher questionnaire, with the RO group scoring higher than the CB group. t(17)= 2.80, p < .01, d= .68 Table 1 1 contains the percentages of children in each group scoring at or above the 95th percentile for the Social Problems Scale. According to the ratings given by parents, 11% of RO 4-112 year old children scored at or above the 95th percentile, and according to teachers, 35% of them did. Parents rated 46% of older RO children and teachers rated 67% of older RO children at or above the 95th percentile. CB and EA children were rnuch less likely to be rated as scoring above the clinical cut off by parents or teachers. No more than 4% of the CB children and no more than 10% of the A children were rated as eing above the 95th percentile by either parents or teachers.
Pementage of Childm Scoring Above the O#' Percrnt#/eon the Social Problems Scale
Parent
4 W-year-old Children
Teacher
RO CB EA
Older Children
54
The focus of the present study was the interaction of the Rornanian children with peers; however, many of the items on the SSRS do not refer to interaction with othen, such as "uses free time at home in an acceptable way" and "keeps room neat and ctean without k i n g asked". Additionally, the PBQ was not intended by Behar and Stringfield
(1974) to measure only social problems. Finally, some questions on the CBCL that
were not on its Social Problems Scale seemed social. such as "gets in many fights" and "physically attacks people". Given these considerations. al1 items from all three questionnaires involving or implying an interaction between two or more people were selected by a panel of 10 developmental psychologists and developmental psychology students. Each participant examined the measures and chose those items they felt were social in nature. Those items in which al1 agreed were selected for inclusion. All other items chosen by group members were then discussed. Discussion about the items continued until consensus was reached for each item. This yielded a total of 66 items.
Atrmpt at Factor Analysis To allow an exploration of what t y p a of social problems or skills showed group
differencas, a factor analysis was p r f o m e d on these 66 items using the parent mrasures. The original number of participants was 112 in total. After list-wise deletion, in which any cases with missing scores on the 66 items were removed, the number of
cases in the analysis was 97. These uses includrd 80% of the RO group, 78% of the
CB group, and 80% of the EA group. Several rotations w r e applied to the data. In
most cases,no interpretable fadon were otained. One solution did give three factors.
55
at least two of which were interpretable. When these factors were correlated with the other variables of interest, the results were cornpletely discordant with other findings from this study and other parts of the larger research. It was concluded that the factors were an artifact of the small sample size and the large numkr of variables in the analysis. Therefore, factor analysis was not included in the results presented here.
Ski//$ and Pmblems Scoms
The next step was to create summed scores for positive social ehaviour and poor social behaviour, using those items previously designated as social on the parent questionnaires. The items from the PBQ wen dropped due to their sirnilarity to the
CBCL items. All items previously designated as social from the SSRS were positive
bahavioun, so they were summed to give a Skills Score. Scores could range from O to
54. All the previously designated social items from the CBCL were summed to give a
Problems Score, in which scores could range from O to 50. See Tables 12 and 13 for the items in each of these scores.
Scons f@rTeachar Mouuns

Scores were also created by using the questionnaires from the teachers. The teacher Probbms Score was created using the same items as the Problems Score from parent questionnaires (TaMe 13). For the Skills Score, only those items of the teacher questionnaire that cocresponded to items that had b e n used for the parent Skills Score
were used. Table 14 contains the items for the teacher Skills Scores, on which scores
could range from O to 26. Both the Skills Scores, fl73)
= .46, p < .O01, and t h Problerns Scores, t(72) =
56
5 1 , p < .001, cotrelated significantly between parents and teachen. showing that
parents and teachers agreed in their ratings. All further analyses were perfomed upon the parent questionnaire data only because more children had parent measures than
had teachet measures.
57
Table f2:
SSRS Questionnain Items Combined to Yidd Pannt Skills Scores
1. 2.
3. 5.
6. 8. 10. 1 1. 12. 15. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 24. 25. 28.
30. 33.
34. 35: 36.
37. 38. 39.
Follows your instructions Hdps you with household tasks without k i n g asked Appropriately questions household rules that may be unfair Gives compliments to friends or other children in the family Participates in organized group activities Politely refuses unreasonable requests from others lntroduces herself or himself to new people without being told Asks permission before using another family member's property Responds appropriately when hit or pushed by other children Volunteen to help farnily mernben with tasks Starts conversations rather than waiting for othen to start first Controls ternper in conflict situations with you Controls temper when arguing with other children Appropriately expresses feeling when wronged Attends to your instnictions Answers the phone appropriately Makes friends easily Waits tum in games or other activities Congratulates family members on accornplishments Attends to speakers at meetings such as in church or youth groups Joins group activities without k i n g told Ends disagreements with you calmly Islikedbyothers Asks sales clefks for information or assistance Communicates problems to you Spaks in an appropriate tone of voico at home
- ---
Note. Range 0 52.
58
Table 13: CBCL: Questionnaln h m s Combinecl to Yhld P m n t and Tsiicher Probletn Scons
Acts too young for hiJher age Argues a lot Cornplains of loneliness Cruelty, bullying. or meanness to othen Demands a lot of attention Destroys things belonging to hisiher family Disobedient at home Disobedient at school Feels or cornplains that no one loves himlher Gets in many fights Hangs around with others who get into trouble 43. Lying or cheating Not liked by other kids 48. 57. Physically attacks people Prefen k i n g with older kids 63. Prefen being with younger kids 64. 65. Refused to talk Self-conscious or easily embarrassed 7 1. 74. Showing off and clowning 75. Shy or timid 93. Talks too much 94. Teases a lot 97. Threatens mode 109. Whining 111. Withdrawn, doesn't get involved with othen
1. 3. 12. 16. 19. 21. 22. 23. 33. 37. 39.
Note. Range O 50.
59
F o l l m your instructions (1)' Makes friends easily (25) Appropriately questions rules that may be unfair (3) Controls temper in conflict situations with adults (18) Gives compliments to pers (5) Participates in games or other activities (6) Helps you without k i n g asked (2) lntroduces himseH or henelf to new people without being told (8) Waits tum in games or other activities (28) Controls temper in confiid situations with peers (19) Follows niles when playing games with othen (21) Joins on-going activities or groups without k i n g told to do so (34) Volunteers to help peen with classroom tasks (12) Comsponding item on parent version of SSRS
Score Analyses
Gmup Dlfimncos on Skiils Scom Tabk 15 contains the means and standard deviations for the matched groups on
the Skills Score. The 4-712-year-old RO children scored significantly lower on the Skills
Score than did the CB children, t(26)= 2.40, p < .02, d = .46. There were no significant
differens between the RO and A groups, 120) = 1.20, p = 2 4 , d = .13, or between the CB and EA groups, t(21) = .22, p =.83,d
= .05. The older RO children were not

= .57, d =
significantly different on the Skills Score frorn thdr CB matches. t(11) = 58, p
60
Mean Scores and Standu Devirtions for SkMs Scores on Parent Measurss for Matched Pairs
Cornparison
4 %year-old Children
Mean
Standard Deviation
RO' vs. CB
RO
VS.
EA
CB vs. EA
Older Children
Table 16 contains the means and standard deviations of the matched groups on the Problerns Score. The 4-112-yeor-old RO children scored significantly higher on the Problerns Score than did the CB children. ((25) = 1.92,p c .06, d = .38. There were no significant differens betwesn the RO and EA groups. t(19) = 1.27, p = .21 , d = 29, or
between the CB and EA groups, t(21) = .56,p = 58, d = .12. The older RO children
scored significantly higher than the CB children on the Probkms Score. t(11) = 2.49. p
61
table 16:
Moan Scons and Standard beviations for Problem Scoms on Parent Measums t9r Matched Pairs
Cornparison
4 Syear-old Children
Mean
Standard Oeviation
Rot
VS.
CB
RO
VS.
CB
VS.
EA
Older Children
RO'
VS.
12
12
11.67
7 A0
2.73
CB
6.00
p < .O7 p < .O5
Cornlrhs of Skills Scons and Probletns Scons

The following results focus on the correlations of the Skills Score and the
Problerns Score with othrr variables in the Rornanian Orphanago group. These variables are divided up into orphanage variables, family characteristics. social experience variables, parenting variables, child physical characteristics, child social khaviour, overall progress, indiscriminately friendly behaviour and attachment cetegories, and parent variables. Where signifiant conelalions exist in the RO group, the other two groups were
62
examined to see if these correlations hold across al1 groups, or are specific to the RO group. Correlations for the CB and EA groups are found in Appendices J and K. respective1 y.
Olphanage Variables
Several antecedent variables concerning the children's life in orphanage (from parent interview) were examined to see if they had any relation to social scores. These were: Total time in orphanage, global quality rating of the orphanage, whether the child had sores. or was diily, whether the children had enough to eat or drink, whether there were toys in the orphanage, the child-toaregiver ratio, the child's health when adopted, and whether the child was a favourite in the orphanage. Table 17 contains the correlations between these variables and the Skills and Problems scores.
Skilis Score. None of the antecedent variables were significantly correlated to
the Skills Score.
Problems Score. Total tirne spent in the orphanage was significantly comlated
with the Problems Score, r(42)= .39, p c.01. The more time that the children had spent in orphanage, the higher their ratings on the Problems Score. Fami/y Demographics. The dernographic variables from the parent interview examined were: the age, education, income and SES of the pannts, the number of people in the family, the numkr of childnn in the family, the numkr of children in the family adopted from Rornania, and the marital status of the mother. The comlations between demographic variables and scores are found in Table 18.
63
Comlrtions Between Orphanago Variables and Skllls Scons and Pmblems Scoms-RO Gmup Skills Scores Problerns Scores
--
Time in Institution
Rating of Orphanage
Sores on Child
Child Dirty Enough to Eat Enough to Drink Toys Child-caregiver Ratio Health Favourite in Orphanage
Skiils Score. The age of fathers was related to the Skills Score, with the children
with older fathen having higher Skills Scores. 1(38) = .33, p < . O 4 This correlation was found only in the RO group. Income of the family was also related to the Skills Score. with families with higher incomes having children with higher Skills Scores. fl40) = .35. p
< .01. This relationthip was also found in the CB and EA groups M41) =. 33, p < .02;
r(23) =.34. p < .02]. For the RO children, the n u m k r of children in the family adopted from Romania was negatively related to the Skills Score. with children in families with two children from Rornania having lowsr Skills Scores. fl42)= 0.32.p < -04. This was not the case in the EA group.
64
Table f8: ComI8tIons 8etwm, Family Chuactedstlcr and SMlls Scores and Problems Scons-RO Gmup
Skills Scores
Age of Mother
Probiems Scores
Age of Father Education of Mother Education of Father lncome
SES No. of People in Family
No. of Children in Family No. of Children Adopted from Romania

Marital Status
65
Problems Score. The Problems Score was related to the ages of parents. The
younger the parents, the higher the Problems Score, I(41)= 4 4 , p <.O3 for mothen, and r(38)= -34, p <.O4 for fathers. These correlations were not found to be significant in the EA and CB groups. The Problems Score was also related to income of the family, with the children scoring higher on Problems Score coming from homes with lower incomes, r(40) = -.26, p < . O 5 The opposite relationship, with those children scoring higher on the Problems Score coming from homes with a higher income, was found in the EA group, I(24) = .45, p < .02. No relationship between income and Problems Scores was found in the CB group. There was a significant correlation between the number of children adopted into the family from Romania. and the Problems Score for the RO group. Children scoring higher on the Problems Score were more likely to be in a family that adopted two children rather than one child from Romania, r(42)= .45, p <.003.
Social Experience.
The social ewperience variables (based upon the parent's answers in the interview) were the amount of socializing that the parents and the children did with p e r s (questions # 164, 165, and 149 in the interview), attendance at preschool, and the importance placed upon social experience by the parents (question t 163 on the interview). These conelations are found in Tabb 19.
Skills Score. Parents were likely to report having 'Yfiends, netghboum or

business associates over to their home" more often if the RO child had a high Skills Score, q41) = .32, < .04. This relationship was not found in the CB or EA groups. p
PmbIems Score. There m m no signifiant comlations behmten social

expehnce variables and the Problems Score.
66
Comlrtlons Betw..n Soclai ExpetVence V ' b h s and Sklllr Scores and Pmblems Scorrr-RO Gmup
Skills Scores Having People Over Visiting Others Socializing with Peers Preschoof Attendance Importance of Social Stimulation Problems Scores
Parenting Variables.
Parenting variables from the HOME, such as the parent's emotional waimth. the emotional climate of the home, the use of physical punishment, and the encouragement of maturity and responsibility in the children, obtained from answers on the HOME Scak, were examined. Table 20 contains the correlations between the Parenting variables and the scores. There were no signibant correlations between parenting variables and either the Skills Score or the Problerns Score.
Chiid Charecteristics
The physical characteristics of the child, the child's social behaviour, and other child characteristics wen examined in the pnsent study.
Physicai Cheractefistics
The physial charactefistics of the child exarnind in the present study included attractivenesr as rated by the msearchen, and the weight and height at the tirne of
67
intewiew (Table 21). Neithrr the S k i l Score nor the Problems Score was significantly related to the physical characteristics of the child.
Table 20:
ConrlaUons Behmn Social Expedence Variablos and Skllls Scoms and Pmblems Scons-RO Gmup
Skills Scores Warmth Emotional Climate
Problerns Scores
Use of Physical Punishment

Encouragement of Maturity Modelling of Responsibility
Table 2f:
ComlaUons B o ( w m ChlM Physical Chamcterlrtics and Skllls S c o m and Probloms Scons-RO Gmup
Skills Scores Problems Scores Attractiveness Weight Height
Social Behaviours of the Chiid

These variables wsre the parent interview-reporte qually of play with pers, ease of making fdsnds. tearing, shsdng, picking on othen, and competting for adult
68
attention (Table 22).
Conslrtions Between Child Social Behaviour and Ski//s Scores and Problems Scorrr-RO Gmup
Skills Scores Problems Scores
How Well Child Plays with Peers
Ease of Making Friends

Sharing Sharing in a Group Teasing Most Frequent Playmate Teasing in a Group Picking on Most Frequent Playmate Competing for Adult Attention Cornpeting for AduH Attention in a Group
Skills Score. The Skills Score was related to ease of rnaking friends and the
quality of play with peen in the RO group. The children with high Skills Scores were
mon likely to play well with p n .(41) = .59, p c .O01 and to make friends easily, fl41)
= .64, p c .001. In the EA group, only the relationship between the Skills Score and the
ease of making friends was significant. r(25) = .48, p < .02. Neither of the peer play
variables was significantly relate to the SkiHs Score in the CB group. For the RO group, childnn sconng highly on the Skills Score wn found to have fewer problems e
69
sharing in a group, fl35) = -.32, p < .07, fewer probkms teasing best ftiends. q32) = -37,p c .04, and teasing in a group, r(35)= -.32. p < .07. High Skills Scores were also related to fewer problems with picking on the best friend. fl30) = -.42. p < .O2 in the RO group. For the CB group. children scoring more highly on the Skills Score were found to have fewer problems with teasing their best friend, r(37)= -.31, p < .06.For the EA group. none of the specific play problems were related to the Skills Score.
Problems Score. Problems Scores were negatively related to not playing well
with peen, fl41) = 4 9 . p c.001. This relationship was also bund in the CB and A groups [t(41) = -32, < -04 the CB group; q25) = -.40. p < .O5 for the EA group]. p for
RO children who scored highly on the Problems Score were also more likely to be rated
as not making friends easily, a41) = -.67. p <.O01: as having problerns with teasing their most frequent playmate, fl30)= .55. p <.O01; with teasing others in a group of children. fl30)= .74. p c.001; with picking on their most frequent playmate and the Problems Score, r(30) =.48, p < ,007; and with competing for adult attention. q39) = .30, p e.06. None of these relationships was found in the EA and CB groups. Overell Pmgress These variables were I.Q. and the parental rating of overall progress (from interview) where it asks how wll overall the parent feels the child is doing (Table 23).
S k i h Score. I.Q. was not significantly reloted to the Skills Score in the RO or CB
groups. Skills Scons were significantly related to IQ for t h EA group [r(23)= .42, p <
.OS]. Skills Scores wen significantly correlated with the parent's rating of whether the
child was doing well or poorly, with those children with higher Skills Scores k i n g rated by their parents as doing ktter thon those with lower Skills Scores. fl42) m.67, p <.O01 for the RO group and for the EA group, a23)=.52. p < .O1.
70
Problems Score. High scores on the Problems Score were significantly related to lower Stanford-Binet lQ scores, r(40)= -.49, p <.O01 in the RO group. This relationship was not found in the CB or EA groups. For the RO group only. high scores
on the Problems Score were negatively correlated with the parent's inteniiew rating of
how well they felt that their child was doing overall. q31) = -.53, p c.002.
Comlations Betwwn Ovrnll Pmgrr.s and Skllls Scores and Problems ScoresRO Gmup
IQ
Ovenll Rating of Doing Wall or Poorly
lndiscriminately Friendly Behaviour and Anachment Rating
These variables include the two measures of indiscriminately friendly behaviour and the rating of child's alachment to parents from the interview (Table 24).
Skills Scores. High Skills Scores were related to lower levels of extreme
indiscriminately friendly behaviour, r(42) = -.35, p <.O2 for the RO group only. Skills Scores were significantly positively related to the interview measute of the child's attachment to parents, r(42)= 33, p <.O01 for the RO group, r(42) = . S I , p < .O01 for the
CB group and d25) = .53,p c .O06 for the EA group. Pmblems Score. High levels of indiscriminately friendly behaviour were related
to high Problem Scores in the RO group, a42) = .30, c.05, as was the extreme p indiscriminately fricnidly score, a42) =. 53, p < .001. This relationship war not found in the othet two groups. Additionally, the higher the Problems Scons, the lower the rating
71
of the child's attachment to parents, according to the intenriew measure of attachment.

in the RO group, fl42)= -.44, p <.O04 and the CB group, d41) -.67, p < ,001. Problems Scores and attachment scores were not significantly related in the EA group.
Skilfs Scores lndiscriminately Friendly Behaviour Extreme lndiscriminately Friendly Behaviour Child Attachment
0.22
-. 35'
Problems Scores
.30t
.53-
.53-
- 44-
Attachment Categonbs
Table 25 contains the mean scores and standard deviations for each attachment category (from Chisholm, 1998) for the RO group. This analysis could not be performed
in the CB and EA groups due to the low number of Atypical lnsecure classifications in thse groups.
Skls Scores. RO children classified as 'Atypical Insecure' on the separationreunion measure of attachment scored more poorly on the Skills Score than did the children classified as 'Typical Insecure', t(22) = -2.66, p < .01, and the children classified as 'Secure', t(27) = -3.16, p < .O05 This analysis could not be pwfomed in the CB and C
EA groups due to the low numbr of Atypial Insecun classifications in these groups.
72
fable 25:
Anachment Categortrs and Mwn SM/s Scoms and Problems Scores-RO Gmup
Atypical lnsecure Typical lnsecure
n
Secure
n
n
Skills Scores Problems Scores 13
13
Mean
SD
Mean 35.55
10.27
SD
6.53
8.08
Mean
SD
26.85'' 9.00
16.21* 8.62
11 11
16
16
36.44 7.34
7.44
5.03
Problems Scores. RO children classified as 'Atypical Insecure' on the separation-reunion measure of attachrnent also scored higher on Problems Score than did the children classified as 'Typical Insecure'. t(18) = 1-98.p < .O6, and the children classified as 'Secure'. t(23) = 3.66. p < .006. Parent Outcome Variables The following parent outcome variables were examined in the present study: the parent's feeling of attachment to child (from interview), and the total stress. child domain, and parent domain scores on the PSI. Table 26 contains the correlations
between the scores and the Parent outcome variables.

Skills Score. Skills Scores were positively related to parent's feeling of attachrnent to their child, d42) = .52, p < .001. for the RO group only. Skills Score scores were negatively related to the Child Domain of the PSI for al1 three groups, r(40)
= 4 4 , p < .O07 for the RO group, r(41) = -.49, p < ,001 for the CB group, and a24) = 5 2 , p < .O01 for the A group. High scores on the Skills Score were negatively related
to parenting stress in the Parent Domain of the PSI, q40) = 0.38,p < .O2 for the RO
group and the CB group, d41) = -.W, p c .Ml. The Total score on the PSI was also
73
negatively related to the Skills Score in the RO group, r(40) = 0.49, p < .001, and in the CB group, r(41) = -40.p < .O1. The Parent Domain and Total scores were not significantly related to the Skills Scores in the EA group. The Life Stress score was not related to the Skills Score in any of the groups. Table 26:
Com/atians Betw-n Parent Variables and S k W Scorus and Problems ScoresRO Gmup
Skills Score Attachment to child PSI f otal Score PSI Life Stress PSI Child Domain Problems Scores
PSI - Parent Domain
Problems Score. The Problems Score was negatively related to the feeling of
attachment that parents had to their children, q42) = 0.35,p < .O2 in the RO group only. Problems Scores were also related to the Child Domain score of the PSI, a40) = .76, p
< ,001 for the RO group. f his relationship was also found in the CB group. a41) = .71.
p < .001, but not in the EA group. The Pannt Oornain score and the Total score of the PSI w r e related to Problems Score, <40)= 34, p *.O01 ; q40) =.70,p <.O01 in the RO
group. This wss also found in the CB group, r(41) = .72, p < ,001; r(41) =.76, p < .001.
There was no mlationrhip htween the Probkms Score and the Parent Domain and
Total scores on the PSI for the EA group. The PSI Life stress score was not related to
74
the Problerns Score in any of the groups.
Quantitative Mesures
The types of responses made to and by the target child were cornpared to the types made by and received by the play group peer. Appendix G contains the items summed for each category. All positive responses were summed. and al1 no response and negative responses were summed. These results are reported within each case
study .
Transgressions of all types were also summed for each child. In 3 of the 4 case studies, the number of transgressions was higher for the RO child than for the play group peer. The number of transgressions are reported within each case study.
Case Stuy No. f

"Jack". aged 4 yean. 7 months at observation.
Jack spent 14 months in orphanage prior to his adoption at 17 months of age. His adopting parents had no other childnn. Jack was found to be securely attached to
his parents by the interview measun and the reparation-nunion measure of

attachment, and he showed no indircrminately friendly khaviour.
Jack had an IQ of 108. considenbly above the mran for the 4 4 2 year oM RO
group (M = 90). Jack's mother indicated on the social khaviour questionnaires that few
probbms existd. Jack scorecl only 3 on the PBQ, and received O on the CBCL Social
Problems Scak, and 5 on the CBCL total score (Iess thon 5th perntile). Jack's
75
parents gave him a total of 61 on the SSRS, placing Jack at the 90th percentile for social skills. Jack reived a Skills Score of 41 (RO group mean for 4-112 year olds was
32), and a Problems Score of 6 (RO group mean was Il). describing Jack's social In
behaviour, his mother stated in the interview that Jack made friends "very easily", and "got along well" with others. She felt that social stimulation was "very important" to her child, and the family socialized at home and away frorn home "more than 1 time per week". She stated that Jack socialized with peen "more than one time per week". During the interview, the mother also stated that Jack and his most frequent playmate had problems sharing and the playmate was "overprotective". She also stated that Jack "liked to be the leader" in his peer group.
The teacher indicated that there were slightly more problems at school. On the
teacher PBQ, Jack scored a 14, near the clinical cut-off of 17. He received 3 (73rd percentile) on the CBCL Social Problems Scale, and a score of 26 on the total CBCL
(6Mh percentile). The teacher rated Jack's social skills on the SSRS as a score of 31.
the 14th percentile. Our observations of Jack's behaviour in his play group did not correspond well with parent interview or questionnaire measures of his behaviour. Jack engaged in several disruptive and unueual bahavioun, and did not play well with peers. He was nstless, as was reported by teachers as well, and was irritable.
He was observed to
have wveral minor conflicts with peen during the observation, and this had b e n reported by teachen. Other difficulties m i e noted by the observers. The fimt characteristic noticed by the two observers was that Jack would engage in self-stimulatory behaviour (waving his fingen in front of his eyes and rocking) approximately every 5 minutes. When Jack
76
observed that the researchers were watching him, he stopped. The parents had repoited that this behaviour no longer occurred at home. The two researchen who had gone to the home for intervtewing also stated that Jack did not show self-stimulatory behaviours, but upon closer inspection of the videotaped segments of the home visit. it was noted by two persons familiar with self-stimulatory behaviour that Jack was engaging in these behavioun during testing on the Stanford-Binet. In the daycare Jack also jumped from activity to activity, and although he was often doing the same activity as the other children, he was not synchronized with them. For example, when al1 the other children were making playdough at a table, Jack was also at the table with playdough. The other children were rolling and ffattening the dough, each fairly intent on their own creations. Jack, however, was patting his dough ineffectually, and glancing around at the others. In addition, he was making irrelevant comments to no one in parlicular. Jack often vocalized without getting a response. Usually, ha vocalized to his most frequent playmate, but the playmate did not respond because the vocalizations were irrelevant or repetitive in nature. The play that went on between Jack and his most frequent partner in the daycare mainly consisted of Jack watching his friend play. Jack would intempt the play with irrelevant comments, or physically disrupt what was happening. For instance, while the playmate was using the train, Jack rocked back and forth, waving his hand in front of his eyes, and then reached down and took up the track the train was about to go on. This did not seem to kt an attempt to annoy the playmate, but a crude attempt at interaction. Jack did not interact directly with any of the other childnn in the daycare for any signifiant priods of time.
He did not appear to be the leader in any of the play interactions, and mainly followed
the playmate around, or triecl to engage hi8 attention in inappropriate ways such as
77
saying his name over and over, or saying "look at me. look at me" over and over. In comparing Jack to his play group peer, it was found that Jack received a positive response to his initiations only 45% of the time, while his peer received a positive response 63% of the time. Jack responded positively to others' initiations approxirnately as often as his peer did (56% of responses, compared to 61% of his
peer's responses). In addition, Jack was obsenred to transgress 10 times, but his play
group peer did not engage in any transgressions. Jack's transgressions included trying to take things kom othen and physical aggression. The daycare that Jack was in was very large, and much of the children's time was spent in unstnictured play. The caregiven did not interact often with the children, and rarely spoke to Jack. The main interactions with Jack were in the nature of getting him to line up to go outside, or instmcting him, with the other children, to corne for snack or storytime. The following is an example from the observations of an interaction that best characterized Jack's khaviour in the peer group. It focuses upon his inability to synchronize himself with the activities of his peers. Jack is pushing a toy atong the floor, alone. He vocalizes to hirnself. and gaes up to a table with 3 other children standing playing at it. Jack says "I have...". There is no response from the othen. Jack says "Look at mine now. Look at mine, James. Look at mine". He gets no response. Jack then says "1 know", and no one responds. Another child tries to touch the toy that Jack is holding, and Jack says "DonY". The other boy says 'That's how they're gotng". Jack runs over to him, sheking his a n s and doing a stefeotypical tip toe walk. Jack watches the boy play. Jack aaya "Look at this, isn't this". The other boy responds "ya". Jack says "Look what I'm building, look at...,
Social Skillr of Romanian Adoptees
78
see.... see....", but gets no response. In summary, Jack appeared to be motivated to interact with peers. but unsure of how to do so. Although he responded to his peen in a generally positive way. he was less likely to get a positive response to his behaviour. His inability to engage others meant that much of his time was spent on trying unsuccessfully to get the attention of his peer, or watching his friend play. This seems to have led to a lack of real interaction
and cooperative play. Howevrr. the fact that his reaction to others was generally
positive, and that he was attending to othen may bode well for his future progress. By watching others, and being motivated to leam to interact. Jack may pick up the social skills h needs. Some structured help in this area would help him greatly as the current daycare is relatively unstructured. This allows much of Jack's time to be spent observing one peer, or engaging in self-stimulatory behaviour.
Case StWy No. 2

"Shdley", aged 4 yean, 1 month at observation. Shelley spant 9 months in orphanage prior to her adoption at age 11 months. Her adopting parents had one older child. Shelley was found by the interview measure to be securely attached to her parents, but was classified as Typical Insecure on the separation-reunionepisode. Shelley showed indiscrminately friendly behavioun towards new aduts; she rewived a score of 3, with the mean for the RO group at 2.57
on a $cale of O to S.
Shelley had an IQ of 88, which is in the 'Low Average' range. Shelley's parents
indicate on the social khaviour questionnaires that many probbms existed. Shdley scored 20 on the PBQ, weII above the clinical cut-off of 17, and received 5 (95th
79
percentile) on the CBCL Social Problerns Scale. She received 56 on the CBCL total score (96th percentile). Shelley's parents gave a total of 58 on the SSRS. placing Shelley at the 66th percentile for social skills. Shelley received a Skills Score of 41 (RO group mean for 4-112 year olds was 32). and a Problems Score of 16 (RO group mean
was 11). In the interview, Shelley's mother stated that she placed a great deal of
importance on social stimulation for Shelley. and indicated that they went out. or had friends over. "more than once per week". and that Shelley played with her peen "very often". Her mother also stated that Shelley got along "very well" with her peers, and made friends "very easily". In spite of the high numben of problems reported on the questionnaires. the only problems repoited in the interview were that Shelley "competed for adult attention", and did not share well with children in general. The mother also stated that Shelley "liked to be the leader". Shelley's mother also stated that she was "getttting out of physical aggression and learning to verbalize anger instead". The teacher indicated that there were even more problerns at school. On the teacher PBQ. Shelley scored 30. She received 6 (98th percentile) on the CBCL Social Problems Scale, and a score of 60 on the total CBCL (98th percentile). The teacher rated Shelley's social skills on the SSRS as 33, the 18th percentile. Once again, our observations did not comspond well with parent reports from interview, but thk time were more closely aligned with the questionnaire rneasures, and were again in agreement with teacher reports. Our observations did indicate that Shelley did not like to share, and competed for adult attention, as indicated in the parent interview, but many of the other probkms reported in questionnaires wen also observecl. Shelley wao obsewed to k q u b aggnssive, hitting other children when she
did not get her way, and detroying things. These hiad bssn reporteci in the parent and
80
teacher questionnaire measuns, but in interview her mother stated that Shelley was ''gening out of' these behaviouni. Shelley was observed to go over quietly to a box of Christmas ornaments and k g i n ripping them apart. There had not been any confrontation prior to this incident, and she did not appear outwardly angry. The teachers did not notice this transgression. Shelley then wandered away, but soon returned to break more decorations. When she was observed, the teacher requested that Shelley bring the decoration over to her. Shelley brought over a different one, and the teacher said 'That's not the one I mean. You know the one I mean". This happened twice more, until finally Shelley brought the broken one. The teacher asked three times "What happened to it?" but got no response and no eye contact. The teacher talked for some time about not k i n g able to use the decoration, and how it was donated, but got no response. Finally, the teacher sent Shelley away, saying "You need to play somewhere else until you can play propedy". Shelley also had difficulty entering existing groups. She would corne up and grab materials othen wen using, or sit on a chair that someone else was already sitting on. When the other childnn protested, Shelley would strike out, push the materials off the table, or leave and go to another group. This meant that Shelly was often changing activities and locations, as she l t t e d from group to group. She seerned to have no main playmate. Overoll, the observers saw b w positive ongoing interactions with P e n or csregivers. although Shelby did elicit a positive response to her verbal initiations 58%
of the time, which compares favourably to her play group peer's rate of 52% of the time.
However, Shelly gave a positive n r p o n w to othds initiations only 43% of t h time. whik her peer gave positive nsponses 76% of the time. In fuithsr comparing Shelley to her play group peer, it war found that Shelley transgresseci 16 times during the
81
observation. while her peer was not obsewed to transgress at all during the observations. The daycare that Shelley was in was fairly quiet, and had many semi-stnictured activities. During outside time, Shelley was very active, but often ran ahead of the group, or wandered off. There seemed to be a frantic nature to her physical activity. She would get the tricycle and ride around furiously, or go down the slide over and over without apparent enjoyment. The following is an excerpt from the observation. It is an example of the difficulty that Shelley had entering groups of peers.
A group of children are at o painting table. Shelley cornes up to the table and
sits down. Another girl is washing her brush in a jar of water. Shelley grabs the jar of water and they get into a tug of war. Shelley then pinches the girl with the water jar, who then pinches back. Shelley begins to cry hysterically. The teacher asks her three tirnes if she pinched the other girl fint, but gets no response. The teacher finally says "Look. Shelley. there is 1 bottle of water, 3 paint brushes for 3 kids to share". Shelley then baves, goes to another table, stands and watches. does not vocalize to others.
She then goes to another table and stands and watches. She is the only child who is
not sitting down. She gws to yet another table, and sits down. She grabs a toy, gets up, and goes in the corner to play with it. In sumrnary, Shelley is having difficulty integrating into groups and on-going activities. She appean angry, destroys things and often transgresses, including physical aggression. Thece difliculties warrant immediate intervention.
Social Skilk of Romanian Adoptees
82
Case Study No. 3

"Tanner", aged 4 years. 7 months at observation. Tanner spent 17 months in orphanage prior to his adoption at age 18 months into a family with several other children. Tanner was found by the interview measure to be securely attached to his parents, but was classified as Typical lnsecure on the separation-reunion episode. He also showed quite a bit of indiscriminately friendly behaviour. scoring a 3 (like Shelley) which is above the mean for the RO group. Tanner had an lQ of 86, in the 'Low Average' range. Tanner's parents indicated
on the social behaviour questionnaires that some problems existed. Tanner scored 13 on the PBQ, near the cut off of 17. but received only 1 on the CBCL Social Problems
Scale. and only 30 on the CBCL total score (60th percentile). Tanner's parents gave a total of 50 on the SSRS, placing Tanner at the 53rd percentile for social skills. Tanner received a Skills Score of 33 (RO group mean for 4-112 year olds was 32). and a Problems Score of 5 (RO group mean was 11). Tanner's mother indicated that she did not think that social stimulation was that important for Tanner at one point in the interview, but later stated that she thought it was "very important". His mother also stated that they had people over "more than once per week", and that Tanner "often" played with pers. She stated that they did not go out to socialize a great deal. Tanner
was reported to play ''vefywell" with othen. and to ma& friends "very easily". No
spcific problems with peem m r e rep~fted during the interview. Tanner's rnother stated that ha "liked to be the follower" in a group of Pen. She also stated that "when at home with his mother and other children, he stayed with his mother". The teacher indiatecl that there were few problems at school. On the teacher
PBQ, Tanner only rcored a 6, wll k l o w the clinial cutsff of 17. He received 1 on the
Social SkiL of Romanian Adoptees
83
CBCL Social Problems Scale (less than 50th percentile), and a score of 5 on the total
CBCL (less than 50th percentile). The teacher rated Tanner's social skills as 36, the 53rd percentile, the same rating as given by his parents. In this case study, our observations more closely meshed with parental comments. Tanner was a quiet child, and sornetirnes hovered on the fringes of groups. but was not disruptive. He seemed to enjoy group games and activities, and did not get into severe conflicts with others. He did follow the other leaders in games and play. and
did spend a great deal of time in interactive, cooperative play with a variety of other
children. He often sought out caregiven for help. In comparing Tanner to his play group peer, it was found that both boys had received positive responses to their initiations a majority of the time (81% of initiations for Tanner. and 72% for his peer). Both boys also gave positive responses to othen the majority of the time (96% and 76%). and neither had transgressed during the observations. The daycare that Tanner was in, although populated by a numer of very active and aggressive boys, was fairly conganial. and had many structured activities. The caregiven did not intercede in the fights, but did respond quickly to direct requests for assistance, and did interact with the childnn in games and activities. The following is an excerpt from the observations. It demonstrates Tanner's passivity in social situations. Tanner goes to the playhouse ana. Anothrr boy, in a toy car, gets out and Tanner gets in. The other boys says "No, you are the kid, you can't drive, kids can't drive". Tanner says "1 know" and gets out of the car. The other boy gets in the car.
Tanner gets in the car too. They are joind by a giil, who says "My turn" four times, but
84
they do not let her in the car. A caregiver intervenes, and says something about sharing. Tanner wanders off by hirnaelf. He vocalizes unintelligibly three times to no one in particular. He then pretends to telephone someone. He watches the othen play for a while, and then hands the phone to a caregiver and says 'Teacher, teacher, itts for you". After this interaction, Tanner wanden over and watches two other boys play. He joins in briefly, and they leave. Tanner continues the play by himself. In summary, it appean that Tanner is a passive child, but generally gets along with othen. Perhaps in a less aggressive environment, Tanner may become less passive in his interactions with peers.
Case Study No. 4

"Spencer", aged 4 yean, 6 months at observation. Spencer spent 11 months in orphanage prior to his adoption at 14 months. His adopting parents had no other children. Spencer was found by the interview measure to be securely attached to his parents, but was classified as Typical lnsecure on the separation reunion measure. He showed no indiscflminately friendly behaviour.
Spencer had an IQ of 103, above average for the group of 4-112 year old RO
children (M = 90). Spenmr's parents indicated on the social behaviour questionnaires that few probkms existed. Spencer scond only 6 on the PBQ, and received 1 on the
CBCL Social Pioblems Scak, and 22 on the CBCL total score (less than 5th
percentile). Spencer's parents gave a total of 58 on the SSRS, placing Spencer at the
82nd perantile for social skillr. Spencer received a Skills Score of 38 (RO group mean
for 4-112 year olds war 32),and a Problems S a n of 8 (RO group rnean was 11). Spnc8ts rnother stated in the interview that she f e l social stimulation was "wry
85
important" for Spenceh developrnent. and that they socialized often, with Spencer playing with peers "more than once per week. Spencer was reported to make friends "very easily", and to get along %uell"with othen. No spcific behaviour problerns were noted with peen, and Spencer's rnother stated that she felt that in play with p e t s , Spencer was able to take on a variety of roles, and was neither always the leader or the follower. The teacher indicated that there were slightly more problems at school. Spencer scored 12 on the PBQ from the teacher, and received 2 on the CBCL Social Problems Scale, and a score of 27 on the total CBCL (52nd percentile). For the SSRS, however, the Teacher rated Spencer's social skills as 51. the 87th percentile. Spencer, at fint meeting, appeared to be a child with impressive social skills. He had excellent verbal skills, and was able to mediate conflict between others, and between himself and others. with ease. After 4 days of observation, however, it was obvious that these skills did not come easily. Spencer was seen to get very angry when he did not get his own way. However, he would maintain self-control and try a different strategy to get his way. He played with al1 of the children in the daycare. and both instigated activities and followed others' suggestions. He sometimes becarne slightly hyperactive, but would settle down if prompted by the caregiver. It seemed that Spencer made a conscious effort to behave propery and make the right nsponses. He was observed pausing, and then responding to others, or starting to respond in a negative way, and then catching himielf, and trying a more cooprative approach. Often, the caregiver would help Spencer to make the right choiws. In comparing Spencer to hi8 play group peer, it was found that Spencer had tnnsgresssd 5 times. as compared to no transgressions by hi8 F r . These
86
transgression were al1 aggression related, with Spencer pushing or shoving or throwing things at his peers. In spite of these transgressions, Spencer was able to elicit positive responses (59% of the time), and give positive responses (73% of the time), as was his
play group peer (68% and 70%. respectively).
This particular daycare was an excellent facility, with a small number of children.
The caregiver had very good control over the children, and talked to them constantly.
She intervened immediately when there was a conflict, and helped the children sort themselves out. She paid particular attention to Spencer. If there was a conflict. she would remind him of the rules, and help him to maintain sef-control and find other options, but she monitored his behaviour in non-conflict situations as well. If he was k i n g too bossy. even before the other children protested. she would suggest that he think about his behaviour. In addition, she often praised Spencer and the rest of the children for good peer relation ehavioun. Although Spencer was cleary struggling to make the right choices and contain his anger. he seemed to be able to do so almost al1 of the time, leading to his Ming a sought-after playmate. The following is an exrpt from the obsewations. It shows the intervention strategy used by the amgiver when Spencer was in difficulty with his peers. Another child vocdizes "Look what I got-the poison applr. so eat it". Spencer grabs the apple and throum it at the other child, and then runs into the other room calling "Sarah (caregiver) Sarah, David thfew an apple right in my face!". Sarah says "1s he throwing the apple? W 1 I need to talk to him". Spencer runs to Oavid and says "Sarah e1
n d s to talk to you". Sarah and David discuss who ha8 thrown the appk. Sarah says
"Spencer,Sarah has alreay talke to you about throwing thingr." They have a quiet
conversation, and Sarah ir heard to iay 'Mir morning" and "the choir". Spencer says
87
"Sarah, you know what, I was rolling it, not throwing it. Sarah says "Rolling is o.k." Spencer goes back to playing and says "1 guess David doesn't want me anymore". In summary, although Spencer often used aggression and got overtly angry with his pers, he had many social skills ho could ernploy as alternatives when he remembered to use them or was prompted by his caregiver at daycare. He seemed to
be popular with his peers, and was aware of their censure when he had misbehaved.
Summuy of C u . Studes
It would appear that we have two children who need to have more intervention in the area of social skills training. Although Jack appean to have a friend in his daycare, his interaction style is less than optimal, although he does seem to be trying to fit in. Shelley, however, appears angry and aggressive much of the tirne, and has no regular playmate in her daycare. Spencer has had good intervention already in his daycare setting. and should continue to improve providing the environment remains as supportive as 1is currently. Finally, Tanner, although a passive child, is in a daycare full of aggressive and adive boys. In another environment, Tanner may be less passive. The obsewations in general w r e a valuable addition to the ratings received from parents and teachen, and allowed us not only to see the problems reported by parents and teachen. but to see othw problerns as well, especially with Shelley.
88
DISCUSSION
It appean that the Romanian orphans who had spent at least 8 months in institutions have difficulty with social behaviour. According to both parents and teachers, on each of the 'problem' measuns [Social Problems Score (SPS). PBQ] both the older and younger RO children scored consistently higher than did their matches in the other two groups. On the measure that examined strengths. (SSRS), the younger Romanian orphans scored consistently worse than the other two groups of children, accordtng to parent reports. The older RO children did not differ from their CB matches on the SSRS. Even more disturbing than the group differences are the large nurnbers of RO children scoring at or above the 95th percentile on the SPS, and at or bedow the 5th percentile for the SSRS. Far fewer childnn in the CB and EA groups were rated above the 95th percentile, or below the 5th percentile on the SSRS. These results indicate that the parents and the bachen of the RO children have n p o r t d behaviour levels that warrant further examination and intervention. Parents and teachen were also in agreement regarding which children were having difficulties, as the comlations between parent and teacher ratings for the RO group ranged from -48 to S. Comlations between parents and teachers were generally l o w r in the other two groups, indicating that the bshavioun of the RO children
were so notiwabk that gnater agreement was reached.
89
Although the use of standardized questionnaires allows us to compare our results to a large sample of childnn, the Romanian orphans represent a special group of children. Therefore the scales on the present questionnaires, having been drawn from North Arnerican samples, were not standardized for the Romanian sample. Additionally, rnany of the items on the questionnaires were not of interest. Thus the Skills Score and Problems Score were f o n e d to more closely examine social interactions. Although both younger and older RO children scored more highly on the Problems Score than did the CB matches, and the younger RO children lower on the Skills Score, the older RO children were not significantly different from their matches on the Skills Score. It may be that the older RO children have learned some social skills that the younger children have not yet mastered. Inspection of the items comprising the Skills Score indicate that many of these items involve actions that can be learned by rote, such as "follows your instructions" and "answers the phone appropriately". It may
be that these older children had exprienced the pressure to follow rules and conform in
the orphanage, prior to their adoption. Life in the orphanage was very regimented. and may have fostered the ability to barn highly structured social tasks. Thus when these children were adopted into their new homes, they more easily bamed to perforrn behavioun such as answering the phone appropriately. Additionally, many of the items on the Skills Score involve interactions with adults. The older Romanian Orphans may
bs better abk to interact socially with aduts kcause adults may scaffold the interaction
for the child M e n he or she ir struggling, whereas a pemr would be unlikely to do so. Peer interactions are al80 unlikely to follow a script, and peem, Ieaming social skills themselves, may k quite unprdictable, and rnay not rerpond in ways that help the
90
Rornanian Orphanage child to interact appropriately. The Skills and Problems scores correlated with other measures of the RO children's bhaviour. For instance, the Skills Score correlated positively with playing well with friends, making friends easily, and having fewer problems with sharing, teasing, and picking on other children. Convenely, the Problems score correlated problems with positively with not playing well with peers, having difficulty making fr~ends, teasing, picking on othen, and competing for adult attention. Other categories of variables were also good predictors of Skills Scores and Problems Scores. I.Q. and developmental progress, family characteristics, attachment, and indiscriminately friendly behaviour were al1 related to the scores. Time in orphanage was the only predictor in the group of orphanage variables. Other categories did not have any variables that were good predictors: parenting variables, child variables, and social experience. Time in orphanage was a very strong predictor of Problem Scores. Those children who had spent more time in an orphanage prior to k i n g adopted had more problems than did children who had b e n adopted earlier. This is consistent with both the results of the standardized questionnaires, and the group differences on the SkiL and Problems Scores, with the RO children (who had orphanage experience) scoring poorly. It would seem that orphanage e x p h n c e has a detrimental effect on peer relations, and the more orphanage expewience, the larger the effect. Surprisingly, I.Q. was not related to Skill Scores in the RO or CB groups, but only in the EA group. I.Q. was, however, signiliantly related to Problems Scores in the RO group, with those childnn having lowr I.Q.scores also having high Problems Scores. Attachment war al80 relateci to the Skillr and Problems Scores. 60th the rating
91
given by parents of the children's attachment, and the attachment category predicted Skills and Problems Scores. Children with low attachment tatings, andior an Atypical lnsecure attachment style had fewer skills and more problems with social behaviour. Finally, children who evidenced high levels of indiscriminately friendly behaviour also had fewer skills and more problems. Researchen (Matas et al., 1978; Pastor. 1981, Troy 8 Sroufe, 1987; Turner, 1991; Waters et al., 1979) have long held that there are links between attachrnent and children's social behaviour with peers, so these results are not surprising. It is clear that in looking at the other correlates of peer relations that those Romanian orphans who have older parents with a higher income, a n doing better than those who have younger parents, andior a lower family income. It must be recognized that the ages of the younger parents are by no means extreme. with the youngest mother aged 25 at the time of adoption. This is also the case with income levels. It was found (Ames, 1997) that familias with RO children with 3 or 4 serious problems had a mean income of $48,000.00, as compared to the families with few problems. who had a rnean income of $64,000.00. In spite of this lack of extrerne ranges in age and income, those parents who are on the younger side. andlor have a lower incorne, have childnn with mon, v e r relation problems. In order to meet the varied nwds of a Romanian Orphan, more resources are neede than for the average child. Stressed. younger parents may not have the resources needed for fostering good peer relations. Perhaps they have expended their resours dealing with the mon, irnmdiate problems, and it is only those parents who have the most resources that are able to spend time and energy fostering good peer relations. Mothetr age and fathefs age are strong predicton of functioning in many areas of the liver of the Romanian Orphans (Ames, 1997). Older
92
mothers and fathen may have the maturity needd to push for services that their child needs, and rnay have more patience and a more well-thought out child rearing philosophy. The stress of caring for two Romanian orphans also takes its toll upon the resources needed for fostering good peer relations. Those children in homes with more than one Romanian orphan have lower Skills Scores and higher Problems Scores than children who are in homes with one child adopted from Rornania. Parenting variables themsrlves, however, were not related to peer relations in the present study. This is surprising, as most literature (Baumrind, 1967; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Pattemon 8 Dishion, 1988; Pettit & Bates, 1989) indicates that parenting styles are related to peer skills in children. It must be noted that there was only one measure of parenting ability in the present study, the HOME. The use of individual scales of the HOME as measures of parenting ability does not seem to have been successful. as these scales did not relate to peer skills in any of the three groups. Perhaps having a better measure of parenting style such as the one developed by Hart, Mandleco, Olsen and Robinson (1995) would have elicited a relationship between peer skills and parenting in the present study. In addition to parenting variables, social experien and pnschool attendance were also not related to the Skills and Probtems Scores. This would indicate that experience with peen will not, by itself, nmediate the social behaviours of the Romanian children. ln addition, the parents of al1 three groups of children rated social stimulation as important, so parental attitude was not a factor either. Overall it would appear that the Romanian Orphans are having difficulties with peer relations, and these diniculties are related to the amount of deprivation, the characteflstics of the family that
93
they were adopted into, and their attachment category. Other studies have found that the present RO children have made gains in cognitive, language, and motor development (Morison et al., 1995) and although they still have some deficits in cognition and language, the present results indicate that social behaviour remains a significant problem for these children. Kaler and Fnernan (1994),
in their study of orphans still living in a Romanian institution, also found that social
behaviour was not at the level of age-matched peers. The orphanage children were consistently lower on al1 the measures of social abilities. In Kaler and Freeman's work. the sample consisted of a group of children from one orphanage, with a mean age of 35 months. This orphanage had a play roorn, which was apparently used often. Additionally, a doll, feeding cups, spoons, and a bal1were found in the playroom of the orphanage. Most of the orphanages attended by children in the present study did not have such amenities. The majority of Romanian orphans in the present study were housed in their cribs, and not often, if ever. put in a playroom (Ames, 1990). In the present sample, most of the children had been in an orphanage since biah. In contrast, the mean age of the orphans coming into the orphanage in the Kaler and Freeman sample was 8.9 months, and wveral of them had been left in matemity hospitals or at home for as long as 34 months. Thse children may have had more normal development. one would assume, until brought to the orphanage and thh may have stimulatd social behaviour in children who othemise would have been apathetic. Given these differens, it would k expcted th& the Romanian orphans in the present sample would k, even more impaired in their social interactions than the orphans in the Kaler and Freeman sample. Certainly, the poor pesr behaviour of the RO children in the prewnt study resernbles the behaviour of other chiUren who have undergone
94
institutional deprivation. The earlier research on the effects of deprivation led us to erpect specific behaviours that would impair social interaction with pers. The children in the study by Tizard (1977) were found to be unpopular, as were the older children in the present sample of Romanian orphans. Both Tizard (1977) and Goldfarb (1945) found the children to be attention seeking, as were the older children in the present sample of children. Goldfarb (1943) found that the childten he studied had more difficulty concentrating and were restless. characteristics found in the present group of older orphanage children. Finally, in the study by Flint (1978), the orphanage children were found to be immature, as were both the younger and older RO children in the present study. Once again it must be noted that the older RO children are having more problems than are the younger RO children. It is surprising that no differencs between groups were found in impulsivity, temper tantrums and fearfulness. It was expeded that the RO children would k more impulsive in their khaviour, as other studies have found that childnn from institutional backgrounds were impulsive (Goldfarb, 1943; Provence 8 Lipton, 1962). Fearfulness has also b e n found in children that had b e n previously institutionalized (Tizard, 1977), as have temper tantrurns (Goldfarb, 1943; Tizard, 1977). In addition to the paper and p n c i l measures of social behaviour, several children were also obsettved in a p r interaction situation. Many of the problems that were noticed in the observations of the Romanian children were indicated on the questionnaire meawres cornpkte by parents and teachem. Howver, for three of the obseme children, then wwe behaviour problems or wbtle interaction difticulties that
wn not indicated, (such a8 the hand fiapping by Jack) or were more extreme than s
95
those indicated (such as the use of aggression by Shelley), on the questionnaires completed by parents or teachers. Also, some of the problems were situationally specific, and may not have b e n observed by parents (such as Shelley's inability to settle into any group at preschool). The observations in the present study let us begin to examine the possibility that different daycare environments rnay be more or less ideal for the Rornanian Orphans. It would seem that more structure is needed for the Romanian Orphans, and more handson help with peer relations, than would be required by the average child. Ideally, al1 of the children should be observed, to determine the full extent of their problems and the impact of daycare type. Unfortunately the cost involved. especially with such a geographically diverse sample, makes such research nearly impossible. Another possibility might be to get video samples of the children's ehaviour in a classroom. but parental permission would have to be gained from the parents of al1 the children in the classroom. A measure such as the Social Problems Solving Test (Rubin, DanielsBeirness, & Bream, 1984) could ba administered, but this again might not pick up on the subtle interaction problems that some of the Rornanian Orphans are having. Finally, using the Assessrnent of Peer Relations developed by Guralnick (1992, 1993) would give a broad and intensive view of these children. Other limitations of the study included the possible bias of the parents in repocting their children's behaviour. This moy have affected the parents of al1 group
rnernbers, and if the parents of the Rornanian Otphans were positively biased, then the
resultr found are of even more concem. In addition, we have the teacher reports and the observations to broaden Our view of t h children. Another possible biar that rnay be worrisome is the issue of volunteers. Although al1 of t h parents volunteend to be in the
96
study, the parents of the children adopted from Romania would be more likely to participate, while the parents of the CB children. having no vested interest in the study, may represent a more select population. Matching by demographics, however, may have reduced these differences between groups. The most important limitation in the present study is the sample size, especially for the observations. It would be very interesting ta be able to observe more of the RO children, and perhaps include some of the EA children as well. When considering the problems that may underlie the social diffculties that the Romanian orphans are having, several possibilities can be examined. First. it is possible that the RO children are having language difficulties. Having little language ability when adopted. and then having to leam a language they had never been exposed to. may have led to difficuties in communication with pers. Only 22% of the Romanian orphans have had speech therapy (Ames, 1097). and in our observations the children did not seem to be having language difficulties, and yet were having interaction problems. A second possibility is that the RO childnn an having problems in the area of social cognition, as have b e n found with other children having peer relation problems
(Dodge. Pettit, McClaskey. & Brown,1986). Given the severe cognitive delays at
adoption, and their continuing difficulties with some cognitive tasks, this would be
expectsd. Although ws do not have any spcific measuns of social cognition in the
present study, in examining the case studies, w a n speculate that Shelley's difficulties with rntering peer group rnight stem from a number of social cognitive deficits. She may b having problems at any kvel of social information processing. from encoding
t social cues to rvaluating the effectiveners of a possible nsponse (Dodge e al.. 1986).
Spencer was frequently assisted by his caregiver with suggestions for sttategies for
97
effective confiid resolution. Future research will n w d to include messures of social cognition, especially prior to the development of any intervention in the area of peer interactions. The most unifying theme in the present results would appear to be the concept of emotion regulation. Emotion regulation refen to the interna1and external processes that monitor, evaluate and modify emotional nactions in order to reach the goals of the person (Thompson. 1994). In other words, it is the ability of the individual to control the emotions being felt and expressed, for the purpose of achieving a goal. This control can
be either enhancement or inhibition of the reaction. Generally, emotion regulation
affects such characteristics as the lability of the emotion, the temporal nature of the reaction, and the intensity of the reaction, rather than the type of emotion experienced by the individual (Thompson, 1994). The development of emotion regulation is as yet not fully understood (Calkins. 1994). The process begins in early infancy, as the parent helps the child directly to regulate emotion, by providing for the infant's basic needs and soothing the infant when ho or she is distressed. Over time, the child begins to learn to self-regulate, although he or she is still influenmd by parental modelling and direct teaching (Calkins, 1994). Individual differences in emotion regulation may stem from biological differences in the child, cognitive abilities, and extemal sources such as caregiving style and explicit teaching by others. The Romanian orphanage children would k expcted to have pooriy devekped emotional regulation due to their eariy institutional experience. These children did not have their basic biological needs attended to in a contingent mannef. They were hungry al1 of the time, and they wetre not changeci when w t . No one comforted them if they cried, and in fact, they did not even cry but Iay in their c r i k panively (Amw, lQQZ), as crying was not an adaptive
98
behaviour in the context of the orphanage. It may be that these passive infants were no longer experiencing strong emotions, and thus were not developing the skills needed to cope with such emotions. Alternatively, the findings by Fisher et al. (1997) of the high levels of self-stimulatory behaviour in children from the orphanages rnay indicate that they were using primitive ernotion-regulation strategies, although it is unclear whether they were using these behaviours to enhance or inhibit emotional reactions. It is possible that the stereotyped behaviours were serving both functions. This poor development of emotion regulation may have had several consequences upon adoption. Fint, the Romanian orphans have attachment difficulties. They were rated as having more atypical attachment styles than the EA and
CB children (Chisholrn, 1996). The three atypical styles that were found in the RO
group were defended-careggiving, defendedlcoercive, and insecure other, in which the child is insecurely attached, but is behaviourally so disorganized that no clear pattern emerges. Children classified as defended-caregiving take responsibility for keeping the interaction going with the parent, paying attention to the parent's emotional needs and not expressing or havirig their own needs met. Children classified as defended-coercive mix the various behavioun of defended and coercive styles. One of the most important goals of t h child is maintaining proximity to the caregiver (Bowlby, 1969), so the ngulation of emotion in order to reach this goal becornes important to the child. An attachment strategy develops which includes a particulor style of emotion management (Cassidy, 1994). either inhibiting or limiting the range of emotions expressed. or heightening the behavioural reactions to emotionally arousing stimuli. If this emotion regulation strategy is sucssful in ternis of reaching the goal of maintaining proxirnity to t h caregiver. the regulation style will be reinford. The atypical insecure attachments
99
of the RO children may indicate that they have developed some unusual emotion regulation styles. These styles will also k used by the children in the management of emotion dunng peer interactions, leading to peer interaction difficulties (Cole. Michel, 8
Teti, 1994). Two specific and positively comlated behaviours in the present study may
indicate poor emotion regulation skills in the social interaction of the Romanian orphans. These behavioun are extrerne indiscriminately friendly behaviour towards adults. and behaviour problems with peers. Both of these may reflect poor development of emotion regulation. Many of the orphanage children seem to be indiscriminately attracted to al1 adults, and do not temper their positive emotional reactions or behaviour when encountering adults. While the Romanian orphans have gotten over their initial fear of
pers (Fisher et al., 1997), they have not developed the ernotion regulation skills needed
to successfully negotiate with othen. Specifically, they have not leamed to control their emotions in order to allow them to use more successful negotiation strategies, and thus use aggression and other externalizing khaviours to meet their immediate goals. These extemalizing behaviours are taking their toll upon the parents of the Romanian orphans as well. In both the RO and CB groups, low Skill Scores are related to the parents feeling less attached to the child, and to high parent and child domain scons on the PSI, and to high total PSI scores. The same pattern was found for the Problems scores. with high problems scons nlated to these variables as well. These findings do not bock well for the Rornanisn Orphans. The children who are having the
m most dificulty m also more likely to have a parent who was one of the few parents
who answered negatively to the question 'Do you feml attached to y w r child?", and who
are feeling a grest deal of stress. This rnay make it krs likely that the parent(s) will be willing or abb to h g the child with theif social probbrns, and the parent($) rnay begin to
Social Skilk of Romanian Adoptees
100
have interaction problerns with the children thetnselves. Peer relations increase in complexity throughout Our lives, and significant relationships with othen form the background within which we exist. Orphanage children are at risk for later difficulties such as early school drop out and emotional problems (Parker 8 Asher, 1987) due to their impairment in social functioning. In order to break the cycle of interaction difficulties, peer rejection and further difficulties (Price &
Dodge. 1989),the RO children need direct help in modifying their peer interactions. One case study (Spencer) illustrated the successful intervention strategies of the
daycare provider in this area. On-going guidance in dealing with peen. and skill-based intervention programs rnay be the answer. Given the importance of emotion regulation for these children, however, it is likely that some assistance in this area is needed before or concurrent with the teaching
of more skill-based behavioun. One prognm has been designed by Denham and
Burton (1W6),which teaches emotional control and problem solving. Helping the children identify and manage their emotions through relaxation techniques could help. Assisting children to verbalize their anger or frustration is also important (Cok, Michel, 8 Teti. 1994), and assertion as opposed to anger can be taught. Finally, sensitive parenting and caregiving, which recqnizes the chitd's emotional world, and helps the child to organize this world, and thus their behaviour. is needed.
101
REFERENCES
Abidin, R. R. (1990). Parenting Stress lndex manuel. Charlottesville. VA: Pediatric Psychology f ress. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Beheviour Checklist / 4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., 8 Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behevioral problems and cornpetencies reporfed by perenls of normal and disturbed children aged 4 through 16. Monographs of the Society for Reseerch in Child Development, 46(Serial No. 188). Achenbach, T. M., Phares, V., Howell. C. T., Rauh. V. A.. & Nurcombe. B. (1990). Seven-year outcome of the Vermont intemntion program for low-birth-weight infants. ChiM DeveIopment, 61, 1672-1681. Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of ettachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, N.J. : Erlbaurn. Ainsworth, M. O. S.. 8 Wittig, D. S. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behaviour of one year olds in a strange situation. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Detenninents of infant behaviour. London: Methuen. Ames, E. W. (1971, April). Family stnrctunt and chiltvaring in Indie. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. Ames, E. W. (1990). Spitz misited: A trip to Romanian "orphanages". Canadien Psychological Association Developmentel Section Newsletter, 9(2),8-11. Ames, E. W. (1997). The deveIopment of Romanian orphenage chiIdren adopted to Canada. Ottawa: National Welfare Grants. Baumrind, O. (1967). Child car8 ptactices anteceing thrw patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88. Bayley, N. (1993). Baylry Scales of Infant Devekpment (2nd ), San Antonio, Texas: ed. Psychological Corporation. Behar, L., & Stnngfidd, S. (1974). A khaviour roting scak for the preschool child. Oevelopmentel Psychdogy, 1q5), W 1-61O.
102
Benoit, T. C., Jocelyn, L. J., Moddemann, D. M., & Embree, J. E. (1996). Rornanian adoption: The Manitoba experience. Archives of Pediatncs and Adolescent Medicine, 7 50, 1278- 1282. Blishen. B. R., Caroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada. Canadien Review of Sociology and Anthmpology. 24, 465-487. Bowlby, J. (196911982). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books. Bradley, R. H. (1992). The HOME Inventory: A review. Little Rock, AR: The University of Arkansas a Little Rock, Centre for Research on Teaching and Learning. Caldwell, B. M., 8 Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. UnpuMished manuscript, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Calkins. S. D. (1994). Origins and outcornes of individual differences in emotion regulation. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation (pp. 5372). Monogrephs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240).
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation (pp. 228-249). Monogrephs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240).
Chisholm, K., Carter, M., Ames, E.W., & Morison, S. J. (1995). Attachment security and indiscriminately friendly behaviour in children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Development and Psychopetho/ogy, 7, 283-294. Chisholm, K. (1998). A three p a r follow-up of attachment and indiscriminate friendliness in children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Chi/d Development, 69(4), 1090- 1104. Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., 6 Teti, L. 0. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical pnpedive. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion feguletion (pp. 73-100). Monogrephs of the Society for Reseerch in Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240). Connors, C.K. (1973). Rating $cales for use in drug studies with children. In Psychophem~cdogy Bulletin: Phannacotherapy with children. Washington, O. C.: US. Govmment Printing ffice. Cowen, E. L., Pedemen, A., Babigian, H., Izto, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-terni follow-up of early detede vulnerabk children. Journal of Consulting and Chical Psychdogy, 4 1, 338446.
103
Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the preschool years. Development and Psychopethology, 4, 209-243. Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (1996). A social-emotional intervention for at-risk Cyearolds. Journal of School Psychology, 34(3), 225-245. Dennis, W. (1973). Childm of the Creche. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Oodge. K. A. , Pettit, G. S., McCIaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986). Social comptence in children. Monogrephs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(2, Serial No. 2 13).
Eckennan, C. O., 8 Stein M. R. (1990). How imitation begets imitation and toddlers' generation of games. Developmental Psychology, 26(3),370-378. Fisher. L., Ames, E. W.. Chisholm, K., 8 Savoie, L. (1997). Problerns reported by parents of Romanian orphans adopted to British Columbia. lntemational Journal of Beheviourel Development, 20, 67-82. Flint, 8. (1978). New hope for depnved chi/dmn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. French, O. C., 8 Waas, G. A. (1985). Behaviour problems of peer-neglected and peerrejecte elementary-age children: Parent and teacher perspectives. Child Development 56, 246-252. Goldfarb, W. (1943). Effects of early institutional care on adolescent personality. Journal of Expen'mental Education, 12, 106- 129. Goldfarb, W. (1945). Effects of psychological deprivation in infancy and subsequent stimulation. American Journal of Psychiatw, 102, 18-33. Goldfarb, W. (1947). Variations in adolescent adjustment of institutionally reared children. Americen Journal of Psychiaby, 17,449457. Goldfarb, W. (1955) Emotional and intellectual consequences of psychological deprivation in infancy: A rwvaluation. In P. Hoch and J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychopthology of Childhood (pp. 105-119). New York: Gnine and Stratton. Gresham, F. M., & EWiott, S. E. (199). Social Skills Rating System manual. Circle Pines, MN; American Guidance Publishers.
Grore, V., & Ikana, D., (Ig98). A follow-up study of adopted childrem from Romanis. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13(6),541-565.
Guralnick, M. J. (1992). Assessment of peer relations. Unpublishd manuscript.
104
Guralnick, M. (1993). Developmentally appropriate practice in the assessrnent and intervention of children's peer relations. Topics in Eerly Childhood: Special Education, 13(3), 344-371. Harter, S. (1985). Manual Ior the sel'peneplion prolile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Hodges. J.. & Tizard. B. (1989). Social and family relations of ex-institutionalized adolescents. Journal of Child end Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 30(1), 77-97. Johnson, O. E., Miller, L. C., Iverson, S., Thomas, W., Franchino, B., Dole, K., Kiernan, M. T., Georgieff. M. K.. & Hostetter, M.K. (1992). The health of children adopted from Romania. Joumal of the Amencan Medical Association. Z68(24). 3446-3451. Kaler, S. R., 8 Freeman, B.J. (1994). Analysis of environmental deprivation: Cognitive and social development in Romanian orphans. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatv, 35(4), 405-4 1 9. LaFreniere, P. J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Profiles of peer cornpetence in the preschool: Interrelations between measures, influence of social ecology. and relation to attachment history. DevelopmenU Psychology, 27(1), 56-69. Maccoby, E. E. & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. In E. M. Hetherington. (Ed.) , Handbook of child psychology: Socialization personality and social development (Vol. 4). New York: Wiley . Marcovitch, S., Goldkrg, S., Gold, A., Washington, J., Wasson, C.. Krekewich, K., 8 Handky-Oerry, M. (1997). Oeteninants of khavioural problems in Romanian children adopted in Ontario. lntemationel Joumal of Behevioral Development, 20(1), 17-31. Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Sroufe, L A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship batween quality of attachrnent and later cornpetence. Child Development, 49, 547-556. Molkr, L., 8 Rubin, K. (1988). A psychomaric assesrment of a 2-factor solution for the Preschool6ehaviour Questionnaire in mid-childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 167- 180. Morison, S. J., Ames, E. W., & Chisholm, K. (1995). The development of children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Mem1I-Pallmer Quarfetfy, 4 1(4), 4 11-430.
Morison, S. J. (1997). Predictors of cognitive devdopment in childm edopted fmm Romanian orphanages. UnpuMished Doctoral Dissertation. Simon Fraser University.
105
Mueller, E., & Lucas, T. A. (1975). A developmental analysis of peer interaction among toddlers. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblurn (Ede.), Friendship and peer dations. New York: Wiby. Pallatz, M. (1983). Predicting children's sociometric status from their behaviour. Child Deve/opment, 54, 1417-1426. Parker. J. 0..8 Asher. S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted chitdren at risk? Psychological Bul/etin, 1OZ(3). 357-389. Pastor. D. L. (1981). The quality of mother-infant attachment and its relation to toddler's initial socialization with peers. Developmental Psychology, 1 7(3), 326335. Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1988). A mechanism for transmitting the antisocial trait acmss generations. In R. Hinde 8 J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relations between reletionships within lemiles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pettit, G., & Bates, J. (1989). Family interaction problerns and children's behavior problerns from infancy to 4 years. Developmental Psychology, 25, 41 3-420. Piaget, J. (1967). Six psycho/ogicelstudies. New York: Random House. Price, J. M., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Peen' contributions to children's social maladjustment. In T. J. Bemdt & G. W. Ladd, (Eds.), Peer relations in child development (pp. 34 1-370). New York: Wiley . Provence, S., & Lipton, R. C. (1962). Infants in institutions. New York: International Universities Press. Quay, H.C., & Petenon, O. R. (1983). lnterh manuel for the Revised Behavior Problem ChecWist. Coral Gables. FL: University of Miami, Applied Social Sciences. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S., & Hart, C. (1995). Authoritative, authoritaiian, and p n i a s i v e parenting pndices: evelopment of a new measure. PsychologicaI Reports, 77(3), 8 19-830. Rubin, K., 8 Daniels-6eime8s, T. (1983). Concumnt and predidive cornlates of sociometric status in kindergarten and grade one childnn. Mem'II-Palmer Quartefly, 229(3). 337-35 1. Rubin, K., Daiiielr-%mess, T., & Bream, L. (1984). Social isolation and social problem solving: A longitudinal study. Journal of Consu/thg and ClMical P ~ y ~ h d r o 52, ,17-25. g~
6 1O
Rubin, K., Moller, L., & Emptage, A. (1987). The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire: A useful index of behavior problems in elemcwitary schooi-age children? Canadian Journal of Behevioursl Science, 1 9(l), 86-100. Rutter, M. (1967). A children's behaviour questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findtngs. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 1-11. Rutter. M. (1996). Romanian orphans adopted early overcome deprivation. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 1Z 6 .1-3. () Stephens, T. (1978). Technical manual: Social behaviour assessment. Columbus, Ohio: Cedars Press. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of a definition. In N. A. For (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation (pp. 2552). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240). Thomdike, R. L., Hagen. E. P.. & Sattler. J. M. (1986). Manuel for the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edilion. Chicago IL: Riverside. Tizard, 8. (1977). Adoption: A second chance. London: Open Books. Tizard, B., & Hodges, J. (1978). The effect of early institutional rearing on the development of 8-year-old children. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 19, 99-1 18. Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolen: Role of attachment relationship history. Joumal of the American Acedemy for Child and Adolescent Psychietty, 26, 166-172. Turner, P.J. (1991). Relations betwwn attachment, gender, and behavior with peen in preschool. Child Development, 62, 1475- 1488. Watem, E. (1995). The attachment Q-sort (Version 3.0). In E. Waten, B.E. Vaughn, O. Posada, & K. Kondo-lkemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultura/, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models: New growing points of ettechment theocy and research (pp. 234-246). Monographs of the Society for Rewsrch in Child Development, 60, (2-3, Serial No. 244). Waten, E., EL Desne, K. E. (1885). Defining and assesring individual differences in attachment mlationrhips: Q-rorl methodology and the organation of khavior in infancy and eady childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waten (Eds.), Gmwing points of aitachment theory and teseetch. Monogmphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50( 1-2, Serial No. 200).
107
Waters, E., Wippman, J., 8 Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Attachment, positive affect and cornpetence in t h peer group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Devdopment, 50, 821-829.
108
Social Questions from the Parent Interview

Question 149: How often does play with friends the same age, that is. within 1-112 years of hislher age is it
--
more than once a week? once a week? once every Wo weeks? once a month? or les$ than once a month? Question 150: Now I would like you to think about the friend that with the most Do they have a problem sharing?
plays
YES
NO
If yes: Which child does not want to share? Respondent's child Other child Both Question 151:
Do they have a problem deciding who is the leader?

YES
NO
Question 152:
Is there a problem with teasing?
YES
If yes:
NO
Who does the most tearing?

Respondent's child
Other child Both
109
Question 153:
Do they compete for adult attention? YES If yes: Who does the most competing? Respondent's child Other child Both
NO
Question 154:
When this child and on the other? YES If yes: Which one picks on the other?
NO
play together. does one pick
Respondent's child Other child If no:
Do they just never pick on each other. or are they pretty evenly matched?
Pretty evenly matched Do not pick on each other at al1 Question 155: Are there any other problerns whrn they play together? Thinking now of al1 the frisnds that plays with. on average how does helshe get along with these o t h m would you Say they get along
Question 156:
very well?
~113
poory? or very poody?
1 10
Question157:
When with sharing?
plays with these other children, is there a problem
VES
If yes:
NO
Is
the one who does not like to share?
YES
Question 158: Is there a problem with teasing?
NO
YES
NO
usually the one who teases the most or the one who I s is teased the most? Teases ts teased. Question 159:
Does YES
compte with other children for adult attention? NO plays with these other
Question 160:
Are there any other problems when children?
Question 161:
When
plays with a group of children is heishe usually
a leader?
a followef?
or
or more of a
a loner?
111
Question 162:
Does
make new friends very easily?
easily?
somewhat easily? with a bit of difficulty? with difficulty? or with great difficulty? Question 163: How important do you feel it is for adivities with hisiher peen is it to engage in social
very important? important? not too important? not important at a1 13 Question 164: How often do you have friends, neighboun, or business associates over to your home for social occasions would you Say this happens or
--
more than once a week? once a week? once every two weeks? once a month? less than once a month? or Iess than on every three months? Question 165: How often do you socialize away from your home with friends, neighboun, or business associates is it
more than once a week? once a week? once every two weeks? once a month? Iess than once a month? or less thon once every three months?
112
Dear
i taking part in a study of children's social behaviour s

sponsored by our department. As part of this study, we feel it is very important to obtain your view of you (consent f o m attached). We would appnciate very rnuch if you could complete the enclosed questionnaires about himlher. If you are not sure of a response. please give your k s t guess rather than leaving a question blank. Please return the questionnaires in the
, as you have observed himlher in a group with peen.
parents have given their consent for us to obtain this information from
envelope provided as soon as you have completed them. Thank you very much for your
assistance. It is only through the contribution of professionals such as yourself that our research is able to prognss. We will be pleased to send you a copy of ouf results when they are available; unfortunately, this will not be until early 1996. In the meantime, please phone us at 291-5858 if you have any questions about this research or your part in it. Once again, thank you for your assistance. Youn truly,
Susan Thornpson, M. A. Ph.D. Candidate
Elinor W. Ames, Ph. D. Associate Professor
Appendix C: Pemiadon Form fot the Social khrviour Questionnaima
My child
is taking part in a study of social
behaviour through Simon Fraser University. Hislher daycareiplay grouplpreschool is

located at:
The pnschool teacheddaycare supervisor/play group leader's narne is

, and telephone number is
I give permission for questionnaires concerning my child. The Child Behavior Checklist The Social Skillr Rating System The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire
to cornplete the following
Signature:
Date:
114
1.
How friendly is your child with new adults?

O = generally not friendly (0.g. wary, does rot approach new adults, clings to
parents)
O = mixed reaction (e.g usually friendly but sometimes cries, friendly to sorne strangen but not othen, wary at first but then warms up
1 = very friendly, interacts freely with al1 new adults
2.
Is your child shy or does hejshe ever make strange?

O = child has always k e n shy
O = did not play strangeishy; now does
1 = has never been shy or was initially shyistrange; is no longer
3.
What does your child so when h or she meets new adults?

O = is upset by new adults (e.g. cries, clings to parents, covers eyes)
O = stands back, observes, evaluates
1 = approaches adults (shows toys, speaks, asks questions)
4.
Would your child be willing to go home with a stranger ha or she had just met?
O = never has k e n willing
O = yes initially, cumntly no
1 = always has b e n willing; or no initially, curnntly yes
5.
Dms your child have a tendency to wander off?

O = no, does not wander
O = wandrn, but i8 distressd at wparation

1 = wandrn and is not distreswd at srparation
115
Appendix E:
Conaent Form for Obs~watiorrs

Permission Form for the Social Behaviour Observation
I consent to my child,
being observed at by Susan Thompson and another
researcher from the Psychology Department of Simon Fraser University.
Name:
Date:
Signature:
Social Skilts of Romanian Adoptees
116
Appandix F:
Infamation Letar for Obsawationa
With the permission of the daycare supervisor/preschool teacherfplay grcup leader. two obsecven will go into your child's daycare/preschoollplay group to observe hirn or her and another child from the group. as they engage in their normal activities. The children will not be told that they are being observed, and we would appceciate you not telling your child that he or she will be observed. We will be making a written record of your child's interactions with other children in the group on four separate days sometime in the next 2 rnonths. Your child's name will not be recorded on the written record of behaviour. and al1 data will be sorted using a code name. In addition, all data will k stored in a locked room at Simon Fraser University and in the final write-up of results, your child will not be identified in any way.
117
Social Behrvioun
Number of positive responses received = Total d the following calegories:

Child gives information once; to same person more than once; to different people; gets positive response. Child seeks infomation once; from same p n o n more than once, from different people; gets positive response. Child offersigives help once; to same other more than once; other accepts help. Child seeks help; seeks help more than once, seeks help from more than one other; gets hdp. Child seeks affection, attention, praise; frorn same other more than once; from othen; gets positive response.
Number of negative responses received = Total of the following categor7es:

Child gives information once; gives information more than once; gives to different othen; gets no or negative response. Chitd seeks information once; seeks information more than once; seeks from different others; gets no or negative response. Child offers/gives help; gives help more than once; other does not accept help. Child seeks help; semks help more than once; seeks help from more than one other; does not get help. Child seeks attention, affection, praise; seeks more than once; seeks from more than one other; does not get attention, affection. praise.
Number of positive responses given = Tot81 of the lollowing calegodes:

Other child gives information; gives information more than once; gives to another child; child giver positive responre. Other child seeks information; seeks more than once; seeks from another child; child giws positive response. ther child offemlgiver help once; mors than once; child accepts help. Other child w k s help from child; s e e k help more thon once; seeks help from another chiM; child give8 help.
1 18
Number of negative responses given = Total of the fdlowing categodes:
Other child gives information; gives information more than once, gives information to other; child gives negative or no response. Other child seeks information; seeks information more than once; seeks information from others; child gives negative or no response.
Other child offerdgivis help; offerdgives help more than once: offersJgives help
to othen; child gives negative or no response. Other child seeks help; seeks help more than once; seeks help from others; child gives negative or no response.
Number of transgressions = Total number of behaviours in the lo/lowing cetegories:

Child takes/tries to t a k unoffered objed from other. Child initiates aggression against another. Child transgresses (lies. gets clothes dirty. goes outside without permission). Child nsponds physically and verbally to otheh transgression. aggression or counter response (does not include scolding or explaining). Child msponds with physial threat and tangible bribe to other's transgression, aggression. or counter response. Child's physical and verbal responses to other's response (does not include refusing to give in, scolding, or explaining). Child's physical threat and tangible bribe responses to other's response.
119
Appmdix H:
Meana for Sprcific Bohavioun of Older Childnn and 4 %- yeirald Childnn

Meinr foi Matched Groupr ot Oldai Childnn on Specific Behovioun
Cornparison
Unpopular RO*
VS.
Mean
SD
C3 i
lnability to Concentrate ROM
VS.
CB lmpulsivity RO
VS.
CB Resttessness RO*
VS.
CB Attention Seeking RO"

VS.
ce
VS.
Acts Too Young Ro-
CB Temper Tantrums RO vs.
ce
VI.
Fearful
RO
CB
120
Marna foi Matchrd Groupa of 4 %- y r r r d d Chlldnn on Specific Behrvioun

Comparison Unpopular n
Mean
SD
RO
VS.
EA
CB
VS.
17
17
18 18
4.41 3.88
1-12
1.17
A lnability to Concentrate RO
VS.
2.06
1.83
.73
.51
CB
RO*
VS.
EA CB
VS*
17
17
1.82
1.77
A5
.66
-73
EA lmpulsivity RO
VS.
26
26
.85
1.92
CB
.48
121
..
Cornparison Restlessness RO' vs. CS

RO
VS.
Mean
SD
EA
CB vs. EA Attention Seeking RO vs . CB RO vs. EA CB VS. A Acts Too Young ROvs. CB
17
17 26 26
1.47
.52
2.21 .80
2.53
.92
.62
.57
21
21
.67
.67
.85
.58
.48
26 26
.73
.Il
.27
ROH vs. EA C8 vs. EA
122
Cornparison Temper Tantrums RO

VS.
Mean
SD
CB RO
VS.
CB
VS.
17 17 18
18
3.29
3.35
1.78 1.28
.22
.79 .35
1.23
EA Fearful RO
VS .
CB
123
Appendix 1: Correlations Within Groupa for Teachar and Pannt S c o m on Queationnrim Merauma
Cornparison
PBQ
SSRS
Social Problerns
124
Apprndix J:
Comlrtiona of ther Variables with Skllla and Problem8 Scons in the CB Group
.
Skills Scores
Demographic Variables Age of Mother Age of Father lncome Social Experience Variables Having People Over Child Social Behaviour How Well child Plays with Peers Ease of Making riends Sharing in a Group Teasing Picking on Another Competing for Adult Attention in a Group Other Child Variables IQ Overall Rating of Doing Well or Poorly lndiscriminately Friendly Behaviour Extreme lndiscriminately Friendly Behaviour Child Attachment Parent Outcome Variables Attachrnent to child PSI Total Stress PSI Child Domain PSI Parent Oomain
Problems Scores
125
Apprndix K:
Comlrtionr of Othrr Vitiablr with SkiIl8 and ProMein8 Qconr In the A Gioup
--
Demographic Variabies Age of Mother Age of Father lncome

Social Experience VariaMes Having People Over Child Social Behaviour How Well child Plays with Peen Ease of Making Friends Sharing in a Group Teasing Picking on Another Competing for Adult Attention in a Group Other Child Variables IQ Overall Rating of Doing WdI or Poorly lndiscriminately Friendly Behaviour Extreme lndiscdminately Friendly Behaviour Child Attachment Parent Outcome Variables Attachrnent to child PSI Total Stress PSI Child Domain PSI Parent Domain
.36 .48* -. 33 -.IO
.O3
-.IO
.42"
.52" .30 -.13 .53"

.O1 0.25 -. 52**
-.O4
p < .O7 p c .O5 pc.01 p < .O01

The Social Skllls of Previously Institutionalized

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Social Skllls of Previously Institutionalized

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE SOCIAL SKlLLS OF PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTIONALIZED

CHILDREN ADOPTED FROM ROMANIA

by Susan L. Thompson B.A., University of British Columbia, 1988

M.A.,Simon Fraser University, 1992

SIMON FRASER UNlVERSltV

National Library ~(Cansa Acquisitions and Bibliographie Services

Bibliot7ue nationale du Cana a Acquisitions et services bibliographiques

I would like to acknowledge the support of my friends and farnily, particularly my

Abstract .............,..,,.....,..........,. ... .

.. . .. .. .. . . ... . ........ . ..... ..... ..... . ... . . ....... . . iii

Early Adopted (A) Group .................................................................................21

Parenting Stress Index ...................................................................................... 30

Letter to Teachers ................................................................................2 11

Information Letter for Observations ......................................................116

117 Appendix G: Observation Measures .........................................................................

SSRS Questionnaire Items Combined to Yield Parent Skills Scores........-57

Table 25: Table 26:

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

The present research is concerned with the examination of social cornpetence in

two previous areas of research. First, early research on institutionalizationof young

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social Skills and Peer Strtui

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Pwr Rdrtionr and Other A m r of Functioning

n found to develop quite slowly, with many

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

e n the children w indiscriminately friendly.

Social Skills of Rornanian Adoptees

One study has reported on the condition of children in the Romanian

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social SkiHs of Romanian Adoptees

90% of these delayed children had k e n institutionalized prior to adoption.

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social Skills of Rornanian Adoptees

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Lack of Opportunlty To Engage in Social Inteiactionr

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

As discussed previously. attachment is defined as the discrirninating bond that

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

2. It was hypothesized that the RO children would be rated by parents in the

Social Skills of Rornanian Adoptees

5. It was hypothesized that the orphanage children would score lower on

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Rornunlrn Otphoriage (RO) Group

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Can8dl.n Born (CB) Group

for matched sampbs:

for independent samples:

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Ewy Adoptrd (A) Gmup

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

table 1: Oemogmphic CharrctwisUcs of Matchrd P I I n of RO and CB Childmn

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Mdian (range) Mean (standard deviation) p <.O5

Tabk 3 contains the demographic cornparisons for the CB and EA groups.

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

Median (range) Mean (standard deviation)

Social Skills of Romanian Adoptees

(28) .81' (27)