1) Why was it important to randomly assign the Romanian orphans into two groups for the experiment?
A random assignment gives the study more credibility. It removes biases from the study. This way children, who were already higher on the development scale cannot be put into the foster care families and say they have higher scores. It cannot be proven to be so unless there was an equal probability of children who were higher on the development scale to be placed in the institutionalized care and the foster care.
2) What do the authors mean when they say that they discovered a "sensitive period" for IQ?
During the study they found that children, who were placed into foster care before 24 months, had the least effect on development. Their development was on the same level as the children who had been with their families. However, children placed in care after 24 months had delays in development. Though, their delays were not as severe as the children who had been institutionalized. All in all, the sensitive period was before the age of 24 months, where the adverse effects of being institutionalized would be minimal and reversible. …show more content…
Why or why not?
This study has brought up many important issues that will affect the entire world. Being that the entire world is at stake, I feel the end justified the mean. The researchers did everything in their power to not bring any more harm to the children. They didn’t purposefully place children in institutions. These children were already facing these conditions. They also had it setup that the children, who were randomly placed to stay in the instructional care, would still be able to be adopted and get transferred to foster care. So all in all, I found the study to be
A random assignment gives the study more credibility. It removes biases from the study. This way children, who were already higher on the development scale cannot be put into the foster care families and say they have higher scores. It cannot be proven to be so unless there was an equal probability of children who were higher on the development scale to be placed in the institutionalized care and the foster care.
2) What do the authors mean when they say that they discovered a "sensitive period" for IQ?
During the study they found that children, who were placed into foster care before 24 months, had the least effect on development. Their development was on the same level as the children who had been with their families. However, children placed in care after 24 months had delays in development. Though, their delays were not as severe as the children who had been institutionalized. All in all, the sensitive period was before the age of 24 months, where the adverse effects of being institutionalized would be minimal and reversible. …show more content…
Why or why not?
This study has brought up many important issues that will affect the entire world. Being that the entire world is at stake, I feel the end justified the mean. The researchers did everything in their power to not bring any more harm to the children. They didn’t purposefully place children in institutions. These children were already facing these conditions. They also had it setup that the children, who were randomly placed to stay in the instructional care, would still be able to be adopted and get transferred to foster care. So all in all, I found the study to be