Maternal deprivation

• What does Bowlby's theory off monotropy suggest? How does his theory of maternal deprivation link to this?

  That continuous care from a mother or mother-substitute is essential for normal healthy psychological development.

  
  

  In his theory of maternal deprivation he explains what happens if these attachment are disrupted.
• What is the mnemonic to remember Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation?


  My Evil Carer Lacks In Affection

  
  

  Maternal Deprivation

  Emotional Care

  Critical Care

  Long-Term Effects

  Intellectual Development

  Affectionless Psychopathy
• What did Bowlby believe about emotional care? What did Bowlby say would happen if an infant is unable to develop a warm continuous relationship with their mother (or mother substitute)?

  That it was just as important as physical care.

  
  

  They would have difficulty forming relationships with other people and be at risk of behavioural disorders.
• What did Bowlby identify as the critical period for psychological development? What about the sensitive period?

  The first 2 and a half years.

  
  

  There was a continuing risk up until 5 years.
• What did Bowlby believe would happen to a child deprived of emotional care because of prolonged separation with their mother?


  If a child is separated from their mother for an extended period of time during the 1st 2.5 years then psychological damage is inevitable.
• What did Bowlby say the 2 long-term effects of disruption a attachment to a primary caregiver during the critical period were?


  Intellectual development - they would suffer mental retardation, characterised by an abnormally low IQ.

  
  

  Emotional Development - affectionless psychopathy has been characterised by Bowlby as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others. It is characterised by a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack of empathy for their victims. Prevents people developing normal relationships and associated with criminality. Affectionless psychopaths can't appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions.
• Who did the 44 thieves study and what was it researching?

  Bowlby and emotional development
• What was Bowlby's aim in the 44 thieves study?


  To investigate the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.
• What was Bowlby's procedure in the 44 Thieves study? What type of experiment did he use?

  What were the 2 groups?

  How were participants checked to be affectionless psychopaths?

  Natural experiment which involved analysing the case histories of 88 patients in the Child Guidance Clinic in London. All the children were emotionally maladjusted.

  
  

  44 had been accused of stealing and 44 formed a control group of non-criminals but emotionally disturbed young people.

  
  

  All thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised by a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack of empathy for their victims. Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the thieves had prolonged early separation from their mothers.
• What were Bowlby's findings?


  14/44 (32%) could be described as affectionless psychopaths.

  12 of this 14 (86%) had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of their lives - including staying in foster homes or hospitals and rarely visited by families.

  However, 5/30 remaining thieves (17%) had experienced long separation.

  
  

  In contrast - only 2/44 (4%) had experiences long separations.
• What can be concluded from Bowlby's findings?

  Prolonged maternal deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy. Therefore a lack of continuous care may cause maladjustment or a psychological disorder.
• How is real-world application a strength of Bowlby's research into the effects of maternal deprivation?


  Before Bowlby's research, children were separated from parents when they spent time in hospital, because medical professionals believed that hospitals only needed to care for the physical needs of the child, and discouraged parents from visiting because children seemed to get distressed by the visits. Robertson filmed a 2 year old girl called Laura during the 8 day period she was in hospital, she was frequently distressed and begged to go home. They concluded that substitute emotional care can prevent bond disruption and prevent the harmful effect of deprivation. Bowlby and Robertson's research led to major changes in the way children were cared for in hospital. This illustrates the positive impact that research into attachment has had on childcare practices.
• How is counter evidence a limitation of Bowlby's research into the effects of maternal deprivation?


  Not all research has supported Bowlby's findings. Lewis partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale looking at 500 young people. In her sample a history of prolonged separation from the mother did NOT predict criminality of difficulty forming close relationships. This is a problem for the theory of maternal deprivation because it suggests other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation. Also, the 44 thieves study had major design flaws, Bowlby carried out the assessments for affectionless psychopathy and the family interviews, knowing what he hoped to find. This questions the validity of Bowlby's findings.
• How are individual differences a limitation of Bowlby's research into the effects of maternal deprivation?


  Individual differences needs to be considered - research has shown that not all children are affected by maternal separation in the same way. Barrett, after reviewing various studies concluded securely attached children coped reasonably well with separation, whereas insecure attachment children become especially distressed. A similar conclusion was drawn from another study by Bowlby of children who were hospitalised (because they had TB) and experienced prolonged disruption of attachment. Bowlby suggested that those children who coped better may have been more securely attached and thus more resilient to the separation. Both studies therefore suggest that individual differences such as attachment types need to be considered when assessing the negative effects of disruption of attachment.
• Define deprivation


  The loss of an attachment because of separation.
• How is deprivation vs privation a limitation of Bowlby's research into the effects of maternal deprivation


  Rutter criticised Bowlby's view of deprivation because it didn't make clear whether the child's attachment bond had formed but been broken (deprivation) or had never formed in the first place (privation). Rutter claimed that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privation. He therefore used the term privation to refer to situations where the child fails to develop an attachment bond with one caregiver, and deprivation to refer to situations where a bond does develop, but through prolonged or traumatic separations is disrupted or lost. Therefore highlighting the important of distinguishing between deprivation and privation.
• What is institutionalisation?


  A term for the effects of living outside the family/ family home in an institutional setting e.g a hospital or an orphanage where children live for long, continuous periods of time. This can result in the child adopting rules and norms of the institution that can impair functioning. In places like this, very little emotional care is provided, as children can't see enough of one carer to develop an attachment to them.
• What are the possible effects of institutionalisation?

  social, mental and physical underdevelopment
• Who conducted the Romanian Orphanage Study - English and Romanian Adoptee?

  Rutter
• What was Rutter's aim?

  To investigate to what extent loving and nurturing care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions.
• What was Rutter's procedure? What type of experiment was it? What were the 3 conditions? How was information about them gathered? What was their progress compared to?


  A natural experiment - they followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to assess their physical, cognitive and emotional development at ages 4,6,11 and 15 years, making it a longitudinal study.

  
  

  The IV was the age of adoption, with 3 groups identified.

  Condition 1: children adopted before the age of 6 months.

  Condition 2: children adopted between 6 months and 2 year.

  Condition 3: children adopted after the age of 2 years.

  
  

  Information gathered through interviews with parents and teachers.

  
  

  A control group of 52 British children adopted in the UK before the age of 6 months.
• What were Rutter's findings?


  Mental retardation - when first arriving in the UK half the Romanian adoptees showed signs of retardation.

  By age 4 most of the Romanian children adopted before 6 months had caught up with their British counterparts.

  At age 11 the mean IQ of children adopted before 6 months was 102, it was 86 for those adopted between 6 months and 2 years and 77 from those adopted after 2 years.
• What is disinhibited attachment and who in Rutter's study showed it?


  Children adopted after the age of 6 months - symptoms include attention seeking, clinginess and friendliness to any adult that is available, treating all adults the dame and a tendency to go off with strangers. Children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
• What did Rutter explain disinhibited attachment as?

  An adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation. e.g. in poor quality institutions like in Romania a child might have 50 carers none of whom they see enough to form a secure attachment.
• What did Rutter conclude?

  That children can recover from institutionalisation if they have good quality care. The removal from institutional care should happen before 6 months.
• Who conducted the Bucharest Early Intervention Project study?

  Zeanah et al. (2005)
• What was La Mare and Audet's procedure?


  They reported the findings from a longitudinal study of 36 Romanian Orphans adopted to families in Canada, who were compared to 2 matched control groups - Canada born non-adopted children and early adopted Romanian children without institutional experience. The DV focused of physical growth and health because previous research has shown that lack of emotional care rather than poor nourishment is the cause of what has been called deprivation dwarfism.
• What were the findings of La Mare and Audet's study?


  The adopted orphans were physically smaller than the control group at age 4 and a half years, but this difference has disappeared by 10 and a half years. The same was true for physical health.
• What was concluded from La Mare and Audet's study?

  The initial growth retardation was caused by the depriving circumstances of the institution and recovery from the effects of institutionalisation on physical development is possible.
• How is real-life application a strength of the research into institutionalisation?


  Results of the studies have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions. e.g. orphanages and children's home now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child and instead ensure that a much smaller number of people, perhaps 1 or 2, play a central role for the child, they're called a key worker. Having a key worker means that children have a chance to develop normal attachments and help avoid disinhibited attachment. This shows that such research has been immensely valuable in practical terms.
• How is the value of longitudinal studies a strength of the research into institutionalisation?


  The longitudinal studies have followed the lives of children over many years. Such studies take a lot of time which means a lot of planning and waiting for results, but the benefits are large. Without such studies we may mistakenly conclude that there are major effects due to early institutional care that are irreversible. Whereas Rutter and La Mare and Audet have shown that the effects may disappear after sufficient time and with early intervention. Therefore this research strengthens the argument that recovery even after severe privation is possible provided the children move to a loving environment. However a common problem associated with longitudinal research is subject attrition. This is where participants drop out of the study. This is a limitation for Rutter's research because particular kinds of participants, such as those who were less well adjusted, are more likely to be the ones that drop out. This leaves the study with a biased sample which makes the findings difficult to generalise.
• How is the Romanian Orphans not being typical a limitation of the research into institutionalisation?


  Although a vast amount of useful data about institutionalisation has come out of the Romanian orphan studies, it is possible that the conditions were so bad that the results cannot be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care or indeed any situations where children experience deprivation. For example, Romanian orphanages had particularly poor standards of care, especially when it came to forming any relationship with the children, and extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation. Therefore the extreme experiences of privation experienced by the Romanian orphans means that the studies lack generalisation due to the unusual situational variables. This questions the population validity of the Romanian orphan studies.
• How is is being a natural experiment a limitation of the research into institutionalisation?


  In Rutter's ERA project the children were not randomly assigned to the 3 conditions (being adopted at different ages). The researcher did not interfere with the adoption process, which means that those children adopted early may have been more sociable, a confounding variable. However it wasn't possible to manipulate the IV in Rutter's research as it would involved allocating children to either institutional care or foster care. This would be methodologically better because it removes the confounding variable of which children are chosen by parents; however it raises huge ethical issues. This highlights the importance of ethical consideration when conduction research on adopted children, due to the possible long term effects of institutionalisation.