6. Disruption of Attachment Flashcards
(22 cards)
What can attachment be disrupted by
- Separation
- Deprivation
What is separation
- Where a child is away from a caregiver theyre attached to (sa their mother).
- The term’s used when its a relatively short time, just hours or days - not a longer or permanent separation.
What is deprivation
- Describes the loss of smth that is wanted or needed.
- So, ‘maternal deprivation’ is the loss of the mother (or other attachment figure).
- A more long-term or even permanent loss is implied.
What did John Bowlby (1953) study
Longer-term maternal deprivation.
He argued that long-term deprivation from an attachment figure could be harmful.
What did John Bowlby (1953) produce
He produced his maternal deprivation hypothesis.
John Bowlby’s Maternal deprivation hypothesis.
- Deprivation from the main carer during the critical period will have harmful effects on a child’s emotional, social, influential & even physical development.
- Long-term effects of deprivation may include separation anxiety. This may lead to problem behaviour (eg. clingy, avoidant). Future relationships may be affected by this emotional insecurity.
What did Bowlby do in 1944
The 44 juvenile thieves - research to support his maternal deprivation hypothesis
Method of Bowlby (1944)
Case studies were completed on the backgrounds of 44 adolescents who had been referred to the clinic where Bowlby worked bc they’d been stealing.
There was a control group of 44 ‘emotionally disturbed’ adolescents who didn’t steal.
Results of Bowlby (1944)
- 17 of the thieves had experienced frequent separation from their mothers before the age of 2, compared w 2 in the control group.
- 14 of the thieves were diagnosed as ‘affectionless psychopaths’ (didn’t care abt how their actions affected others).
- 12/14 had experienced separation from their mothers.
Conclusion of Bowlby (1944)
Deprivation of the child from its main carer early in life can have very harmful long-term consequences.
Evaluation of Bowlby (1944): CONS
- Results indicate a link between deprivation & criminal behaviour. HOWEVER, it cant be said that one causes the other.
- There may be other factors (Eg. poverty) that caused the criminal behaviour.
- Although case studies provide a lot of detailed info, study relied on retrospective data - may be unreliable.
What did Robertson & Robertson (1968) do
- Studies which have investigated the effects of short-term separation can also support the idea of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis.
- Robertson & Robertson (1968) conducted a separation study as evidence for maternal deprivation.
Method of Robertson & Robertson (1968)
In a naturalistic observation, several children who experienced short separations from their carers were observed & filmed. For eg, a boy called John aged 18months stayed in a residential nursery for 9 days while his mother had another baby.
Results of Robertson & Robertson (1968)
- For the first day or two, John protested at being separated from his mother.
- He then started trying to get attention from the nurses, but they were busy w other children so he gave up trying.
- After another few days, he began to show signs of detachment - was more active & content than he had been previously.
- But, when his mother came to collect him, he was reluctant to be affectionate.
Conclusion of Robertson & Robertson (1968)
The short-term separation had very bad effects on John, including possible permanent damage to his attachment w his mother.
Evaluation of Robertson & Robertson (1968): CONS
- John’s reaction might not have been due to separation - could’ve been down to his new env or fact that he was getting much less attention than he used to.
- Little control of variables, difficult to replicate each individual situation.
Evaluation of Robertson & Robertson (1968): PROS
- Bc study took place in a natural setting, results have ecological validity although less reliable.
STRENGTHS of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis
- Other evidence supports Bowlby’s claim. Goldfarb (1943) found that orphanage children who were socially & mentally deprived were later less intellectually & socially developed.
WEAKNESSES of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis
- The ev can be criticised. Bowlby linked the thieves’ behaviour to maternal deprivation, but other factors were not considered. eg. whether the poverty they grew up in led them to steal.
- Children in Goldfarb’s study may have been most harmed by the social deprivation in the orphanage rather than the maternal deprivation.
What other assumption did Bowlby in his maternal deprivation hypothesis
One of Bowlby’s assumptions of his maternal deprivation hypothesis was that the consequences were NOT reversible.
HOWEVER, further research has show that even when deprivation has harmful effects, these may be reversed w appropriate, good-quality care.
RESEARCH SUPPORT for effects of disruption of attachment being reversible
Skeels & Dye (1939) found that children who had been socially deprived (in an orphanage) during their first 2 years of life quickly IMPROVED their IQ scores if they were transferred to a school where they got one-to-one care.
FURTHER RESEARCH SUPPORT for effects of disruption of attachment being reversible
Koluchova (1976) - the case of the Czech twin boys
The case of 2 twin boys whose mother died soon after they were born. Their father remarried & their stepmother treated them very cruelly. They were often kept locked in a cellar, had no toys & beaten. They were found when they were 7 with rickets (bone development disease due to lack of vita), & very little social or intellectual development.
They were later adopted & made much progress. By adulthood they had above average intelligence & had normal social relationships.
