Deprivation and Institutionalisation Flashcards
(13 cards)
What does Bowlby’s 44 Thieves support?
Maternal deprivation.
Supporting evidence for maternal deprivation?
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves, Levy et al.
Findings of Bowlby’s 44 Thieves?
Found that 14 out of 44 were affectionless psychopaths. Of this 14, 12 had experienced maternal deprivation, while only 5 of the other 30 had maternal deprivation. In the control group, only 2 had experienced maternal deprivation.
What does Levy et al. support?
Maternal deprivation.
Describe Levy et al.
Found that if baby rats were separated from their mothers for as little as a day, there could be serious long-term effects.
What does Koluchova et al. contradict?
Maternal deprivation.
Contradictory evidence for maternal deprivation?
Koluchova.
Describe Koluchova.
Investigated the case of two twin boys were had been isolated from 18 months to 7 years old, kept locked in a cupboard. However, when adopted by a loving family, the boys fully recovered.
What does Rutter et al. support?
Effects of institutionalisation.
Support for effects of institutionalisation?
Rutter et al., Zeanah et al.
Findings of Rutter et al?
When first adopted, most orphans showed signs of delayed intellectual development. At 11, they showed differing recovery rates, correlating to their age of adoption. The mean IQ of those adopted before 6 months was 102, while for those adopted after 6 months, this was 86, and 77 for those adopted after age 2. These differences remained at 15. Those adopted after 6 months had a disinhibited attachment style, being clingy and attention-seeking.
What does Zeanah et al. support?
Effects of institutionalisation.
Findings of Zeanah et al?
74% of the control group were securely attached, while only 19% of the institution group were secure. 65% of the group were classified as disorganised. 44% had a disinhibited attachment type.
