Thursday, 15 December 2011

Disruption of attachment

The short and long term effects of separation


SHORT TERM
Robertson and Bowlby PDD model (1952)- PROTEST, DESPAIR, DETACHMENT.
  1. Protest: When parent leaves, child try to escape from others.
  2. Despair: Angry protest will subside but will refuse others comfort.
  3. Detachment: Child may begin to engage with others. Reject caregiver and show anger on return. 
Robertson (1969)
- Found a child who was put into a residential care for 9 days while his mother was in hospital went from being securely attached to insecure ambivalent. After many months he still remained angry towards his mother. 
+/-: high validity as naturalistic experiment. Although case study.
Culture bound.
DATED.

LONG TERM
Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis
- Continual disruption of attachment between infant and caregiver= cognitive, social and emotional difficulties.e.g. aggression, depression and affectionless psychopathy. 
Bowlby (1944)- 44 Thieves.
Aim: Investigate effects of maternal deprivation on 'delinguents' to see if they suffered deprivation.
Procedure: Interviewed 44 adolescent thieves. Had 'control' group of 44 p's who were in clinic due to emotional issues who hadn't commited crimes. Also interviewed parents about any separation during the 'critical period'.
Results: Over half thieves were separated from mother for more than 6 months in first 5 years. In control group, only 2 had this separation. 32% of thieves showed 'affectionless psychopathy'.
Conclusion: Anti social behaviour in first group caused by maternal deprivation.
+/-:
Retrospective
Correlational, cause and effect.

Effects of privation "lack of attachment"
Kaluchova- twin boys
- Locked in celler alone, beaten and scared of adults.
- Were given rehab and developed attachments.
- Went to mainstream school.
Conclusion: Shows children can recover from situations if given sufficient aftercare.



Curtis (1977) Genie
- Locked in room by father until she was 13.5 yrs.
- When found she couldn't stand or speak.
- She showed a disinterest to other people.
Conclusion: Lack of recovery could be due to early emotional privation or the late age of being discovered which is well past Bowlby's sensitive age for attachment.



Effects of institutionalization


Tizard and Hodges (1989)
Aim:
 Examine effects of institutional upbringing on later attachments.
Procedure: 
-Naturalistic experiment (IV changed naturally)+longitudinal.
- 65 children in care home assessed over 16 years.
- P's were 16 and in care since 4 yrs.
- Unable to form attachments.
- At 2 yrs they had 24 carers each.
- At 4 yrs;

  • 25 returned to biological parents
  • 33 adopted
  • 7 remained in care with occasional fostering
- Parents/guardians were interviewed.
- Self report questionnaires on 'social diffulties'.
- Questionnaires to teachers about relationships with peers and teachers.
Result: At 16, majority of adoptive mothers felt a deep attachment to child.
- Half restored kids were deeply attached.
- Ex-institutional kids had problems with siblings.
- Ex institutional kids had poorer relationships with peers than comparison group. They weren't often liked by others and bullied more.
Conclusion: Children deprived of close relationships in first years of life can form attachments later depending on adult concerned and how attachment is nurtures.
- Adopted children had closer relationships as parents were often financially better off, had fewer children and were more motivated to develop a relationship with them.
Evaluation: Natural experiment= HEV. However allows little control over confounding variables e.g. some being fostered occasionally. This could have been due to children having problems so are unwanted.
P attrition, only 51 of 65 were questioned at age of 8. 

Effects of institutionalisation

  • Reactive detachment
    - Child unable to trust or love others. Isolated and selfisj. Unable to understand the needs of others. Can become without a conscience.
  • Disinhibited attachment
    - Children select attachment figures indiscriminately and behave in overly familiar fashion with strangers. Attention seeking.
  • Poor parenting
  • Mental disorders
  • Physical underdevelopment

Rutter (2007) (evidence for disinhibited attachment)Aim: To see if good care could compensate for privation previously.
Procedure:
- on going longitudinal study since 1998.
- 118 Romanian orphans adopted into British families.
- Natural experiment, age of adoption being the IV.- Studied 3 groups
  1. Adopted before 6 months old
  2. Adopted between 6 mths-2 yrs.
  3. Adopted after 2 years.
Result:
- At 6 yrs the kids made good recoveries although group 3 had a higher level of disinhibited attachment.
- Rutter returned in 2007 to the children who were 11 yrs now, found they made recoveries but half of those diagnose with it at 6 still had it at 11.
Conclusion:
Children exposed to privation more likely to make a fuller recovery if adopted into a caring environment at early age.

Can children recover from institutionalization and privation: Deepends on 4 factors
  1. Quality of care at institution
    Dontas
    - Looked at 15 babies 7-9 months, each given a member of staff and formed attachment with them. After 2 weeks he found babies adjusted well and formed secure attachments. Shows importance for institutionalized kids to form attachments between 7 and 8 months.
  2. Age of child when recovered from privation industrialisation
    - Those removed from privation younger made better developmental progree both cognitively and emotionally.
  3. Quality of care after privation/Institutionalization
    - Better if in loving and supportive environment.
  4. Experiences later in life
    Quinton and Rutter
    - Found positive experiences in early adulthood led to different developmental pathways showed it isn't just early experiences that influence later development. Early affects can be overcome but good experiences later in life.


g

No comments:

Post a Comment